Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Filter your results Hide all filters
Displaying 1114 contributions
|
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
Sharon Dowey
My final question is also a long one. The former management of FMEL are critical of the report that was produced by the turnaround director following nationalisation of the Ferguson Marine shipyard. How would you characterise that report and the process by which it was completed?
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
Sharon Dowey
One of the comments in the evidence from the former management of FMEL is:
“Audit Scotland did not consider vessel design or the initial tendering process, which FMEL argue is essential to understanding subsequent delays and cost increases.”
What is your response to that?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
In September, FMEL confirmed that it was unable to provide a builder’s refund guarantee, which was a mandatory requirement. Did FMEL give a reason why it could not give that guarantee, and why that had not been mentioned in its bid?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Do you know who was on the evaluation panel?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
So there was no documentation at all to show the communication between CMAL, Transport Scotland and the ministers, or who had actually been spoken to. Nothing at all came out when the audit was being done.
Public Audit Committee
“Social care briefing”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
The pandemic also put additional pressures on unpaid carers, because of the closure of day centres and respite services, and that resulted in increased feelings of anxiety, depression and mental exhaustion. Have all those facilities opened up again since the pandemic? If they have not, what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that they are opened to give people the support that they need?
Nicola Dickie might want to come in on that.
09:45Public Audit Committee
“Social care briefing”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Service users and carers do not always have a say in or choice about what support works best for them. Self-directed support was designed to give people choice and control over their care, including personalised options for carers to take short breaks from caring. SDS has not yet been fully implemented. People using social care support have described the hurdles that they encounter in accessing services and support as a battle, difficult, overcomplicated and bureaucratic. The pandemic has highlighted the precarious situation of many vulnerable people who rely on social care or support, and it had a negative impact on people who require support. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has expressed deep concern about the level of social care support that is likely to be available in future to people whose packages were reduced or withdrawn during the pandemic. How is the Scottish Government involving service users and carers in reforming social care services?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Thank you.
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
Good morning, Mr Boyle. Your team has provided a report that, in your words, shows “a multitude of failings”. It is a comprehensive report, even with the lack of available documentary evidence, and has raised an awful lot of concerns and a lot more questions. Once again, the issue of transparency in the Scottish Government has been raised.
The report makes it clear that the project has been riddled with problems and delays over six years. The vessels are four years late and it now looks like they will be five years late. Currently, the cost is two and a half times the original budget. Worryingly, paragraph 105 states:
“The Scottish Government is committed to paying the additional vessel costs, regardless of the final price.”
All of that is at taxpayers’ expense and, seemingly, with no accountability from ministers.
Paragraph 141 states:
“Because engines and equipment were purchased several years in advance, warranties have expired, and any repairs required before vessel 801 enters service could be expensive and time-consuming.”
We now know that there will be delays due to cabling being too short for the vessels and, to add another layer to the saga, once the vessels eventually come into service, there is now talk that they are 40m too long for the harbours that they will serve and that the masters of the boats who have been practising using simulators have been unable to dock them safely.
It seems that the story will continue, the costs will continue to rise and there might well be further delays. That is before we start talking about flawed decision-making processes, a lack of documentary evidence and the Scottish Government ignoring alarm bells that have gone off repeatedly. Therefore, it is understandable that there is a lot of interest in the report.
Exhibit 1 shows that, in August 2015, ministers announced Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—FMEL—as the preferred bidder. Will you tell me more about the decision making on that? I believe that there were seven bids from six companies. Who took the decision to award the contract to FMEL, taking into account the fact that the report says that FMEL’s bid was the most expensive?
Public Audit Committee
Section 23 Report: “New vessels for the Clyde and Hebrides: Arrangements to deliver vessels 801 and 802”
Meeting date: 21 April 2022
Sharon Dowey
In September, CMAL advised Transport Scotland of the risks and stated its preference to start the procurement process again. The report states:
“Transport Scotland fully appraised Scottish ministers of the significant financial and procurement risks”.
In October, Transport Scotland advised CMAL that Scottish ministers were aware of the risk and were content for CMAL to award the contract to FMEL. Is there any documentation to show that, and to explain the reasons why the contract still went ahead?
