Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Filter your results Hide all filters
Displaying 2165 contributions
|
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
I thank everyone for the points that they have made and for the discussion.
Throughout the committee’s evidence taking on the bill, I heard the criticism on the timing of the community right to buy review. I accept that, as well as the points that you and Mercedes Villalba have made on that, convener. That is a significant piece of work, and it is important that we continue with the significant work that we are doing now on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Some of the examples that Mark Ruskell touched on are really important, and they highlight why the review is so important. That is the only reason why I would ask members largely not to support the amendments in this group. It is purely because they relate to exactly the kind of issues that we need to tease out in the course of the review.
I am more than happy to have discussions with Mark Ruskell and other members of the committee to talk about their concerns in more detail. As I set out in relation to a point from Douglas Lumsden last week, we are looking to publish the consultation on the community right to buy review in the coming weeks. The intention is to outline and publish the overall outcome of the review towards the end of this year. I am happy to engage in conversations with members throughout that process, so that we can pick out specific examples that highlight issues with the existing community right to buy.
I was grateful to hear from Monica Lennon about the rationale behind amendment 514. I do not believe that it is necessary, because the right to buy does not exclude common good land. I accept what Monica Lennon is trying to say, which is that it is about not necessarily having to purchase the land. However, it is not clear from the drafting what “seize” means in that context. I am also not sure why Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow councils are excluded from the provision. That is why I ask the committee to oppose amendment 514.
Again, the only reason why I ask the committee not to agree to amendment 486, which is from Tim Eagle, is that we are undertaking the community right to buy review. The amendment would mean that, once the bill has been passed, we would have to do another review in quick succession, which I do not think is necessary.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
No, and it should not be interpreted in that way. It is not meant to come across in that way or as being hierarchical. As with the four broader aims, the overarching purpose of the national parks is to collectively achieve the aims together.
The bill does not change the Sandford principle, which applies under section 9(6) of the 2000 act—if there is deemed to be a conflict between the aims, the first aim is the overriding one. However, in relation to the list in the proposed new subsection, the aims are not intended to be hierarchical, and one aim should not be prioritised above another.
I completely appreciate your arguments about creating a list. I have touched on that point myself, because it can become about what is not there. It is important to at least reference biodiversity and climate change, given all the work that is happening in that regard. I am more than happy to take away the views of the committee.
By their very nature, the aims can never be all-encompassing and capture all the actions. It is about trying to strike the balance between being general enough that they can cover a lot of that activity and not being too specific, but I am more than happy to hear views.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Galloway and Ayrshire National Park Proposal
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
You are absolutely right about the boundaries. NatureScot had said that, should ministers decide to designate, it would have recommended the smaller core area, as it outlined in its report.
The situation was difficult according to the different reports that came out. NatureScot also outlined in its report that, if somebody felt that they were against a national park, it was harder to engage with them about the different options of what boundaries could look like and what shape governance could take. The boundary choices were informed by engagement with local people and other stakeholders. There were always going to be difficulties with that.
Can you remind me of your second point?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
“Cultural heritage” is defined in the 2000 act as including
“structures and other remains resulting from human activity of all periods, language, traditions, ways of life”
and so on. I think that adding an aim of cultural development is important, because it takes that a step further. It is not just about sitting still and appreciating what we have; it is also about how we can develop that further, into the future. To me, that means also looking at how we can help to develop the creative sectors, for example. It could well mean supporting other community projects related to the creative sector and arts. I see that addition as a positive step forward.
If committee members feel that further definitions or changes to the language are needed, I would be happy to look at that. I am keen to hear what recommendations members might have.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
No, and it should not be interpreted in that way. It is not meant to come across in that way or as being hierarchical. As with the four broader aims, the overarching purpose of the national parks is to collectively achieve the aims together.
The bill does not change the Sandford principle, which applies under section 9(6) of the 2000 act—if there is deemed to be a conflict between the aims, the first aim is the overriding one. However, in relation to the list in the proposed new subsection, the aims are not intended to be hierarchical, and one aim should not be prioritised above another.
I completely appreciate your arguments about creating a list. I have touched on that point myself, because it can become about what is not there. It is important to at least reference biodiversity and climate change, given all the work that is happening in that regard. I am more than happy to take away the views of the committee.
By their very nature, the aims can never be all-encompassing and capture all the actions. It is about trying to strike the balance between being general enough that they can cover a lot of that activity and not being too specific, but I am more than happy to hear views.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
Absolutely. Food would fall under a few different elements of the aims. The element of cultural heritage and development, which is important, or that of economic development would capture all those aspects.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
We want to highlight and give specific mention to some of the challenges that we are facing right now in relation to biodiversity and climate change, as well as to highlight the importance of recreation. It is to show that those specific actions will help to deliver the aims.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
Given the overarching purpose and the aims that we are proposing to modernise and change through the legislation, as set out in the bill, we feel that there is an adequate purpose. We do not feel that there is a need to produce a statement, as NatureScot has recommended. We feel that the driving force behind our national parks and what they should be aiming to achieve is adequately set out in our proposals and in the aims and the overarching purpose.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
I am happy to take views on that and get further advice on what it might look like and its potential implications. As you have outlined, there is a close working relationship already, but you are right to say that only local authorities and community councils are specifically mentioned in the 2000 act. If you are recommending widening that, I am more than happy to consider that and see what it might mean. Again, that work is already under way.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mairi Gougeon
That would probably cut across into areas of planning legislation, so I am hesitant to set out what that could look like or where the most appropriate place for changes would be, if they were to be made.
Obviously, our national parks have different planning powers as it is and, should a new national park be created in the future, those powers would be designed to suit the national park authority’s needs. That would potentially be a lot more complex an area than the bill could cover.
