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 3773 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
That was a very long answer, but when I look at the Scottish public finance manual, it is crystal clear. Under the heading “Absence of Accountable Officer”, it says that if an accountable officer is expected to be absent for longer than four weeks, the principal accountable officer should be notified and action should be taken to appoint an interim replacement. The principal accountable officer is you, Mr Griffin, is it not?
I get that if somebody was off for four, five or six weeks, there might be some bridging arrangement, but if they are off for six months, that means that an organisation that is responsible for 1,600 members of staff and has a turnover of public money does not have an accountable officer for that period.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
We have an evidence session with representatives from the GFG Alliance coming up. If you can share any of the advice that you get with the committee in advance of that session, it would be very useful. In the interests of time, I will move on. I invite Graham Simpson to put some questions to you.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
But do you agree that that is about right—that approval should be given at cabinet secretary level?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
I am sorry to hear that. Following up on that, Mr Hogg or Ms Riach, can you tell us how the Scottish Government responded to Ms Brown’s view that she was being treated unfairly by the board of the organisation?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
Thank you for that opening statement. Do you accept the findings and recommendations of both of the reports that we are considering this morning?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
Did that unearth any of the things that subsequently came out in the section 22 report?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
Yes, but that is not strictly true, is it? One of the findings of the Audit Scotland report was that, for six months, there was not an accountable officer in place inside Historic Environment Scotland. If I look at the Scottish public finance manual, it is absolutely clear that if an accountable officer is expected to be absent for four weeks or more, an interim arrangement should be reached and a replacement should be put in place. For six months—not just four weeks—an accountable officer was not in place. That does not sound as though the sponsorship arrangement was working very well at all.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
Do you think that the sponsorship arrangements are fit for purpose?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
But what is also extraordinary is that this was all happening at the same time that the Water Industry Commission for Scotland was the subject of section 22 reports highlighting various characteristics that later emerged as being present in Historic Environment Scotland, such as travel expenses and the use of credit cards. Do you not think that that really ought to have been identified as a problem, given that the Scottish Government had been made aware, through the exposure by Audit Scotland and the Public Audit Committee, of what was going on at WICS? Why was the same approach not applied when the Government was looking at what was going on in Historic Environment Scotland?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Richard Leonard
By all means, Joe.