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 3424 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Richard Leonard
Agenda item 3, which is consideration of the 2022-23 audit of Lews Castle College, is our principal session this morning. I am pleased to welcome our witnesses. We are joined by the Auditor General for Scotland, Stephen Boyle. Alongside the Auditor General is Mark MacPherson, who is an audit director at Audit Scotland. I am also pleased to welcome Ian Howse, who is the public sector industry lead partner at Deloitte and was directly involved in oversight of the audit.
We have a number of questions to put to you this morning, but, before we get to those, I invite the Auditor General to make a short opening statement.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Richard Leonard
Good morning, and welcome, everyone, to the 22nd meeting in 2025 of the Public Audit Committee. We are joined by Joe FitzPatrick, whom I very much welcome to the committee. Before we start the business proper, I invite him to declare any relevant interests.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Richard Leonard
The audit was carried out by Deloitte on behalf of Audit Scotland, and the report that we have before us is an Audit Scotland section 22 report. Therefore, can you be clear, Auditor General: do you agree with Mr Howse’s interpretation of the rules and regulations and the accountancy practices?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Richard Leonard
Do you want to add to that, Auditor General?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Richard Leonard
Colin Beattie has some questions on the same theme.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Richard Leonard
I will finish with a question that goes back to an earlier point that we discussed, which involved the delay in the laying of the 2022-23 accounts. On further reflection, I note that the letter that we received from Lydia Rohmer, the principal and chief executive of UHI North, West and Hebrides, says that the reason for the delay was, in part,
“a combination of rescheduled audit work and the wider capacity pressures in Scotland’s public audit system”,
which rather points the finger at you, Auditor General.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Richard Leonard
Okay. You are leading me, inevitably, to questions about the Gresham House Forestry Fund, which was, for a while, the biggest investment that the Scottish National Investment Bank had made. Indeed, it went up to your £50 million limit. You might have heard me talk about this before, but when the investment in the Gresham House Forestry Fund was first announced, I looked at the basis of the fund, and it appeared to be less about saving the planet and planting trees than it was about helping wealthy people avoid paying tax. How do you respond to that?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Richard Leonard
I am reminded of the century-old question of the Macmillan gap and whether there is sufficient patient capital for the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, but that is a whole other discussion, which we do not have time for.
I thank Willie Watt and Al Denholm for their participation in the committee’s work. It has been a long session, but we have found it productive, illuminating and valuable for the committee. There are a couple of areas that we might want to follow up on, but we will be in contact with you to remind you of those and to seek any further information. If we do not see you again, Mr Denholm, we wish you well for your long and prosperous retirement. You never know, we might see Mr Watt again before the parliamentary session finishes.
I close the public part of the meeting and move the committee into private session.
11:34 Meeting continued in private until 12:41.Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Richard Leonard
I also want to ask about what, to me, sounded a bit like potential mission creep. My concept of the investment bank is that it is there to stimulate indigenous businesses and—I say this as a bit of a romantic—boost the manufacturing sector, which I think is important if we are to have a balanced economy. Can you take us through this whole thing about asset management? I am not asking you to repeat the answers that you gave to Colin Beattie, but I felt that, when you were talking about that, there could be a danger—perhaps not under your tenure, Mr Watt, nor under Mr Denholm’s, but with the people coming after you—that some might see themselves more as asset managers than innovative state interventionist generators of local jobs, promoting manufacturing and so on. How do you ensure that the institution does not transform itself into a patient capital asset manager instead of being a nimble, fleet-of-foot and innovative stimulator of economic development?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Richard Leonard
Before I bring in Colin Beattie, I want to take you back to your answer to Graham Simpson some time ago, when you said that changing the public sector regime would require legislation. Would it not just require a change to the Treasury rules? In other words, have you done any research that leads you to the conclusion that a change in the law would be required, rather than it just being a matter of reforming the way that the Treasury works?