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 934 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Good morning. It is important that, before introducing any provision that creates new criminal law, we are clear about the nature of the gap in the law that we are trying to address and how the new offence would operate in practice.
Given the definition of “ecocide” in the bill and how that relates to the 2014 act provisions, can you give me a practical example from the past 10 to 20 years of an offence that the existing regulatory framework in Scotland has been insufficient to deal with and regarding which this new criminal law would have enabled us to prosecute an individual or an organisation? I will come to you, Jamie, given your expertise in Scots law.
09:30Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Can you remind me of the circumstances of that example?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Excuse me, but that is not the question that I asked. What I am asking is: if a worker acts in such a way that results in ecocide, under the basic definition in the bill, who should be sentenced by the courts?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
I want to turn to sections 1, 3 and 4 of the bill, which deal with the issue of liability. In the bill, liability is split broadly into two forms: individual liability, which requires “intent or recklessness”, and the responsibility of an organisation or an individual in an organisation, in the provisions on “consent or connivance”. Some have suggested that the threshold that has been set for liability in the bill is too high. Do you agree?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Simon Parsons?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Does anyone else in any other sector have any experience of changes coming about as a result of its introduction?
Nobody? Okay.
My final point is on the issue of who should be liable. We heard evidence in the earlier session that liability should rest largely and solely—it would be fair to say that I am paraphrasing—with the decision makers and the directors in the organisation, and that the workers should be protected from the provisions in the bill. Given that your members are directors, Catherine, what is your take on that suggested change to the bill?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
I just want to make sure that I understand this properly. If someone in your organisation carries out an act that results in what, under the bill, is defined as ecocide, who should be liable and face prosecution for committing the offence: the person who initiated it or the directors?
11:45Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
I come back to Shivali Fifield. I want to understand fully your explanation regarding the issue of liability.
If an employee, under your definition of “worker”—I am not too sure how you would create that definition—were to act in such a way and commit an act that constitutes ecocide under the bill, and they are found to have done so and the case is proven, who, on the basis of how you are trying to amend the bill, should go to prison for 20 years?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
I am hearing from some of you a feeling that the bill is not necessary, while some are seeking further guidance or explanation about some of the bill’s provisions. It is worth reflecting on the fact that this is not a regulation-making bill; it is a bill that would create a criminal offence. The guidance and explanatory notes associated with the bill will take you only so far, because the real definition will be set by the courts and some terms will be defined by the courts if the bill is passed.
Is it your contention that the existing regulatory framework for dealing with environmental offences is sufficient? If it is not sufficient, where are the gaps that should be addressed so that the bill would be unnecessary?
I put that question to you first, Jonnie.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Catherine McWilliam?