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 MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs 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 514 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
My question is about the information technology system. The cabinet secretary said that it was not really designed for a four-tier support system. Can it now deliver a four-tier support system? Is that being worked on?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
It really does not feel that way, given that it follows on from the suckler cow premium. It feels as if there is no understanding of what crofters are about. We were told when the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill passed that the measures would be proportionate, but we have a one-size-fits-all scheme that does not take account of the age demographic and, if the form is online, whether people have access to IT. That rules out many crofters from doing it themselves. All I am asking is that you put in place the support to ensure that it is affordable for them to apply and that the cost of doing so does not come out of the payments that they receive.
My real fear is that all these things will put people out of business and make them give up. That will impact not only on them but on the environment, because a lot of that land management practice is good for the environment and nature. You need to protect that, because, frankly, if you do not, you will be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
Okay.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
It feels like the wrong way round. I think that we all understood—
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
If there is no cost involved, surely you could give a guarantee that there will be support to allow people to do that. If we take into account demographics, access to equipment and so on, that support would not be a lot. There will be people who are perfectly capable of doing that themselves, but there will be others who are not.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
What impact has that had on the design of the other tiers that the system cannot deal with at the moment? How restrictive is that when it comes to designing the tiers? That is what we are trying to get to.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
How will that impact the other tiers, if the system cannot deliver?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
With regard to pre-notification, have you given any thought to extending the time allowed for communities to decide whether they want to act on a transfer of land? There has been a lot of feedback from communities saying that the time allowed is simply not long enough for them to do that, or that there should at least be a period of time in which they can register an interest and then do some more work, or say that they are not interested, with the sale therefore allowed to go ahead.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
Thank you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Rhoda Grant
That seems to be fair. There has also been discussion about compensation and “hope value”, and I can understand why. If a tenant were to have done something, resumption could mean the owner making a profit from somebody else’s endeavours. If the hope value were available to tenants to realise, would that need to be considered when looking at compensation—for example, if the tenant could do the development that the landowner intends to do and profit from it themselves?