The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2332 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
Does that assessment process work? There is an assessment of whether there is an alternative, and then there is an assessment of whether an impact can be mitigated. After that, as you say, you get down to the question of whether it is still in the public interest that the development should go ahead. Is that working? Clearly, the bill gives ministers the opportunity to try something different. I am coming back to your earlier point. Is there a need to change this bit of the law? I am interested in your thoughts on that.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
So, is the concern about the breadth of that consistency? It could be about having submissions in PDF format or it could be about a fundamental reform.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
The purpose in section 3(c) is to
“ensure consistency or compatibility with other legal regimes”.
You have mentioned some of the changes in other parts of the UK, with environmental outcome reports and so on. Do you have thoughts about that purpose? Is that a good purpose for changing things right now?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
That is an option, so ministers could decide—
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
Does anyone else have thoughts on section 3(b)?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
Do you think that the targets, as set out, will drive that joint working?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
What do you think that it means? Is the concern that people would spend a lot of time measuring things and not acting? I do not quite understand that.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
I want to go back to the issue of the topic areas that were effectively dropped by the Government throughout the consultation on and development of the bill. I want to get your reflections on why those specific areas were dropped. I guess you can argue that you can approach mainstreaming in different ways, and Rob Brooker has already said that there is an element of incorporating that into the issue of environmental conditions as well. However, I am interested in some of the other areas, such as investment. There is no target for investment. Why do you think that the Government has decided to draw the line under the targets for areas in the bill?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
I would like to go into a little bit more detail in this area. You will be aware that section 3 of the bill spells out the purposes for which ministers might use powers to amend both the EIA legislation and the habitats regulations. As you have already alluded to, the purposes, which are covered in sections 3(a) to 3(f), are pretty extensive, and I want to ask about a couple of them.
The purpose that is set out in section 3(b), which you have already touched on, is
“to facilitate progress toward any statutory target relating to the environment, climate or biodiversity that applies in Scotland ... including, in particular ... net zero”.
I am interested in getting some more thoughts on that, particularly in relation to the way that the habitats regulations currently operate, because I understand that a public interest test can be applied in that regard. I am interested in your thoughts generally on that purpose and on how the habitats regulations interpret other existential environmental concerns, such as climate change, and how that public interest test works. Does it work, or is there a case for reform? Is there an inherent conflict with what Governments are trying to do in relation to climate and nature?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Mark Ruskell
On the back of that, I am interested in your thoughts on just transition. There are sectors of the economy that will have to change substantially, such as scallop dredging inshore and livestock production in areas where, if there was herbivore reduction, we could see large-scale nature restoration and woodland creation. There are difficult economic issues about how those sectors will transition away from what they are currently doing and take the jobs and skills with them—with people and with communities.
Is there enough of a focus? I think that one of the subject areas for targets that was dropped was citizen engagement, which, for me, is about just transition. There are some thorny issues in here around action and what prevents action. I am interested in your perspectives, looking at environmental change as academics, on where you see that societal change process and how you facilitate that—or is that more of a subject for colleagues in other departments?