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 973 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
I want to pick up on that theme and come back, in particular, to Ross Haggart’s comments about the provisions in section 40 of the 2014 act, the permit exemption aspect and the cause and effect of that type of change not being made to the bill. If that aspect is not introduced as part of the bill, might the precautionary principle be, in effect, ramped up to the extent that SEPA gets so risk averse that any developments seeking permits will actually find it quite difficult to get them? Might you, as a regulator, become increasingly anxious about the liability that you might face at some future point and about being pursued for committing ecocide or for contributing to it? Is that a risk?
10:15Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
If it is not?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
That is very helpful—thanks very much. I must confess that I am a bit conflicted about the idea of investing in HEFA, given that the UK Government’s SAF mandate means that, by 2030, HEFA should decrease to 71 per cent of our SAF production and that, by 2040, it should decrease to 35 per cent. That says to me that the future will be power to liquid, so why should we bother spending hundreds of millions of pounds on investing in a SAF refinery facility? You have mentioned the timeframes. To be perfectly frank, I wonder whether Scottish Enterprise is wasting everybody’s time in looking at some of this, because I cannot see how it will make any business sense whatsoever, given the UK Government’s SAF mandate. Maybe Scottish Enterprise should reflect on that, because it might just be wasting everybody’s time.
I will turn to another issue, which is the funding that the UK Government has made available so far through its advanced fuels fund to support SAF project development. From looking in the paperwork that the committee has received, and joining the dots, I think that 19 projects have been awarded funding. Only one of those is in Scotland, in Orkney. Why has only one project in Scotland been allocated AFF?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Good morning. I want to pick up on the theme that the convener identified around the existing provisions in section 40 of the 2014 act. A couple of you—Mark Roberts in particular—mentioned the potential deterrent effect of the legislation, and other panellists agreed. What evidence is there that, given the sanctions that are attached to them, the provisions in section 40 are working as a deterrent just now and that, if we ramp up those provisions in the bill, there will be an even bigger impact?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
I am just trying to establish whether the points that panellists have made can be substantiated.
I want to stick with the theme of the existing regulatory environment and Professor Gemmell’s suggestions about whether it is operating or being utilised effectively. Clive Mitchell, in the evidence from NatureScot, you stated that the Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009 provide an existing route to require remediation for environmental damage. You said:
“The threshold for when the Regulations apply is very high and so the Regulations have been rarely used”.
Can you expand on that? Is there a need for us to look at the fundamentals of the existing regulatory framework before we add anything new to it, in order to identify how it could be improved?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Is it fair to say that there is no evidence that a higher offence provided for in a bill would be a deterrent? It might be, but there is no evidence to demonstrate that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
It is just your gut instinct.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Do any of the other witnesses want to come in?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
I turn to you, Mark Roberts, as the regulator of the regulators, if you like. Is there a risk that, if such a provision is not included in the bill, it could inhibit developments from taking place, because a licence would be needed, which could lead to further environmental damage in some perverse way?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Sarah Hendry, given your legal expertise, do you think that there is a strong evidence base to demonstrate that regulations of this nature, or a bill containing an offence of this nature, would have a significant deterrent effect?