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 2597 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Did you ever challenge FMEL on how the money was being spent, given what was uncovered about it not paying its suppliers and so on? Was it £9 million or something?
10:00Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
I will follow on from my colleague, Craig Hoy, and be absolutely parochial about this, because I am the constituency MSP for the area in which Sheriffhall falls, so I get a huge amount of correspondence on it. I put on record my support for the Sheriffhall development, but also there is massive support among residents, particularly in the Midlothian area and in the Shawfair development. There is a great deal of anxiety that the development is being delayed. There is always a fear that the longer something is delayed, the more at risk it becomes. How secure is the funding for Sheriffhall? Is it set in stone?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Here is another easy one for you. Coming back to the BRG, which is a great bone of contention in this, when and how did CMAL first became aware that FMEL was unable to provide a full BRG?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Were you aware that in March 2015 Scottish ministers advised FMEL that a full BRG was not required?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Before I get into the main line of my questioning, I would like clarification on one or two points that we have already been talking about.
The first is about decision making on the contract. Audit Scotland has had access to the same exchanges, documentation and so on as everybody else. On 21 April, Audit Scotland said that it was
“clear in our judgment that there was no formal written authority.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 21 April 2022; c 36.]
Its contention relates mainly to that approval.
The CMAL paper said:
“CMAL was effectively instructed to proceed with the purchase from FMEL despite the concerns raised ... As explained in the risk paper, CMAL were not content with the final draft contracts. In these circumstances, the Ministerial approval process was not normal. CMAL made no recommendation to Transport Scotland or to the Minister.”
There is a clear trail of key decisions and the basis on which they were taken.
We have seen all the documents that have been published. I mention in particular the email from Transport Scotland dated 9 April 2015. It says:
“The Scottish Ministers have also seen and understood that [the Director of Vessels’] paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the Contracts.”
It is clear from the published documents that ministers were advised of the risks that had been identified by CMAL and of the mitigations that were put in place, and came to a decision on that basis. Is that a fair assessment?
09:45Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Good, thank you. That was an easy one.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Okay, that is fair enough.
I will turn to the money, which is always far more interesting. There were comments in the report of 9 December 2020 by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee that highlighted the fact that some milestone payments or stage payments were somehow out of order. The clear finding was that they were being constructed in such a way that qualification for payments was not necessarily in the order that it should have been, and so on. We have also heard that that is normal for the industry. Is it normal for the industry?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
I am a layman. I have no idea how to build a ship, but in any contract, milestones exist to say that a certain sequence of events has taken place leading to a critical point at which payment is triggered. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee found that that was not the case and heard evidence that that was not the case. Why is that practice okay in the industry? I am trying to understand that. To have one isolated event that will result in a payment then another isolated event that will result in a payment, although the bits in between have not been done, seems odd to me. I do not understand.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
Okay. You paid FMEL £83.25 million. That is about 85 per cent of the contract value.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 30 June 2022
Colin Beattie
At the time of nationalisation, there was every indication that the vessels were far from ready to be launched. Did you have any questions about the amount of public funds that had been paid in, the lack of progress on these vessels and the fact that they were far behind where they should have been? Surely the milestones and the robust checks that took place should have thrown up quite clearly that some of these works were not happening.