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 2023 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
In that case, may I ask about consultation and engagement with the fishing industry? Has the industry had an input to this? Has it raised concerns about the legislation?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I am looking at the Companies Act 2006, which refers to companies that are “entirely or substantially” funded by a public body. You have said that the figure is £800 million.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I am trying to make sure that what we are being asked to approve today is actually legal.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Why did you rule out eight or 10 years? Was it just a case of you wanting to make it as high as possible in order to make that deterrent effect as big as possible?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Yes, I have a follow-up to Kevin Stewart’s question. A couple of local authorities have suggested that the bill might cause some problems. For example, Moray Council said:
“National Planning Framework 4 allows excavation of deep peat for renewable energy developments. This is an action that would otherwise possibly fall within the definition of ecocide.”
Would it be a defence that NPF4 allowed that to take place?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
There is another example in Highland Council’s letter, which describes a few situations, including one involving an underground cable from Dundonnel to Beauly and one involving Coul Links golf course, which, it says,
“could be viewed as reckless if the development was granted against advice relating to environmental harm.”
In that instance, an environmental NGO could put in an objection.
It is all about risk for planning authorities. If the bill were in place, would it make it too risky for the council to grant permission to some of those projects?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I am trying to work out whether that is where the company gets most of its funding from.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
The act refers to all or most of a company’s funding.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
So, there is not really any risk of us having to undo this because the funding is not mostly public. That is what I am trying to understand.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Douglas Lumsden
You said that it is not about having one or the other. If there was not enough evidence to go down the ecocide offence route, the Government could switch to the route involving amending the RRA, but, as we heard from the Government last week, that would require alternative conviction provision. Since you introduced the bill, have you had any discussions with the Government about alternative conviction provision?