Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 19 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2702 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I will follow on from the line of questioning about Ferguson Marine’s business plan. According to you, the plan

“assumed the direct award of the contract for the Small Vessel Replacement Programme”.

It was wrong to make that assumption, as it cannot be assumed that the firm is going to get that work. Indeed, it later transpired that the firm is now one of six firms in line for that contract, so there is no guarantee that it will get it. Does that not fatally hull the business plan?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Before John Boyd comes in on that, can you say whether there has there been any attempt to change the business plan in light of the new development that means that the firm has to compete for the work? I think that it was entirely predictable that that would be the case. Has Ferguson Marine done any revision to the business plan?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

So, those are basically costs that the yard has but cannot charge for. It is not getting that money back but it potentially amounts to an extraordinary figure—£1 million a month.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I have one more question. Others will cover other areas, but I want to ask you a question about something that is not covered in your report. Will you bring us up to speed with your efforts to scrutinise Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd’s accounting records?

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Graham Simpson

I welcome the investment at Coalburn in South Lanarkshire, but in the light of the announcement yesterday by the National Energy System Operator of a pause in the applications process for new entrants to the connections queue—because there are far more of them than there is demand—does the First Minister agree that there should be a national strategy for energy storage in Scotland that matches approval by the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit for battery storage sites with actual demand and with where there is community buy-in?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Graham Simpson

That would be useful.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Thanks.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Are you saying that the retainer should have covered those costs?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Okay, that is fine.

As I said, I will not go through the entire list, but there was another item that caught my eye. In paragraph 80, you say:

“Our testing also identified two further instances of meals, totalling £590.23, where the cost per head exceeded £50 per head and included external guests. One of these was a meal at the Road Hole Restaurant in St Andrews costing £370 that was attended by a visiting water services regulator and his wife.”

Is it normal practice that somebody’s spouse would be covered when being entertained?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Graham Simpson

Despite the assurances that you have been given, are you continuing to monitor the spending on an on-going basis?

09:30