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 ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ 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
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Good morning. I want to stick with the thresholds for liability in the bill. You will have heard and read some of the evidence that the committee has received, which raises questions about whether the thresholds are appropriate, largely on the basis that the provisions do not include negligence. Currently, section 1 requires intent or recklessness, and the threshold for responsible officials is “consent or connivance”. Could you explain why you have chosen not to include negligence in the provision?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
A criminal conviction is not required to pursue a proceeds of crime matter. The Crown Office can go to the court and say, “This person has so much wealth that we believe they got it through criminal activity”, and seek a confiscation order. The individual then has to prove that that is not how they gained that wealth. I am just trying to understand how that would interact with the bill.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Okay.
You will have heard in last week’s evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy that the Scottish Government considers that the bill as introduced is not compatible with the European convention on human rights. She referred specifically to section 2(3), which is on establishing a defence of necessity
“on the balance of probabilities”.
Do you believe that the Scottish Government’s view that that is not compatible with the ECHR is correct? If so, what consideration did you give to that when you were drafting the provision in the bill?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
I am asking you directly, given that you are the lawyer who has been giving advice on the matter. Do you consider that it is compatible with the ECHR?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Are you of the view that the existing thresholds are sufficient, or do you think that there might be a need to amend them on the basis of the evidence that we have heard to date?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
In part 2.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Parts 2 and 3 of the bill provide regulation-making powers to UK Government ministers. What is the Scottish Government’s position on those powers?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
You are opposed to it as it stands—is that correct?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
Just so that we are clear, although there is a certain policy intention, the provisions of the bill could be applied to any employee.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Michael Matheson
I seek clarification with regard to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I remember serving on a committee, if I recall correctly, that dealt with aspects of that legislation. It deals with the pursuit of assets that have been obtained through illegal activity, rather than criminal offences being committed and some form of remediation being claimed from the perpetrator. Can you clarify how that would work in relation to the bill?
Under the 2002 act, the Crown Office would secure an order of confiscation, and it would then be for the individual to demonstrate that they did not gain those assets through illegal activities. I do not understand how that would apply in this instance. Can you help me to understand that?