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 1122 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
What should happen? If there is a failure to invest, does the member think that the yard should close?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Does the Deputy First Minister recognise that there is a chicken-and-egg question there—
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Will the member take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
The report by Audit Scotland and the subsequent report by the Public Audit Committee are stark and emphatic, and Richard Leonard’s words emphasised that. We already know about the Government’s incompetence, which has led to years of suffering for island communities and to a £400 million bill being picked up by the taxpayer. That is why we have taken the unusual step of seeking to amend the motion. That is not something that would normally happen, but it is important, because the issues raised by the committee’s report are substantial.
I urge members to read page 11 of the report, which lists the committee’s first four conclusions. The first conclusion is that the committee has “significant concerns” about the long-term financial sustainability of the yard. The second conclusion is that part of the problem is the “significant reputational damage” that has been caused by the process of overseeing the two vessels. Although the third conclusion is that the committee “notes” the Scottish Government’s financial support, the fourth conclusion is that “urgent investment” is required to secure the yard’s future.
I point members back to the second conclusion, on the reputational damage to the yard. Why did that reputational damage come about? It came about because the Scottish National Party Government used the yard as a political football for a political stunt. That politicisation is the exact reason for the reputational damage.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
I will do in a moment.
There is not just a financial story to be told—the Government and, indeed, all of us have a moral responsibility to ensure that the investment goes in, so that the yard can have the future that we all know that it deserves.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
If it is brief.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
It is not extra.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Perhaps she can respond to that point.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
What has happened since then? A £400 million bill is being picked up by the taxpayer—that is on the Scottish Government.
We all know that, beyond the Glen Rosa, the key to the long-term sustainability of Ferguson’s yard is simple—it needs orders. It is welcome that Ferguson’s has secured work through BAE Systems to build the next generation of Royal Navy warships. That is proof that the United Kingdom Labour Government’s investment in defence is supporting skilled jobs in Scotland.
However, the subcontracted fabrication work on HMS Birmingham is not, on its own, enough to sustain the yard and its workforce; Ferguson’s needs a steady supply of whole-ship orders. As we have heard, the Government promised to invest £14.2 million in modernisation, but, 18 months later, only £500,000 of that has been forthcoming. That is not good enough.
During that time, the Scottish Government has issued a contract for seven small electric Caledonian MacBrayne ferries—but to a Polish firm. A Scottish yard that employs Scottish workers and that is owned by the Scottish Government is losing vital contracts to foreign yards, while the Government prevaricates on its investment promise to make the yard competitive. This is a party whose mantra is, apparently, “Stronger for Scotland”. That is almost as big a joke as using two ferries as a punchline. It is laughable, but that is the catch-22 situation that the Scottish Government has created: it will not provide the money until orders are forthcoming, but the yard cannot secure those orders without the investment that it needs.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft] Business until 18:01
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is clear—this has not changed since 2014—that there are several criteria that can be used, including local context and social value, and a direct award is certainly possible. If the Scottish Government wants to prevent the issue from being a political football, it should provide the yard with the investment that it needs in order to operate.
That brings me to my second point. We know that CMAL did not take account of the immense social value that the small ferries contract would have brought to Scotland and to Inverclyde. Despite scoring strongly on the technical aspect of the bid, Ferguson Marine lost out on price to a yard that has no obligation to meet the same high standard of labour laws that we have in this country. The Government needs to develop, at pace, a model of public procurement that takes account of social value. Procurement law has not changed since 2014—