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 2072 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
That is clearly an issue. That is a cohort of people who are stuck for quite a long time—sometimes months. We have heard some horrible anecdotes.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
How many staff hours are lost to managing patients who are medically fit to leave hospital but are still having to be cared for in a hospital environment?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
Can you give me an example?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
Finally, has the Scottish Government or the NHS done any holistic analysis of increased mortality rates as a result of delayed discharge, or indeed, additional harm caused to patients as a result of delayed discharge? If not, why not?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
I am playing devil’s advocate, because I do not have a view on the SPPA’s efficacy or otherwise, but the body has a lot of money and people. It has hired 100 additional staff, which begs the question of how many staff it had in the first place. Yesterday’s letter said that that is an increase of 30 per cent, so let us assume that it had 300 to 350 staff as a baseline. The addition of 100 staff means that it has around 400 to 450 staff, which is a massive jump for an agency in a single year.
Looking at SPPA’s budget, I see that it has been given around £123 million, presumably of public money, by the Scottish Government over four years—that includes the coming financial year—just to administer the pension scheme before a single penny of pension is paid. Is that unusual? Is it proportionate?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
A lot of ground has been covered, so I will keep it brief. Auditor General, have you had a chance to review the letter from the SPPA to Kenneth Gibson, which Mr Simpson just referred to, and the letter from Ivan McKee, the minister, to Kenneth Gibson? I appreciate that both are dated as having been sent yesterday. Has Audit Scotland had a chance to briefly look at them before today’s session?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
Okay. What do you make of them?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
Let me rephrase my question: who is not spending their money wisely? Which bit of the system is not as productive as it could be?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
I have had a chance to read the other letter from the minister to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which was, literally, thrust under our noses at the beginning of the meeting. It is quite short, and I was quite struck by the tone. It seems very different from and perhaps less contrite than the other letter. The first two pages are essentially a veritable “Why? This isn’t my fault. It’s not the Scottish Government’s fault. This is the UK Government’s fault.” I have no interest in the politics of all of this, but the minister makes some points that I thought you might reflect on, Auditor General.
On the first page, the minister says that the whole issue extends from the fact that the UK Government
“did not understand the complexity of the remedy”
and had set an unrealistic timeframe.
Three specific accusations are made. First, the UK Government should not have made the changes in the first place, because they were not compliant with the European convention on human rights. Secondly, not enough work was done to identify what timeframes would be needed for the remedy, so the deadlines were completely unrealistic. Thirdly, the UK Government was supposed to issue guidance to various public agencies, but the guidance arrived after the deadlines had passed. Those are quite profound criticisms of the UK Government by another Government. Do you have any thoughts or reflections on that?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Jamie Greene
The agency alludes to automation in its response, and it seems to have made quite a lot of progress in that regard. We can ask these questions when its representatives come before us, of course, but there is one phrase that the agency used that I quite liked: it stated that it wants
“to get it right first time”.
It will have to spend a bit of time on the calculators and on working out how to remedy. Once that is done, however, the automation of the process can allow the agency to rattle through the case backlog. I assume that that is what it is saying to us, reading between the lines. Is that not a good thing? Would you not want to spend a bit more time setting up those processes—presumably with some manual oversight and intervention—before then reaching the point at which you were comfortable that accurate figures were coming out the other end of the machine? I am sure that the last thing that the agency wants—given the context of Mr Beattie’s line of questioning—is to get through the process quickly and produce wrong information, so that people get statements that are over, under or wildly different. It is hard to criticise the agency for its approach.