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 2221 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
On the small vessel replacement programme, the consideration is 60 per cent quality and 40 per cent price—
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
Absolutely.
Clearly, best value is not about what is going to be the cheapest; it is about—
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
When it comes to investment and what you want to do going forward, what are the initial steps? Are you at liberty to indicate what the £9 million would be invested in? Would it be in plant?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
Mr Irwin, do you want to comment?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
It is positive to hear that. I am quite sure that the workforce and the local community will be delighted to hear that.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
Let me pose the question first.
I genuinely think that it would be useful to get an absolute timeline of events. The Audit Scotland report states that
“The investigation identified that the former chief executive approved the ... payments without the knowledge of the board or the remuneration committee”.
However, according to what is in the Official Report of the NZET Committee meeting, there was an actual written formal agreement. If there was a formal agreement between CMAL and Ferguson’s, I do not understand why the Audit Scotland report would say what it has said. It also does not seem to tie in totally with what Mr Tydeman has said.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
That would be helpful. Thank you.
On the future of the yard, Mr Petticrew and I have had a number of discussions in the past and I think that we share the same view on the yard’s past, present and future.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
Thank you very much, convener. Thanks, too, for the build-up earlier.
I want a couple of points to be clarified before I get into the main thrust of my line of questioning. At a meeting of the NZET Committee in early January, Jim Anderson spoke about a lessons learned document that was to be published by the end of January. This morning, there was some dialogue about documents. Is that the same document, or are they separate? Clearly, the lessons learned from the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa projects are hugely important.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
If possible, yes.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Stuart McMillan
Yes. That is helpful.
My second question goes back to the points about Mr Tydeman. At the same meeting of the NZET Committee, at column 37 in the Official Report, Kevin Hobbs was asked questions regarding the agreement to second Andy Crossan to Ferguson’s. Mr Hobbs referenced you, Mr Dishon, and said that you questioned him. We have information in the section 22 report, from paragraph 29 onwards, as well as the information from Mr Tydeman, which was touched on earlier, in which he says that the arrangement was
“approved by the chairman ... at the time.”
I accept that that was not you, Mr Miller.