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 2389 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Okay. Thank you. That is making me hungry.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
You would expect the guidance for land management plans to reference park plans when they exist, obviously, and that someone who was producing a land management plan would need to refer to what was in the national park plan in their area.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Do you think that there was a heavy reliance on volunteers? I know that some of the volunteers who were working on the earlier bids had to put their heads above the parapet to propose change, at quite a heavy cost to them. It feels as though, for many people, leading a change would put them in a vulnerable space.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
What about the issue of adjusting the boundaries of the existing parks? The Tay forest bid was situated between two existing national parks. Evidence has been brought forward that suggests that the existing national park boundaries do not easily fit with the geography of the area or, indeed, with a lot of the issues around economic development, tourism and regulation of the environment. Would the Government be open to adjusting the boundaries of the existing two national parks, or is that off the table?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
That would make sense. In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, I think that just about every community now has a local place plan, apart from three that are aiming to complete them by the summer. That local planning, park planning and land management planning should all flow together and be unified.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
It depends on the nature of the business. Ultimately, it is about having a deterrent. You have moved an amendment that suggests that the figure should be £500—well, £500 is very little next to the cost of producing a land management plan. We have to consider the context. We took evidence in the committee that suggested that some land management plans may cost several thousand pounds to produce—perhaps upwards of £10,000 or £15,000—although that depends on the guidance, and we do not have the guidance yet, so we are not sure what an LMP will look like for a large estate or a smaller estate.
There would be a way to avoid having an LMP if we accepted your amendment to pitch the fine at £500. I think that £40,000 is within the limit of something that the commissioner could do, which is why it is pitched at that limit. A fine of that nature would provide a deterrent. I hope that no one would ever get a fine, because, instead, they would do the easy, obvious thing, which is to comply with the legislation by having the conversation with the community and laying out their plans for the future. It should be a positive thing.
I will leave it there.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
I have a fair bit to say in the next section, and I think that others will also want to contribute. I am also aware that we are starting a stage 3 in the chamber at the back of two. Let us leave it there.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
How confusing.
Amendment 5 would establish a 500 hectare threshold. We debated that issue in group 3 last week. I will not be moving that amendment on behalf of Ariane Burgess.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
I am sorry. I did not realise that this was an intervention; I thought that it was my opportunity to contribute.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
I will make a couple of brief comments to close this group. First, on who can report a breach, there is a danger that, if that provision is drawn too widely, it will end up with individuals lodging vexatious complaints. Having a list is, therefore, important.
I appreciate the point that the cabinet secretary made to Rhoda Grant about the list that Ariane Burgess proposed, and perhaps there is a way to expand that further, particularly for bodies that are genuinely representative of a community. Rhoda Grant mentioned grazing committees. There might be some possible tweaks to be made at stage 3, but I would certainly be concerned about individuals who have a particular view on pylons, for example, just putting in endless vexatious complaints. There is a balance to be struck there.
Listening to contributions on enforcement, it feels as though most people, apart from Bob Doris, are saying that they expect fines to be pretty regular. I do not really think that that is the case. This is ultimately about a deterrent. Amendment 97A is about saying, “This is a strong deterrent. If you do not comply with this, you will get a fine at some point, eventually.”