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 1570 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
That is helpful. Just to be clear, at the moment, there is no identified immediate risk of the Scottish Government being a creditor to that business, if it is liquidated. Is that correct?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
Any interventions.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
Good morning. I have a supplementary question on the first line of questioning. Mr Irwin, in response to one of the earlier questions, you stated—and correct me if I am wrong—that you have full confidence in the board of FMPG, including its current chair. Will you qualify that and explain how you have come to that conclusion, given the yard’s inability to compete in the open market for new business and its cost overruns, which, I am sure, other members will want to address? Do you believe that the current board at the yard is creating a sustainable future for it? If so, will you qualify that and explain how you have come to that conclusion?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I am getting a sense that there is a reticence on your part to admit that, if things were not going in the right direction, you would be unwilling to criticise the board, because that would be a reflection on your input and a measure of your failure, as the strategic commercial asset division. As you are so heavily invested in the strategy and the business model, if that fails, you have failed. Therefore, you would not be willing to go on record and criticise the board. At what point would you sack the board, or when would you recommend that ministers should sack the board, if you were unhappy that the business was not run to its full ability?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
I want to get this straight, because £35 million is a lot of money—it is nearly the original planned cost of the whole vessel, and it is on top of what has already been spent. We are talking about some really big numbers. I am trying to get my head around what is driving that huge overrun. There must be an elephant in the room. Something must be driving such a massive cost overrun. Is it something that was installed that does not work? Is it something that has not been installed but which is now defunct? Is it the cost of the people? I have no idea whether the overrun involves capital expenditure or resource spending. At the end of the day, it is public money, so we surely have a right to understand what the yard is asking for.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
Equally, to your current knowledge, if that business collapsed, that would have no knock-on or sideways effect on any current Scottish Government investments. Is that correct?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
I refer back to the previous line of questioning. This may be a wider SCAD question. It is about how you take decisions or make recommendations to ministers about interventions.
I presume that each of your current interventions was inherited when SCAD was set up. They are not proactive decisions, if you like, that were made by your department to intervene in the market. You have BiFab, Prestwick and Lochaber—steel, shipbuilding and airports. Those are heavy industries and strategic national assets.
Another member posed a question about the fact that a lot of businesses knock on your door looking for support and help when they are failing or in distress. My question is this. Since SCAD has been established, how many other companies have you actually supported?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
I am really keen to get an answer to the question, if that is okay.
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
Do you not see that the Government has clearly made decisions to intervene, financially, in certain industries and certain companies to the tune of billions of pounds of public money? People are knocking on your door on a daily basis, looking for support. An interesting point was raised earlier about other sectors, such as culture and the arts, those that have a social impact, the third sector and so on. Organisations are really hitting financial walls. Mr Rhatigan made the point that, when those organisations go under, the people who are employed in them find it more difficult to find alternative work and, therefore, the economic outlook for those people is poor. However, none of those organisations seems to have received any intervention from you, so can you see why people might think that you are pumping billions of pounds into steel, shipbuilding and Prestwick airport—I am not saying not to do that—and that the other side is getting absolutely nothing?
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Jamie Greene
I am sure that that is the case, yes.
We could spend all day talking about the business investment framework, but we do not have time. You will be aware of the heavily redacted reports that the committee has been given. I have a simple question, given the sheer levels of redaction. For the benefit of people watching, I am holding up what we were presented with—the risk register, the contingency and so on are blacked-out pages. I am not making this up. If I were to submit an FOI request for this document, would I receive more information than I have been given as a committee member?