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 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 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 2469 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Maybe I have picked up the previous evidence session wrong, and the point is about a lack of clarity rather than a flaw in the bill, but I wanted to draw that to your attention.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Could there be a situation in which the threshold for ecocide might be doubtful in relation to the law but the Crown Office and others want to see greater penalties than can be imposed under the 2014 act? That might mean that they seek a remedy using the new legislation so that greater penalties can be imposed, rather than because the incident meets the threshold for ecocide. Is that a danger, Mr Whittle?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
My point was not that we should ditch the 12 months; it is about having a bit of nuance and light and shade. Do you have examples of situations where a derogation would be reasonable, rather than ditching the period altogether?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
My question is on the exact same thing, but that is fine, because maybe it shows that there is something in that. I wonder whether 12 months is always a realistic recovery period. It must have been based on incidents or events that have already happened, but the natural cycle of things might mean that 18 to 24 months would give enough time for a robust and evidence-based recovery plan to be put in place, rather than having a cliff edge of 12 months. Does Jonnie Hall have any comments on that?
11:00Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Again, because of time constraints, I will not explore that further.
I will turn to my final comment on the definition. This point does not mean that I disagree with the policy intent of any of this, but I think that there might be a need for clarity. I think that the witnesses on the previous panel pretty much all agreed that, if an individual left a barbecue in an open area and it led to a forest fire and there was significant damage, that would be seen as an ecocide event. However, we heard in the same evidence session that the policy intent is also to create a corporate offence at the very highest level.
A forest fire is an event at a very serious and high level, but that does not necessarily mean that it is a corporate offence. Is there a blurring around the intention of the bill? If we have an offence in relation to barbecue fires, and then a corporate offence at the highest level, they seem to rub up against each other a bit. I do not know whether you heard the previous evidence session, but do you have any comments on that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
Who is that question for, Jeremy?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
Thank you, Mr Balfour. We are about to move on, but if either Leah Duncan-Karrim or Adam Stachura would like to make a short, pithy comment on the question, please come in鈥擨 apologise that we are a bit short of time.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
The clarity is helpful, although it may not be helpful with balancing the budget. Your point is that there should be additional priorities, rather than different priorities, which feeds in nicely to our next theme.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
Perhaps I can bring in Adam Stachura first, because he has rightly set out what the additional priorities should be. We may come to Allan Faulds after that, given that he made some suggestions earlier, if that is okay.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
Leah, do you want to take up the cudgels on that?