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 991 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
That is interesting. I suppose that you could get into a debate about the deterrent effect, as it might depend on the starting point of your environmental regulations and environmental law; once you create a criminal offence, there is the issue of how to enforce it, which also depends on your starting point.
I am interested to know what evidence base there is to support claims that the new offence will create a deterrent, compared with where we are just now. At one point, it was suggested that there has been an increase in the number of complaints but that the number of prosecutions has almost reached nil. Does that mean that a greater level of environmental harm is taking place now because there is not the level of enforcement that we would expect? There is an interesting relationship in there, which would need to be explored.
I will pick up on the issue of section 40 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2014. In its written evidence, SEPA suggests that an alternative route to the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill could be the creation of an offence that is equivalent to ecocide through amending the 2014 act. Would that be a preferable route to deal with the issue, rather than introducing a new piece of legislation?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Thanks.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Would it therefore be fair to characterise the Scottish Government’s position in the LCMs as an interim position? That is, the Scottish Government supports the intention behind the bill and supports agreeing to a legislative consent motion, but, if the outstanding areas that you have concerns about are not sufficiently addressed by the UK Government, the potential final position of the Scottish Government could be to withhold consent. Am I understanding that correctly?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
If you do not get agreement on those clauses—I do not know what the timeframe looks like—is it possible that the Scottish Government would recommend that legislative consent be withheld?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Okay. You have taken a negotiating position.
I turn to the issue of SAF. You correctly pointed out that there is significant potential for the manufacturing of SAF in Scotland. From the Scottish Government’s perspective, will you give us a sense of where the greatest potential is for sustainable aviation fuel? Is it in the first, second or third generation of SAF? Will the timeframe for the development of those three generations of SAF be different over the course of the next 10 years?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Good morning. I will turn to the Scottish Government’s position in the legislative consent memorandums, which is to consent to the bill but to withhold consent on four or five clauses of the bill as it stands. That includes clauses 1 and 3, which relate to the revenue certainty contracts and how they are allocated to SAF producers. For each of the clauses from which you recommend withholding consent, will you explain the particular points that touch on devolution that you feel need to be addressed in order to get agreement with the UK Government?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Thank you. Campbell Gemmell, did you want to come in?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Looking at the timeframe and the capital investment that is needed for some of those projects, I wish that I could share your optimism on what will come from project willow, to be perfectly frank. I am not aware that Scottish Enterprise has created any new jobs in Grangemouth as yet. Most of the stuff from project willow is five, six or, in some cases, 10 years away, so I do not share your optimism on that.
Is there Government-to-Government engagement on the advanced fuels fund and whether more could be deployed for Scotland-based projects? The evidence that we heard yesterday was very much that power to liquids is where the real growth area will be in the future. The best place to do that is where there is significant access to renewable energy at low cost, and that is Scotland. Are there Government-to-Government discussions about the deployment of that fund?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Are you concerned that, if the bill were to be introduced as drafted, with this new offence, there is a danger of confusion between the bill and section 40 of the 2014 act?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Michael Matheson
Mark, do you think that it would be simpler to amend the existing regulatory framework?