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 3016 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Colin Beattie
Paragraph 12 of your report states:
“the SPPA’s Chief Executive wrote to the Scottish Government with a progress update and a request for additional funds over the medium-term period to deliver Remedy.”
In the bullet points that follow, you deal with different scenarios and you note that, in the worst case, it could be 2030 before this is resolved. What amount of additional funds did the SPPA request from the Scottish Government in September 2025 and what amount did it get? What was approved? Was the full amount received?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Colin Beattie
You know that for sure.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Colin Beattie
From what you have said, should I understand that the Pensions Regulator has a problem in dealing with you as a Scottish entity?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Colin Beattie
I am looking at what needs to happen with regard to delayed discharge. The Auditor General told the committee that the delayed discharge reflects a wider long-standing failure to shift the balance of care from hospitals to community settings. Since I have been on the committee, that has been the headline. Nothing has changed, and I have been sitting here for 15 years.
Malcolm Bell from the Accounts Commission told the committee:
“IJB reserves are being continually depleted, often to shore up day-to-day work”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 January 2026; c 29.]
instead of doing what they should be doing, which is transforming the whole-service offering. Witnesses were clear that progress depends on clear leadership, stronger governance and firm accountability at both national and local levels, but none of that seems to have happened.
I say again: this is a repeat. The issue comes up every time that a report comes before the committee, but there is no movement. Why?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Colin Beattie
Is it correct, then—this is my interpretation of what you are saying to me—that you have moved away from the original concept of transferring resources from the secondary to the primary sector and are now looking to find other funds to go into the IJBs?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Colin Beattie
I always look at voluntary redundancy—while it is, in a way, more humane—from a management point of view. You do not know who is going to apply, and, in the context of workforce planning, it becomes in itself a blunt instrument. You are getting rid of numbers, but what about skills, experience and so on?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Colin Beattie
Before that, I have a question on the back of your answer. You have usefully sketched out the background and the situation, but you have not said why workforce planning is so difficult. Why is it so difficult?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Colin Beattie
I return to the question of the mismatch. Is Police Scotland conscious of that and working to deal with it? Is it going to be dealt with? If so, when? I cannot see that the measures will work without an alignment.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Colin Beattie
But one would think that there would be some knowledge of at least the ballpark figure that you need. Police Scotland’s budget submission, for example, says that it needs 850 additional officers. Surely, even taking a broad approach, you could say that it is going to be between 800 and 850. You have history to build on, and you understand where the future pressure points are and where you will need additional resources. One would not think that it was that difficult to come up with a number.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Colin Beattie
I will go back to something that was touched on a few minutes ago. Paragraph 26 of the report explains that the workforce plan
“is not aligned to MTFP”
and Fiona Mitchell-Knight emphasised that. The report says that
“the current financial and workforce plans do not support meaningful discussions within policing on budgets or with Scottish Government on funding”,
which is something that you have touched on in the past few minutes. Paragraph 26 also says that
“Police Scotland intends to present updated financial implications of the workforce plan to deliver the 2030 Vision in the first quarter of 2026/27.”
There seems to be a disconnect between financial planning and workforce planning. How will the financial implications of the workforce plan help to inform delivery of the 2030 vision when more evidence-based workforce performance reporting will take place later?