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 1837 contributions
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Indeed.
The total cost of the upgrade has not changed much since we last spoke about it. It is around £2.2 million. My primary concern is that you have not negotiated a price for the product, yet you are still quite confident about how much it will cost. How does that work?
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Does that account for your legal and professional fees jumping by a third, year on year?
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Oh, I see. So, just for clarification, it is already in the £15.8 million figure, not on top of it. If it is in that line, it will have appeared—
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
I am not suggesting that it had been—I just wanted to clarify where it sat.
My big issue with this is that I have yet to see a public body that has delivered a massive information technology infrastructure upgrade on time and on budget. If Audit Scotland cannot do it, nobody can, so I appreciate that there is a huge amount of pressure on you to deliver.
Of course, the figure is just the implementation cost—that is, the cost of getting the product live. What is really unclear is what the on-going costs might be down the line. I appreciate that that is not relevant to next year’s budget, because the project is not going live next year, but it will be a matter of concern to the commission in the future. What scale do you have in mind for that?
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
My final, and slightly different, question is about risk. The direction of travel for your modernisation project suggests that it will be very heavily reliant on the Microsoft cloud for data storage and access. People in the very Parliament that we are sitting in know what happens when that goes down—it can thwart day-to-day business to the point, almost, of thwarting democracy.
I have concerns about your moving to an entirely virtual model. I am looking for some reassurance that you are able to operate on a day-to-day basis in any scenario—and that is before you look at third-party involvement, such as the types of espionage in other public bodies that we already know about, or espionage that is actively taking place. I am not necessarily wondering how wonderful your security systems are, but we know that those systems can go down, which has an effect. It has happened to the Parliament, so it could happen to you.
11:00Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Good old-fashioned spreadsheets will be back out soon enough.
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Good morning. I have a wide range of ground to cover, so I will get straight into it. I will start with budget-related questions.
I refer to the appendix on page 21 of your budget proposal, which essentially provides a three-year snapshot of your expenditure. I will pluck some numbers out of it. We tend to look at year-on-year comparisons for budget asks, but I think that it is helpful to look at the figures for 2024-25 versus what you are asking from us in the proposal for 2026-27. What struck me most was that your income seems to be quite stable. It is sitting at around £25.5 million each year—there is variance, but it is not a huge amount, and the amount that you are forecasting for next year is pretty similar to the 2024-25 figure.
Interestingly, the amount that you are paying to external companies—the amount that is going out the door—has gone down by around £1 million over the same period.
Your revenue is stable and the amount that you are paying to the six private firms that are doing a third of your work is coming down. However, you asked for around £10.5 million from the SCF in 2024-2025 and that figure has jumped to around £16 million for next year—that is a massive jump, which we have to justify. How do you justify it?
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
But you have also included it in the legal and professional fees line of the budget.
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Why are you proposing a reduction in your training budget for the next financial year?
Meeting of the Commission
Meeting date: 11 December 2025
Jamie Greene
Okay—thank you. That is now on the record.
Returning to my question about the huge jump, I note that your people costs were £23.7 million in the financial year 2024-25 and that you are projecting them to be £26.7 million next year. That is a jump of £3 million. What I cannot quite work out is why your head count is reducing while your people costs are rocketing. I can only assume that there are two reasons for that—the absorption into the people costs of the NI increase of £500,000, which we helpfully funded last year, and the 3.8 per cent uplift. However, even with those factors, the figures do not quite add up to such a large increase. How can your people costs go up by so much while you are forecasting a reduced head count?