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 1492 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
Absolutely.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
What are the intentions for the long-term future of the yard? Is it still the stated intention of the Scottish Government to return the yard to private ownership? If so, when will that happen?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
Right.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
I will spread my questions across two parts, because other members would like to come in.
Mr Petticrew, it is really good to hear of your passion for the yard. I know that you inherited what has, over the years, been a very difficult situation on the journey to deliver ferries. Anyone who lives, works or has roots in that part of the world will share your ambition to see the yard succeed. I hope that we will talk a little more about its future, in due course.
I will pick up on one or two things. I will talk about the budget and finances briefly. In our evidence session on 16 January, there was some confusion over some of the numbers involved, so I want to see whether we can clarify them—in particular, about the money that the Scottish Government has allocated to the yard.
10:30The Parliament agreed to the general principles of the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill at stage 1 yesterday. The draft budget has a line for Ferguson Marine of £47.9 million for the coming financial year. In addition, a statement was made last year about £14.2 million of capital funding being made available for—I presume—investment in and upgrading of the yard’s infrastructure. Perhaps sitting alongside that is a pot of cash to complete the MV Glen Rosa. We will come to that in a second.
Can we clarify the numbers? Does the £47 million or £48 million in the draft budget include or exclude the £14 million of capital expenditure? Will any money that is needed in addition to what has already been put aside to complete the Glen Rosa—it sounds like it might incur more costs—come out of that, or is there a separate pot of cash to complete the Glen Rosa?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
What happens if Mr Petticrew crunches the numbers, comes to you and says that the second vessel will cost £X more? Do you have headway in the £47 million, or would you have to seek extra cash from the Government?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
I presume that if it was a small figure, you could scratch around in the Government coffers and find it, but what if it was in the millions?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
Absolutely. We all share that view.
I have a final question in this section, before I let other members come in, although I will come back later to talk about the future of the yard. My question is about a general feeling that I get from what I have heard this morning and from some of the other commentary that we have had.
Mr Irwin, you said in your opening statement that the failings were unacceptable, and I thank you for that. All the blame, though, seems to have been put at the door of Mr Tydeman, the former CEO, but he is just one of a number of CEOs who have been through the revolving door of Ferguson Marine over the years. This is just an observation, but I get the impression that he has been made something of a scapegoat for many of the long-term failings in delivering the project on time and on budget.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
At the moment, the yard is obviously striving to secure new business. I have no view on this, but does the fact that the yard is publicly owned—or state owned, if you prefer that terminology—inhibit or improve its ability to compete for, tender for and win new business? That has never really been clear to me.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
You talked about a couple of potential orders. I recall my first visit to the yard, in 2016, when I sat with the then owner of the yard in the boardroom, where I am sure you have had a number of meetings over the years. I was given a very lengthy presentation about the pipeline of business that it was pitching and bidding for and the business that it was in advanced conversations about. To my knowledge, not one of those possibilities came to fruition or came to pass due to the situation that the yard found itself in, the receivership and eventual nationalisation. The list of business that it was pitching for was very long.
You mentioned that there are potentially a couple of contracts coming through. What I am getting at is whether, when the Glen Rosa sets sail later this year, we hope, there will still be 290 people working in the yard. Will there be enough business to keep them in work?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Jamie Greene
Are you saying that you can be beaten on price because Turkey and countries in Asia and in the middle east will build ships cheaper, for many different reasons, including reasons that perhaps we would not agree with, such as the conditions for their workforce, how much they pay their staff, and their health and safety records—the things that we like to excel at in our shipbuilding community in Scotland? Therefore, is your plea to the Government that, that issue aside, it should look at the wider macroeconomic benefits of putting this work into Inverclyde? Is that what you are saying?