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 2352 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
On that point, you are saying that this was a one-off. The year that we are discussing is the only year for which there has been no budget.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
Okay. Paragraph 16 on page 7 of the report says:
“UHI Perth’s appointed auditor”—
who I assume is Nicola Wright—
“informed the board that the preparation and monitoring of a budget is a crucial element of monitoring the financial position of the college. The auditor recommended that the college produce and monitor a budget each financial year.”
That is just a statement of the obvious. At what point did you have that discussion, and what was the response?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
I just want to get the timescales right. You came in when it was too late to rectify what had happened.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
So, in your view, there was nothing that could have been done to stop this problem arising.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
Okay. We have already referred to paragraph 15, which says:
“Board papers show members discussed the possibility of agreeing a deficit budget and UHI confirmed it was an option that it would discuss with the SFC. The board wanted to achieve a balanced budget. There was a degree of reluctance to agree a deficit budget and uncertainty over whether the SFC would permit it. It is unclear from the board papers whether there was a resolution to those discussions.”
Do you have any other information on the discussions that UHI planned to have with the Scottish Funding Council?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
So, you are not really clear whether there was actually a formal decision not to have a budget.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
I want to go into this a little bit deeper. What I cannot get clear is why, when Nicola Wright discovered something that should not have happened—that is, that there was no budget when there should have been one—she did not ask why. If I were her, I would have found the people who were responsible for that and ask them why that came about. Did you do that?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
Okay. There are a few unanswered questions, convener, but I will leave it there.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
Is that because the people you spoke to were trying to put you off the scent—waffling and dancing around the houses?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 October 2025
Graham Simpson
Okay. Maybe we will have more luck if we get people in. You never know.
I have one more question, which relates to paragraph 14 on page 7. That says:
“Current college staff suggested to us that the college prioritised resourcing work to address financial sustainability over setting an in-year budget for 2023/24.”
Was it clear who in the college made the decision to prioritise resourcing work?