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: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
Yes, but if you look at the annex and the covering document that went to ministers asking for their confirmation, you see that it does not seem to match up in terms of concerns.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
The email that went to ministers contained those annexes. If I was a minister reading the covering email that asked to give confirmation that I was content, I would look at the clear indication that the terms are
“broadly comparable with the tender specification”
and at the assurance that previous
“financial assurances in previous shipbuilding contracts ... subsequently faced problems”
and so forth, and I would say that a decent job seemed to have been done in mitigating the risk.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
Convener, do we have time for questions on accountable officers, governance and all those other things?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
Moving on from that, what actions has the board taken to address the Sturrock report findings and to foster a much more open organisational culture?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
Absolutely—if Boyd wants to come in, he can talk about that.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
I have one last question. An issue that did not really come up in the report was Raigmore hospital. For years, it has appeared as a sort of problem child, for which costs were significantly higher in areas such as prescriptions and, I think, consultants. What progress has been made to reduce costs in relation to Raigmore?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
[Inaudible.]—actual announcement.
I am looking at documents that have been in the public domain for a very long time now. I will quote three important parts from the document of 8 October 2015, which is addressed to ministers and is a communication to them asking for their confirmation that they are satisfied and support the bid. It states:
“Procurement risk can rarely be removed entirely in complex contracts and CMAL have addressed this, taking their own legal advice, and in particular by agreeing contractual terms with FMEL which are broadly comparable with the tender specification.”
It also states:
“In the case of a challenge, CMAL would robustly defend their position on the basis of the legal advice they have received and the steps they have taken to bring the final contract clauses into broad comparability with the tender specification.”
That is an important point.
It also says:
“in discussions between Transport Scotland officials and CMAL Senior executives on Tuesday 29 September and on Friday 2 October, the CMAL Senior Executives made clear that CMAL would likely be facing similar problems no matter who the preferred tenderer was. Their Senior Executives also made the point that despite receiving stronger financial assurances in previous shipbuilding contracts they still subsequently faced problems, and in one instance significant challenges, during the respective construction phase.”
If I was a Scottish minister receiving that, I would say, “Okay, it has put in place mitigation that broadly covers the contractual tender that went out”. Would it be reasonable to give the nod on that basis? Nobody is denying that they gave the nod, but would it not be reasonable to take that into account?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
I am looking at the information that ministers were receiving. They were being told that things were broadly comparable with the tender specification. Would they have a reason to challenge that?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
Looking at the detail that has been put into the report and so on, we might sit round this table and agree, but ministers were receiving only those few papers, on which they were basing their decision.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 28 April 2022
Colin Beattie
From looking at the documentation, there is no doubt that ministers gave approval in some way. Basically, what is missing is the piece of paper that says that they did that. I do not think that anybody is disputing that that approval was given—at least, that is what I interpret from the documents. If I was a minister seeing that coming forward, I would be reassured in giving the decision that there was some sort of comparability with the tender specification. That is what the covering document says.