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 1171 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
And part 3?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Okay. Your position is that you are opposed to the existing provisions in part 2, on the regulation-making powers—subject to negotiations, from what you have said.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Okay—thank you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Michael Matheson
I have it here. I can read it, if that would be helpful. She said:
“It is difficult to have an evidence base for a deterrent effect but, instead of changing section 40, with its high penalties, the passage of a specific bill would probably attract some regulatory attention, press attention and corporate attention, which might strengthen the potential for a deterrent effect.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 4 November; c 8.]
Beyond the public relations aspects, I think that it is fair to say that there is not much evidence of a deterrent effect. My understanding of the deterrent effect of criminal legislation is that, broadly, the evidence says that, when people are committing criminal offences, the last thing that they are thinking about is the actual criminal penalty that would be applied to them.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Michael Matheson
In your policy memorandum, you have suggested that section 2(3), on defence provisions, is incompatible with the ECHR on the basis that it requires the accused to establish a defence of necessity on the “balance of probabilities”, whereas the ECHR operates on the basis of a presumption of innocence. Will you elaborate further on the Government’s view? Is the bill as drafted incompatible with the ECHR and existing case law?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to pick up on a couple of points that have been made in response to Mark Ruskell. With any form of criminal legislation of this nature, the lead agency responsible for its implementation, in seeking to pursue prosecutions, will be the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
09:45The Crown Office, in its evidence to the committee, said that it
“struggled to identify a scenario where the existing legislative framework would not be sufficient … most notably”
given the availability of the offence under section 40 of the 2014 act. However, it went on to say:
“If you are wanting to find a gap, I think that the gap relates to massive incidents where we would be limited in sentencing”,
because penalties are limited to sentences of five years under the 2014 act.
We then heard evidence from the legal expert Murdo MacLeod QC, who said:
“if Parliament thought that the sentence was lagging behind what it should be to mark the gravity of the offence, that five-year penalty could be amended”,—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 11 November 2025; c 7-8.]
which would obviously be done by amending the 2014 act.
In your earlier response, you mentioned that if the Crown Office was to try to pursue a prosecution under the bill—if it is passed and implemented—and was not successful in doing so, it could then use the 2014 act. However, my understanding is that the Crown Office, in its evidence, was saying that, because of the thresholds in the bill, it would actually be much more likely to prosecute under the 2014 act in order to secure a prosecution. Given the expertise of the Crown Office and the need to implement the bill, if it is passed, that raises a question as to the purpose of having a stand-alone offence.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Of course, we could just amend the 2014 act to increase the sentencing powers to include the imposition of sentences of 20 years. Why would we not do that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Yes, I understand that point.
You mentioned that a bespoke bill could have a deterrent effect. I am always interested in the idea that new criminal law acts as a deterrent. What is the evidence to support the argument that a bespoke bill delivers a deterrent effect?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Okay. To push you a bit further on that, will you clarify whether that incompatibility is based on existing case law rather than just an interpretation of ECHR?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Matheson
That is helpful.
To stick with the issue of oil and gas, we have to be realistic about what we can expect the Scottish Government to do. All decisions about exploration and extraction rest with the UK Government and there is very little that the Scottish Government can do to change the use of the existing gas fields in the North Sea or of those still to be exploited. The timeline for deciding how that will be taken forward rests solely with the UK Government.
The fact that that is a declining basin has been recognised and acknowledged for the best part of a decade, if not longer, and the just transition fund for the north-east addresses that. I put it to you that the Scottish Government has already acknowledged that and that some of the work that it is doing is intended to address those issues. However, actually setting a timeline for when we will stop extracting oil and gas from the North Sea is not something that is in the gift of the Scottish Government.