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 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 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 1169 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 12 May 2022
Sharon Dowey
Do the errors appear to be intentional or unintentional?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 12 May 2022
Sharon Dowey
Thank you.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 12 May 2022
Sharon Dowey
Paragraph 11, which is also on page 4 of the report, states:
“The SFC shared a redacted copy of the report with the principal and chair once it was finalised in August.â€
As we heard, it was highly redacted. The paragraph then states:
“Other board members and the senior management team received a redacted copy of the report in October and December 2021 respectively.â€
Paragraph 12 states:
“The redacted SFC report was formally considered by the board in December 2021.â€
Do we know why it took them until December to formally consider the report?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 12 May 2022
Sharon Dowey
In paragraph 12, the report states:
“the independent auditor notes in their annual audit report that they ‘have no assurance that the action plan covers all the recommendations made, due to the level of redactions in the [SFC] report.’â€
Has the Scottish Funding Council reviewed the action plan? Is it happy that all the action points have been covered? Is it involved in making sure that the action points are actioned?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 12 May 2022
Sharon Dowey
Is it normal for a body to take out a governance review and then not share its findings with an auditor?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 12 May 2022
Sharon Dowey
Good morning. Paragraph 10, on page 4 of the report, states:
“Following discussions with ... the Lanarkshire Board ... the SFC commissioned a review of governance at the start of July 2021.â€
What prompted the Scottish Funding Council to undertake that review?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Thank you.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Who would have been responsible and accountable for recording the minutes of meetings, if they did take place?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
I have a question on ministerial directions. The process is that the accountable officer writes to the appropriate cabinet secretary expressing their concerns and seeking a direction. In response, the ministerial direction instructs the accountable officer to implement the decision. As a result of that direction, the minister, not the accountable officer, is now accountable for the decision. No direction has been made in relation to the new vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides—or none has been recorded. I think that it would be fair to assume that, with a decision of this importance, there would have been ministerial direction for the contract to have proceeded. If that paperwork cannot be found or does not exist, does the accountability lie with the accountable officer or the minister?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Paragraph 102 of the report says:
“The Turnaround report indicated that it would cost between £110.3 million and £114.3 million to complete the vessels, on top of the £83.25 million CMAL had already paid to FMEL.â€
That was more than the original cost. Was any scrutiny done to see how those figures were reached?