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 2390 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
I have a quick reflection. Do you agree that, where a larger estate has to produce a land management plan, surrounding smaller landholdings—farmers, typically—would benefit? They would not have to produce a land management plan, but the transparency of a nearby estate would be there, so they could see more clearly the future for the area and how they might fit into that.
Do you not think that the requirement for transparency and to have a discussion with bigger landholders would benefit smaller landholders such as yourself or the convener? Clearly, your land would not be captured by the 1,000 hectare threshold currently set by the bill.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Just to be clear, cabinet secretary, will the kind of detail on ecological restoration that I laid out earlier be expected to be in a land management plan, as appropriate to the holding?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
I will speak to amendments 53 to 56, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and to my amendments 412, 413 and 97A. I will briefly mention other amendments in the group, too.
In relation to amendment 53, the community engagement obligations in the bill are important, and we need to have appropriate routes for any breaches of those obligations to be reported to the land and communities commissioner, who can then take appropriate action. As introduced, the bill allows only local authorities, Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and community bodies—as defined in the community right to buy legislation—to report breaches. It is right that there are some limits on who can submit a statutory report of a breach in order to ensure that the land and communities commissioner does not need to investigate vexatious or spurious complaints. However, additional bodies should have the ability to report a breach. Amendments 53 to 56 would allow community councils, the Crofting Commission, the enterprise agencies and national park authorities to report a breach. I therefore ask the committee to accept those amendments.
Amendments 412 and 413 seek to ensure that there is cross-compliance on entitlements to public subsidies where a landowner breaches their obligations under this legislation. That would ensure that a landowner who is in breach and is being fined by the state cannot simultaneously access public money for other land management or land use.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Okay.
09:45Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Very briefly, yes.