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 6264 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
First, Mark, I will just point out that we are less than a third of the way through the questions but three quarters of the way through the time. That always happens when we have interesting panels. Panelists, I ask you to be mindful that the longer you speak, the more you ensure that no one else can speak and the less chance we have to get through all the questions. You are the ones who will have to face your colleagues after this, and I will have to face committee members, so, please, keep your answers short and concise.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
Thanks, Shivali, that would be helpful.
Right, I will try to move things along quite quickly. We have heard from various witnesses on whether the defence of necessity is required. My question requires a simple yes or no answer from each of you. Is the defence of necessity required? Jamie?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
Shivali Fifield had her hand up.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
Just before we move on, I think that the deputy convener wants to come in on that particular point.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
Just before we go back to the questioning, I think that history has proven that, if somebody knows that they are doing something wrong, defending themselves by saying that they were only following orders has never been acceptable. You seem to be suggesting that it might be acceptable. My view is that that surely cannot be the case. If someone knows that they are doing wrong, they are doing wrong and they should not do it.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
Thank you, Sarah—there is nothing like being told what to do as convener by a committee member. I might refer to those later questions that you wanted to ask. [Laughter.]
To make it clear, when I talked about a river earlier, I was not referring to the River Spey. If I had been, I would have had to declare an interest. In case anyone thinks that I was, I declare that I have an interest in the River Spey.
Let us move on to penalties. The penalties are 20 years in prison and an unlimited fine. That is massive. Is that required—yes or no?
Jamie Whittle can go first.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
That is an interesting situation, because I do not think that doing something that you know is wrong is a defence for doing that act. History has proven that saying that you are following orders is not a good enough excuse for doing something wrong. I was not quite sure that I had followed the previous issue.
The deputy convener mentioned an unlimited fine and 20 years in the nick. An unlimited fine might mean nothing if you get a huge bonus, whereas a fine of £500 for somebody who has very little income, perhaps a crofter, might be massive and might be a death knell to their business, so I do not quite understand how that range works. One of the suggestions was to link fines to the turnover of the organisation. How do you feel about that? Scottish Water has a massive turnover and a massive amount of money, and it could pay a massive fine. A crofter on the west coast has very little turnover and should get only a very little fine. What do you think? Professor Parsons, do you want to refute that comment?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
That is an interesting idea—because it is a public sector organisation, it does not get a fine. I am sure that that is not quite how you would put it, but that is my interpretation.
Jonnie, what are your views on that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
I call Sarah Boyack—but very briefly, please.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Edward Mountain
It might then be a matter of who in the Government you would hold accountable.
Mark Ruskell may ask a supplementary question, if it could be a really quick one, please.