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 2716 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
I will not take any more interventions.
It is little wonder that the good people of Arran elected a Conservative councillor—Timothy Billings—last week. Islanders such as those on Arran are the most important people in all this. They are the ones who cannot get to hospital or to work, cannot get deliveries, cannot see family and friends, and, in some cases, cannot get to school, and all because we have an ageing and unreliable fleet on the west coast with no clear plan for renewing vessels. It does not matter to islanders who runs the ferries or where they are built; they just want them to be there.
Our motion mentions the 15 stage payments that were agreed for each vessel, and there could be more than that. It also talks about the lack of engagement with the experienced workforce, about which Edward Mountain will have much more to say.
I have been calling for the Minister for Transport to release the project Neptune report, which, we are led to believe, will set out options for how we might procure and run ferries. Jenny Gilruth said that she could not release it during the council election campaign. Well, that reason does not exist now, so she should publish it this week. Only then can we start to have a sensible conversation on this topic, which is what we need to have. We should not get bogged down in ideology. We should listen to the voices of islanders, such as those on the Mull and Iona Ferry Committee. They have been making some very good points about vessel design and how we should look at potentially breaking up the west coast contract into smaller chunks—which is not, as some believe, privatisation.
We will support the Labour amendment in the name of my good friend Neil Bibby. Unfortunately, the amendment in the name of my other very good friend, Jenny Gilruth, is, I am afraid, devoid of hope and we cannot support it. She should speak to me next time, and I can send her some of my positivity, because that is what the islanders of Scotland are looking out for, and it is not what they are getting.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the way the Scottish Government has been running ferry services has been a scandal; calls on the Scottish Government to say why it awarded the contract for ferries 801 and 802 to Ferguson Marine Engineering Limited against the advice of its own experts; is concerned about why 15 stage payments were agreed for each ferry; notes concerns that the deal may have broken EU state aid rules; further notes concerns that the lack of documentary evidence to explain the contract award could be in breach of the law; is disappointed that the Scottish Government failed to listen to the experienced workforce who had concerns about the management of the yard; believes that the yard could have survived without the orders for vessels 801 and 802; agrees with the view of the majority of people in Scotland who think that the Scottish National Party administration has done a bad job of running ferries; is concerned that this will contribute to island depopulation, and calls on the Scottish Government to spell out how it plans to run and procure ferry services in the future.
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
Will the member give way?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
We now know that John Swinney was involved in the decision to award the contract to Ferguson’s. Should not John Swinney, who was involved, make a statement in the chamber?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
In his original answer, the minister referred to the Stewartfield Way project, which is a frankly ludicrous scheme under the city deal to create a new dual carriageway around East Kilbride. It is a scheme that nobody wants that will create no jobs and harm the environment. Can the minister give us an update on where we are with that scheme?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for making another point of order, but news has leaked out during the course of the debate—disgracefully, on social media—and we now know that John Swinney was involved in the decision—
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
There was work at the yard.
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
He is going to apologise now. [Interruption.]
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
The e-mail that has just been read out does not say why the decision was taken, why the advice not to award the contract was ignored and whether there were discussions between Mr Mackay, Mr Brown, Mr Swinney and Ms Sturgeon, does it?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the boycott announced by the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association will have on the number of outstanding trials in Scotland. (S6O-01054)
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Meeting date: 11 May 2022
Graham Simpson
I thank the minister for that rather strange answer, in which she appeared to say that there will be no impact. Perhaps she can clarify that and give a clearer response to this question.
Solicitors are clearly saying that they have had enough. Does the minister agree with the Law Society of Scotland that a long-term legal aid fee review needs to be established as soon as possible? In the meantime, what is she doing to support the victims of crime who will be anxious about the lengthy delays that they are set to face as a result of the action being taken?