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 7345 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 321 disagreed to.
Amendment 252 not moved.
Section 33 agreed to.
After section 33
Amendments 322 and 323 not moved.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
Amendment 74, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 253.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
Amendment 11, in the name of Mercedes Villalba, is grouped with amendments 13, 78 to 88, 158 to 164, 304, 304A and 304B. Amendments 304A and 304B are direct alternatives, which means that both can be moved and decided on. The text of whichever is last to be agreed to is what will appear in the bill.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
I wonder whether the member appreciates that deer fencing is not selective and that it is equally important for the establishment of new native woodland and the protection of non-spruce species. In other words, it is equally important to native woodland as to commercial conifer planting.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The question is, that amendment 284 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 285 disagreed to.
Amendment 286 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Finlay Carson
Yes.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Finlay Carson
Thank you.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Finlay Carson
I would like to intervene. I am finding it difficult to understand how we can avoid potential conflict. For example, there might be multiple land users, and one land manager decides to have a land management plan that requires a very low density of deer. If that land management plan is accepted, do all the surrounding landowners have to control their deer as a result? Who decides, before enforcement comes in, whether that land management plan is reasonable? It is all very well to say that we can sit round the table, but, if one land management plan suggests that the maximum density is one deer per hectare, based on restoring some type of habitat, who decides whether that is reasonable or whether the impact on adjacent landowners is reasonable?