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 2447 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
I am just checking—could we still say that we had created an ecocide offence, because we could put that in the bill that amended the 2014 act—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
So it is possible, but it would perhaps not be as visible as the member in charge of the bill would like it to be. I just wanted to check that.
When we are wrestling with the difference between an ecocide offence and reform of the 2014 act, we need to look at the definition of “ecocide” in relation to there being “serious adverse effects” that are either “widespread” or “long-term”. The committee’s notes referred to that as a bespoke definition; I think that you also used that term earlier, cabinet secretary. Is that definition necessary, and is it appropriate to define “severe environmental harm” in the way that is done in the bill for the purpose of an ecocide offence?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
I appreciate that these are quite difficult matters to navigate around. The committee is thinking—or at least I am thinking—about the fact that an environmental impact from 2024 to 2025 might be relatively minor but that an environmental impact from 1985 to 2025 might be quite significant and profound. You could see that the impact might not look that significant in one year, but that, incrementally—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
People say that you should not ask a question that you do not know the answer to, cabinet secretary, but I am going to do it anyway. How does section 40 of the 2014 act deal with such long-term impacts? Does the 2014 act have appropriate provisions in that regard?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
Yes, of course.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
Yes, of course.
I want to look at how the bill applies some other definitions in relation to the harm caused by a course of conduct or consequential impact over time. Is the bill sufficiently clear on that aspect? In earlier evidence sessions, we have talked about the fact that an organisation could believe that it had a clean bill of health each year because it was meeting all the regulatory requirements—it was respecting and considering those requirements. However, if someone were to look at the impact over a significant amount of time, the organisation could find that its activities fell within the definition of ecocide. Is the way that the bill would apply in relation to the harm caused by a course of conduct or consequential impact over time appropriate?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
You do not believe that the bill needs to be more explicit than it is.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
Cabinet secretary, I think that I am wrestling with the same thing that the Government has been wresting with in relation to whether to create a stand-alone offence or to reform the 2014 act. If the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 were to be reformed, with the addition of sentencing powers to impose sentences of up to 20 years, guidance would have to be issued in relation to that, and the word “ecocide” could be used in any legislation that reformed the 2014 act. In effect, my question is whether we can create provisions for an ecocide offence by reforming the 2014 act. Does it have to be either/or?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
The reason why I asked the question was to establish whether the Scottish Government thinks that the offence is clear and distinct from the current legislation—that this offence is different from the current definitions.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Bob Doris
I know that my colleagues want to explore that aspect in much more detail later, so I will not explore it further, tempting as it is.
A number of witnesses have suggested to the committee that an ecocide offence should explicitly cover omissions or failures to act as well as acts themselves, as with section 40 of the 2014 act, given that a failure to act could also cause environmental harm. Does the Scottish Government have a view on that?