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 1037 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
What happens if they are not acting on an instruction? What if they act in their own way, as a worker, and commit the offence of ecocide as a result? Who should then be sentenced by the courts?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Simon Parsons, you are a director in a public agency. Do you think that you should be liable for the actions of your organisation, irrespective of who carries them out, which could carry a criminal penalty of up to 20 years in prison?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
When I talk about things such as “flimsy excuses”, I refer to, for example, your suggestion that electricity is in some way pinned to the international gas price in the UK, when that is a fact; it is what drives our electricity costs. Your party was in government at Westminster for more than a decade and it could have taken action on that if it had chosen to do so. The reality is that it chose not to. Equally, during that time, the Conservatives supported the need to ensure that we achieved net zero by 2050.
In the UK and Scotland, it is not optional; it is a legislative requirement. We are legally obliged to achieve net zero by 2045 and 2050. As parliamentarians, if we choose to ignore that based on flimsy excuses, we are not doing our job properly. That is why I will vote for the motion, even though I accept that parts of the process are not as effective as they could be. I accept the responsibility that we have to tackle the nature and climate emergencies that we face, not only for this generation but for future generations.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Perhaps I have been clumsy in the way in which I have phrased it. I am thinking about the fact that we have to decarbonise but, if we have to build a significant amount of new energy infrastructure, particularly on the grid side of things, what is the carbon output of the process of electrifying more of our society, and how do we reduce the carbon output from the electrification process? In a rush to decarbonise our society, we might end up producing more carbon as a result of that process in itself.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Does anyone else have a view on what the hierarchy of priorities should be when we think about the areas of infrastructure that need to be adapted?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
On the decarbonisation of industry and the fuel supply, the CCC has suggested that about two thirds of industry will be decarbonised through electrification and that about a fifth of decarbonisation will come from hydrogen and the use of CCS. Is that an accurate reflection of how industry and the fuel supply sector will be decarbonised, and has the CCC got the balance right in its advice?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
I will leave it there as well.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Let me finish my point first.
As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take responsibility for that and show the leadership that is necessary in order to address it, rather than looking for excuses to chase after voters who are drifting to Reform UK.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
When I talk about things such as “flimsy excuses”, I refer to, for example, your suggestion that electricity is in some way pinned to the international gas price in the UK, when that is a fact; it is what drives our electricity costs. Your party was in government at Westminster for more than a decade and it could have taken action on that if it had chosen to do so. The reality is that it chose not to. Equally, during that time, the Conservatives supported the need to ensure that we achieved net zero by 2050.
In the UK and Scotland, it is not optional; it is a legislative requirement. We are legally obliged to achieve net zero by 2045 and 2050. As parliamentarians, if we choose to ignore that based on flimsy excuses, we are not doing our job properly. That is why I will vote for the motion, even though I accept that parts of the process are not as effective as they could be. I accept the responsibility that we have to tackle the nature and climate emergencies that we face, not only for this generation but for future generations.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 September 2025
Michael Matheson
Good morning. I want to stick with the themes of infrastructure and adaptation. It has become clear this morning that there is a need for investment in infrastructure to meet the growing change that we are witnessing in our own climate, and to mitigate some of the risks that will we face in the future. Have you a view on whether there should be a hierarchy of priority on what infrastructure we need to start to adapt now in order to meet the risks that we face? Perhaps I could come to Professor Renaud first on that, given his expertise in climate resilience.