Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 14 September 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2372 contributions

|

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 May 2022

Willie Coffey

There remains the issue that Chris Ashurst perfectly described of people having their homes valued at £0 because of a process. What is your view on that, Chris? How can people find themselves in those circumstances because of a process that is not statutory?

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 May 2022

Willie Coffey

Marie McNair talked about zero-valued homes and EWS1 certification. My question is for Craig Ross and Laura Hughes, who represent surveyors and insurers, respectively. Is there a legal issue if a certification scheme that has no statutory basis—and which my notes say creates particular issues in the context of Scots property law—is used to tell a homeowner that their property is valued at £0? Does hanging that value on a non-statutory process create a legal issue?

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 May 2022

Willie Coffey

Laura Hughes, can you add to our understanding of the issue?

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 May 2022

Willie Coffey

That is interesting. However, if a seller chose to contest that valuation, its defender would surely point to the certification process, which is non-statutory, to justify it.

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 10 May 2022

Willie Coffey

I thank everyone for their answers, which have also covered my question on the building assessment programme.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 28 April 2022

Willie Coffey

My questions relate to the application of quality standards in design and construction, Auditor General. As you and members are well aware, that is a common theme at the committee over many years.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee took around a year to carry out its inquiry into the matter and its findings were published in December 2020. Its report, which has more than 100 pages, is full of commentary, conclusions and recommendations. Your report came out in March this year. Did you, in your analysis of the situation, make any substantive new findings compared to what the committee reported in its inquiry?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 28 April 2022

Willie Coffey

I was just coming to that particular issue. Paragraph 50 of the report says that “CMAL could only advise” and not require Ferguson to alter its approach to design and construction. I have never heard of a quality standard worth its salt in which the customer cannot instruct the builder to carry out its wishes.

What then emerged were these owner observation reports that members will have read about in the various documents. In quality management parlance, these are change requests, which are common in any other effective quality standard. However, according to your report, there were 346 such reports, only half of which had been carried out by the time Ferguson went into administration. Was the scale of that particular outcome unusual in your experience? Was it a symptom of the failure to agree in advance the designs of this peculiar construction, effectively meaning that everyone paid the price later on in the project?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of NHS Highland”

Meeting date: 28 April 2022

Willie Coffey

Looking ahead, are you confident, and can you give the committee an assurance, that you can continue to make the savings that you are making and that, after the pandemic, you can continue to deliver the quality and level of care that the public in the NHS Highland area expects?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 28 April 2022

Willie Coffey

This is my last question for the moment. Again, it is on the quality issue, which is crucial and goes to the heart of much of all this. In paragraph 62 of the report, you mention that

“the quality of fabrication was not acceptable”

and that

“vessel parts were not being built to the correct specification or standards.”

In paragraph 138, you report that Ferguson had installed

“1,400 cables that ... were too short”

and that, following a survey by the newly appointed turnaround director, all of them will have to be replaced, which will lead to more expense and more delay. The report notes that there are more than 8,000 remaining cables still to go in.

I simply ask this: who on earth sanctioned the installation of cables that were too short to do a particular job? Why did nobody spot that early on, at the outset? Why did it take a new director to come in to suddenly discover that? In your view, Auditor General, does that not point to incompetent management and construction processes from the outset?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”

Meeting date: 28 April 2022

Willie Coffey

So it was not noticeable until late on the process that the cables in the vessels were too short.