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 3992 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
Obviously, I would listen to anybody who has a different proposal on reporting to see whether the Government would support that. I do not agree with the reporting requirement in section 10 as it is—I think that it is disproportionate. I do not think that it is in line with the financial memorandum, and I am not entirely sure what it adds.
I am always very aware of capacity and resources, which Sarah Boyack has just been talking about. That relates to the Government and the civil service. We are putting more burdens on the civil service to create reports that might not do anything or have much in them. That is capacity that I am taking away from something that does have a purpose. That would probably be my bar for that. What is it adding? What is the report doing? Is it necessary? Is it proportionate? What is it adding? Is it worth the time that it takes for the civil service to produce the report? That is something that we all have to think about whenever we ask for reporting provisions in any bill.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
If you want to put that in an amendment, I would be happy to look at it.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
I am not avoiding the question, but I wonder whether that is less a question for me and more a question for the member in charge of the bill. Obviously, Ms Lennon has said that there is a reason for introducing the bill. I also point to the views of Professor Hendry, who gave evidence on 4 November. She said that there was merit in a bespoke bill of this type in the sense that there is a deterrent effect with higher penalties being associated with ecocide. Ecocide would be discussed out there in relation to Scotland going first in acting on ecocide. I cannot find the exact quotation, but it is obviously in the Official Report.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
I think that you are talking about emotion here, not legislation. I understand why you put that question to me. However, if a Government bill or a member’s bill does not progress beyond stage 1, the committee and the Parliament will have their reasons why that is the case. If the bill progresses, it must be fit for purpose and address a lot of the issues that have been mentioned. It is not enough simply to say, “Oh, that sounds like a good idea.” The proposal must be workable in law and not have unintended consequences.
Let me take the emotion out of that. If Scotland is able to pass a bill that we are confident does not have unintended consequences, is workable and has the support of all the bodies and people that it affects, we will have a good bill. It is important to pass a good bill rather than simply signal support for something that has flaws in it. I hope that everyone agrees with me on that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
I do not think that we can quantify that yet. You asked that question of academic legal experts—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
Yes. I keep going back to the definition of “environmental harm”. The definition in the bill is the same as the definition in the 2014 act. Obviously, that is a point that committee members will want to speak to Ms Lennon about.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
May I turn to Charles Stuart Roper on that? I believe that the issue is the extent of the harm—its significance—but my officials will correct me if I am wrong.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
I have seen some of the evidence from people who want the bill to cover omissions and failures to act. We do not believe that there is a case to expand the bill’s scope to cover omissions, beyond the extent to which they are already covered. We believe that omissions are already covered by the offence of ecocide as it is set out. The offence is of causing severe environmental harm intentionally or recklessly, so harm can be caused by omission already. We do not see that there is a case for including a further provision in relation to omissions.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
Yes.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Gillian Martin
I had discussions with Ms Lennon about that. It is important to ensure that the offence of ecocide is additional to—a step up from—what is already there. We need to consider the definition of “significant environmental harm” in section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, the definition of “severe environmental harm” in the bill and the difference between those two things. It is certainly the case that enough work has been done by the campaign to define what ecocide is.
Could we have gone down the route of reforming and making amendments to the 2014 act? Yes, we could have done that, but we are where we are. Ms Lennon has progressed her bill, which is an alternative vehicle for introducing the offence of ecocide. The phrase “six and a half a dozen” comes to mind. We could reform the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to include the offence of ecocide and to make it strong, but Ms Lennon has progressed her bill, and we have an opportunity to establish a bespoke offence of ecocide. I want to ensure that that dovetails with the 2014 act provisions and provides additionality.