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 681 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Edward Mountain
The full lid has yet to be lifted on this dismal affair. Our islanders desperately need the long-delayed ferries, and they deserve answers. The contract was shambolic and scandalously organised, and it really needs a public inquiry.
15:29Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Edward Mountain
Will the minister take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Edward Mountain
Will the member give way?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Edward Mountain
We now know that the Scottish Government has decided to make HIE fund the additional repairs to the Cairngorm funicular railway. That money will have to come from HIE’s annual budget. We know that the repair bill will be well in excess of £20 million. When the Scottish Government made that decision, it knew that some Highland businesses would, as a consequence, lose the financial support that they get from HIE. Will the Government review the decision, which I believe will cripple HIE and Highland businesses?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Edward Mountain
I agree with the minister that going for a walk is probably one the greatest things that someone can do. In 2005, local authorities were committing £16.5 million a year to help maintain outdoor access facilities and provide rangers. That has now dropped to £11 million, and five local authorities have nothing at all within their budgets for outdoor access. Does the minister not think that it would be a good idea for local authorities to buy into this in the same way that the Scottish Government does? Will she give them the funds to do so?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 3 May 2022
Edward Mountain
Will the minister take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 3 May 2022
Edward Mountain
Will the minister take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 3 May 2022
Edward Mountain
Farmers—of which I am one, as declared in my entry in the register of members’ interests—often carry pyrotechnics to frighten birds away from crops, and they could be in possession of those fireworks when they are moving around the countryside. Has the minister given consideration to that? What protection will she give to farmers who are moving around the countryside with exploding rockets—which is what they are—that are used to frighten away geese, for example?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Edward Mountain
Yet again, we are discussing the inability of this incompetent Scottish Government to keep our islands connected. Four years ago, we needed to build one ferry every year to keep our fleet fit for purpose. Now, according to CalMac, because of the Government’s failings, we need to build two and a half ferries every year for the next 10 years to get back on track. That is a sad indictment.
Seven years ago, a contract was awarded to build two ferries; today, it appears that neither of them is close to completion. It took seven years to build an aircraft carrier and yet this Government has nothing to show for the hundreds of millions of pounds that we have spent—what a farce.
What went wrong? Things started to go wrong even before the contract was awarded. If we cast our minds back to 2014, the year of the divisive but definitive referendum, in August of that year, the Ferguson’s yard went into receivership, which was not good news for Scotland or the case for independence. Resolving the issue became a priority for the Government and for Alex Salmond. How fortuitous it was that, within a month—and before the referendum—a key SNP financial supporter and its economic adviser stepped up and purchased the yard. That was a coincidence, surely, and was not, as some have suggested, on the back of a promise that the yard would be awarded Government ferry contracts—perish that thought.
However, barely a year later, Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—the new name of the yard—had indeed been awarded the contract. Let me list some of the attributes of the yard that were identified at the time of its tender. It had a highly skilled workforce, no doubt, but they had no management experience of shipbuilding, and none of the managers had been near a boat. It was the most expensive tender and had the most unrealistic delivery time. The company could not provide any evidence of financial security, and did not even have the support of the purchaser, CMAL. Bearing that in mind, why would it not be given the contract?
Next, we need to look at how the Scottish Government managed the contract. As Willie Rennie said, numerous SNP ministers played pass the parcel with this hot potato and they all had their fingers burned. There was Nicola Sturgeon, who had a hotline to Monaco and the owner and launched hull 801 in 2017 with wooden windows and funnels connected to engines that were not actually there. There was Humza Yousaf, the transport minister who could not even explain why there was a delay to the ferries when we passed the construction date. There was Derek Mackay, who signed off the payment of £127 million for a £97 million contract to Ferguson Marine, only to end up with two rusting hulls.
There was Michael Matheson, as cabinet secretary for transport, who assured everyone almost up until he left the appointment that everything was going right and that nothing was wrong. There was Kate Forbes—I am glad that she is back in the chamber—who oversaw the yard palming off control to a turnaround director, who achieved no turnaround of the yard’s fortunes. There was Fiona Hyslop, who claimed that the shipyard had a bright future ahead of it but had no knowledge of the depth of the problem, and there was Graeme Dey, who knew of the problems and who was content for a shipyard in Turkey to build the next hull.
Now it falls to Jenny Gilruth, who, after five weeks of being asked when the ferries would be delivered, was unable to confirm the date, leaving it to Kate Forbes to do so today. That is a pretty disappointing roll of honour; frankly, it is a roll of shame and each and every one of them should hang their heads in shame and embarrassment.
Who was that turnaround director who was appointed by the finance secretary? He was appointed after a single telephone interview and he of course came with the relevant shipbuilding experience, having been a cruise ship engineer 30 years ago. The previous company that he turned around went into liquidation shortly after he left it.
Business experience tells me that, for the first six months of a turnaround director’s appointment, they are part of the problem; after that, they become the problem. For nearly two years, the yard struggled on, rearranging the stores and rearranging the yard layout. Some people have said to me that it was about as useful as reorganising the chairs on the Titanic after it had hit the iceberg.
Finally, I want to mention costs. Apparently, this was a fixed-price contract, with 15 staged payments for each ferry. Someone therefore needs to explain to me and to the islanders how the Government allowed the payment of 82 per cent of the contract value before the ferries were even completed. That was how much the Government had paid when the yard went into receivership, but it does not stop there. Without CMAL’s knowledge, the Government lent FMEL £45 million—the Government did not tell CMAL that it had lent that money, when CMAL was still signing off payments before they went to the Government.
Today and at every opportunity, the Government has swept under the carpet the costs of the additional harbour infrastructure that is necessary to allow the new ferries to run. We have not even considered how much has been spent in each harbour to allow the ferries to come in, or the cost of the liquefied natural gas tanks. That is interesting, because we commissioned the ferries even though we do not have any LNG, so it will have to be delivered to the ferries in lorries that travel from Kent to allow them to run. I am sure that those are really good green policies.
When it comes down to it, we have heard today—unless I have got it wrong—that there is about another £140 million to be spent on the ferries, and we have already spent £140 million. My belief is that we will probably have spent £100 million on infrastructure by the time that we have completed it all. I think that we will have little change from £0.5 billion. If we open the books, we will find out the true costs at all stages.
I know that the Auditor General has been quoted, but I will quote him again. He said:
“The failure to deliver these two ferries, on time and on budget, exposes a multitude of failings. A lack of transparent decision-making, a lack of project oversight and no clear understanding of what significant sums of public money have achieved. And, crucially, communities still don’t have the lifeline ferries they were promised years ago.”
The situation is a complete mess and a complete demonstration of catastrophic mismanagement, as the REC Committee pointed out in 2021. What we really need is a public inquiry.
16:07Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Edward Mountain
To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of FOI requests made to it were answered in full within 20 working days, within the last 12 months. (S6O-00897)