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 3584 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
Are we agreed on that? If colleagues agree, I would like to refer to the response that we received from the minister at the time. We could say that we accepted her response in good faith and are a little disappointed to find that neither of the things discussed in that response as being imminent has actually happened. That is of concern.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
That is partly why I thought that we should also approach the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I know that our colleagues are not here to give evidence but, having heard their submissions, I wonder whether they think that there are any organisations that we might want to include in any round-table discussion, beyond those that we have already mentioned.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
As an alternative route forward, we could highlight to the petitioner that they could seek to approach a member of the next Parliament to see whether they would be minded to introduce a member’s bill on the subject, rather than simply come back with a fresh petition.
Are colleagues content that we act on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
Are you content with that suggestion, Mr Golden?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
I very much agree because, given that some pools are now under active threat of closure, the baby could go out with the bath water, if that is not the wrong metaphor. We could lose a resource and it will be far harder to do anything about that if it is gone than to maintain and preserve the resource that is currently there.
Do any other members have comments?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
We want to be informed about those matters, but I am unsure whether we would take the view that that is a national issue.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
Indeed. Are we content?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
PE2089 was lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the Lochaber National Park—NO More group, which, as colleagues will remember, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create more national parks in Scotland; to instruct an independent review of the operation of the current national parks, including an assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks, including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling; and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of the said independent review.
The committee considered the petition quite recently, on 27 November. To date, the committee has heard evidence from two panels of witnesses—NatureScot and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. We have also received correspondence from our colleague Finlay Carson MSP, reiterating his support for the petition. We are now in a position to reflect on the evidence that we have heard and to consider our next steps. Have colleagues given any thought to suggestions for how we might proceed?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
I would be interested to get an insight into Glasgow City Council’s thinking on the issue. An apology was offered, but it came out, rather than being delivered in a structured way. I would be interested to know the timeline for its consideration of these matters.
As members have no other suggestions, are we content to keep the petition open? We are still minded to seek a debate on the petition, which would probably take place later in the year. We want to clarify some of the other issues so that we can frame a motion as directly as possible when we take it to the chamber.
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Jackson Carlaw
The three areas that Mr Ewing identified prior to his suggestion to draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to the vote in favour of a local referendum by Dumfries and Galloway Council were all apparent to her but were heavily reinforced by the majority of people from whom the committee has been fortunate enough to hear. I recall the cabinet secretary saying specifically in her evidence that she had not come to any final decision and that, in her mind, there was no presumption as to where the evidence that was being gathered might lead. When we write to the cabinet secretary, we should say that we appreciated that point and should draw her attention to the significant representations that we have received, as well as Mr Ewing’s point about the council’s view that there should be a more widespread consultation via a referendum on whether the proposal should proceed. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.