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 2022 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
So, we have a project director who is an employee of the college and has been able to sign off payments to the company of which she is the director—stop me if I am getting any of this wrong, by the way. That seems to me a situation that is entirely wrong. Would you agree with that?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
Yes, please.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
So the individual knew the former chair. Do you know what the nature of that relationship was?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
They just knew each other.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
You said that you struggled to get straight answers—or clear answers. Was “Why did you appoint that individual?” one of the questions that you asked?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
I think that that is correct, convener.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
Okay. None of this should have happened, so are there questions to be asked of the Scottish Funding Council? It does not seem to have had its eye on the ball. If it had, this would possibly not have happened in the first place. Are there lessons for other colleges to learn to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
How much money could have been lost?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
The head of finance should have been approached and asked to approve the appointment, but they were not. How did it go through, then?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Graham Simpson
A number of companies are named in the report, including Paradigm Futures Ltd and Fuel Change Futures Ltd. I see from Companies House that Fuel Change Futures Ltd is now called Powering Futures Enterprise Ltd and that it has two directors, one of which is the consultant. The other is the former director of strategic partnerships and regional economy, and it was she who lost her job and went to the employment tribunal.
If you do not mind, convener, I will read from the judgment of the aforementioned tribunal, which was held in June last year. The section that I will read relates to a trawl of the email account of the director of strategic partnerships and regional economy. There is an email dated 8 January 2023 from the consultant to the claimant in the case, titled “FC cashflow” and with an attachment named “true cash flow Jan onwards”. In it, Mr Reid stated:
“the attached is what I think our real cashflow is and I have moved some income to when I think it will arrive. We have not been invoicing due to the issues and I am concerned Paradigm invoicing is either illegal or at best clandestine. However if the college invoice it could extend the project beyond 31st March and I cannot imagine they want a tail”—
that is, T-A-I-L. He goes on to say:
“In a reasonable world we would say paradigm is invoicing and as this will be the modus operandi until FC Ltd is set up properly and trading”.
The report from the tribunal later says that
“an internal auditor report”,
which we have mentioned previously,
“was produced dated 31 May 2023. The report found that the email”,
to which I have just referred,
“represented ‘false representations by words, or writing or conduct’, and that there has been an ‘intention to deceive’”—
that is what the convener quoted—
“by not disclosing all of the income relating to Fuel Change activity”.
The judgment says:
“The report went on to conclude that ‘because the amounts due to the College have not been lost the false representation and deception’”—
strong words—
“‘in withholding details of income due to the College has not been successful in gaining benefit or advantage, in that Fuel Change will not benefit as long as these amounts due are paid over to the College. Therefore a fraud is not present at this time because no financial loss has crystallized to date’.”
Well, what if there had been a loss? You have already alluded to that, Auditor General. Has the college had a lucky escape here?