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 2264 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 14 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
That is coming across strongly.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 14 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
You have said that there should be a seat on the board. Should there also be committee structures for particular sectors?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
My amendment 321 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to take account of
“the priorities of the Scottish Ministers in relation to education”
and of recommendations made by bodies, including committees of the Scottish Parliament, whose remit includes matters relating to education policy.
My amendment 322 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to have regard for people who use British Sign Language, have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or have additional support needs. Given the circumstances in schools for pupils with additional support needs and the extensive information that we heard in advance of stage 2 about the importance of BSL and people with other protected characteristics, amendment 322 sets out what I think are particularly important aspects that the chief inspector must have regard to when carrying out their functions.
Amendment 323 provides regulation-making powers for ministers to say who is included as a specified body, and amendment 358, which is consequential on that, confirms that any regulations will be made under the affirmative procedure.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
This group of my amendments seek to address a gap that has been identified in inspection in relation to secure care and education. Amendment 320 would create a duty on the chief inspector, in the exercise of their function, to consider the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure accommodation in Scotland. Although the chief inspector inspected the educational aspect of secure accommodation, the Care Inspectorate covers other aspects. That is considered to be a gap. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce the function of inspecting the use of restraint and seclusion in secure accommodation. The effect is to provide for that role and responsibility to be exercised by the chief inspector.
Amendment 344 would expand the chief inspector’s remit to monitor the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure care services, through the existing joint inspection framework with the Care Inspectorate applicable to those services. It aims to ensure that all use of restraint and seclusion in such services is appropriately recorded, reported and monitored as part of the joint inspection process between the Care Inspectorate and the chief inspector, thereby ensuring compliance with article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 3 and 5 of the European convention on human rights.
Amendment 353 would provide the necessary definitions to support the joint inspection duty that is specified by amendment 344. Since lodging my amendments, I have had correspondence from various individuals who have been working with us on these issues to acknowledge that some movement has been made with the Government. I therefore intend not to move the amendments tonight, but I seek assurance that they could be brought back at stage 3 if the conclusion of that work has not delivered what was expected with regard to addressing the gap in inspection. While I do not intend to move the amendments, it is important that we identify that there has been a gap. Since I lodged the amendments, some activity seems to have been encouraged, which is an important aspect of what the process is about.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
My amendment 321 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to take account of
“the priorities of the Scottish Ministers in relation to education”
and of recommendations made by bodies, including committees of the Scottish Parliament, whose remit includes matters relating to education policy.
My amendment 322 would place a duty on the chief inspector in the exercise of their functions to have regard for people who use British Sign Language, have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or have additional support needs. Given the circumstances in schools for pupils with additional support needs and the extensive information that we heard in advance of stage 2 about the importance of BSL and people with other protected characteristics, amendment 322 sets out what I think are particularly important aspects that the chief inspector must have regard to when carrying out their functions.
Amendment 323 provides regulation-making powers for ministers to say who is included as a specified body, and amendment 358, which is consequential on that, confirms that any regulations will be made under the affirmative procedure.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
This group of my amendments seek to address a gap that has been identified in inspection in relation to secure care and education. Amendment 320 would create a duty on the chief inspector, in the exercise of their function, to consider the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure accommodation in Scotland. Although the chief inspector inspected the educational aspect of secure accommodation, the Care Inspectorate covers other aspects. That is considered to be a gap. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce the function of inspecting the use of restraint and seclusion in secure accommodation. The effect is to provide for that role and responsibility to be exercised by the chief inspector.
Amendment 344 would expand the chief inspector’s remit to monitor the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings in secure care services, through the existing joint inspection framework with the Care Inspectorate applicable to those services. It aims to ensure that all use of restraint and seclusion in such services is appropriately recorded, reported and monitored as part of the joint inspection process between the Care Inspectorate and the chief inspector, thereby ensuring compliance with article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 3 and 5 of the European convention on human rights.
Amendment 353 would provide the necessary definitions to support the joint inspection duty that is specified by amendment 344. Since lodging my amendments, I have had correspondence from various individuals who have been working with us on these issues to acknowledge that some movement has been made with the Government. I therefore intend not to move the amendments tonight, but I seek assurance that they could be brought back at stage 3 if the conclusion of that work has not delivered what was expected with regard to addressing the gap in inspection. Although I do not intend to move the amendments, it is important that we identify that there has been a gap. Since I lodged the amendments, some activity seems to have been encouraged, which is an important aspect of what the process is about.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I take Mr Greer’s point that amendment 334 could be read in that way. It could also be read in such a way that the people providing support are taking part in training and education, too, and support staff often tell us that that is what they are having to do. However, I would not want there to be any ambiguity in the drafting so, if the member has found that, it would be important for us to work together on the matter ahead of stage 3. The principle behind amendment 334 is an important one, and I hope that the member will consider it to be so.
My amendments in the group are crucial. We need to find a way to ensure that inspections pick up on what is happening as regards the wellbeing and experience of the pupils in schools and the people who work there. I realise that there have been behaviour plans, summits and other initiatives, but it would give a real focus to inspections if they were to include those factors. The mental and physical wellbeing of everyone in a school, whether they are working or being educated there, is incredibly important, which is why I lodged the amendments.
I move amendment 331.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Amendment 318 says that the chief inspector would “coordinate the support provided” instead of delivering the change. Once schools get their inspection reports, which, at the minute, are one word long—or, at least, are fairly short—they can be left without much support or advice on how to improve, and my amendment aims to add to the inspectorate’s work the function of trying to help schools collaborate with others to get as much information and support as they might need in order to make the improvements that the inspection report suggests that they need to make. If members support that principle, I would be prepared to bring the issue back at stage 3, but that is the intention behind the amendment. I would hope that I could get some support for giving the inspectorate that type of collaborative, supportive function at stage 3.
20:00I will not be moving my amendment 350, for the reasons that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have highlighted with regard to Education Scotland being named specifically. Again, however, I would note that I lodged my amendments in this group, because I felt that it was important for us to understand that the system needs to be coherent and that all the parts need to work together. Teachers on the front line and people who work in schools need to feel closer to the decisions around the improvement function in respect of how they can improve the delivery of education to the young people in their establishments. That is what these amendments were intended to do.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
The text of amendment 318 is that
“The Chief Inspector may work with relevant educational establishments and local authorities to coordinate the support provided to children, young people and their parents in those establishments.”
That is quite clear, and I think that it takes us a step further than the wording in amendment 87, which is that the chief inspector should
“have regard to the desirability of”
collaborative working, because it is a little bit more directive.
Amendment 318 also says that
“The Chief Inspector may prepare and publish guidance on the exercise”
of their functions under this section of the bill. I think that there is scope to provide the flexibility that is needed, as well as to ask or expect the chief inspector to support education authorities and others in the sector as part of their function, which is to improve schools.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I have listened to the points on whether the timescale should be 60 or 40 days, and I am erring towards Ross Greer’s argument that it should be 60 days. It is important that the Parliament has as much time as possible to scrutinise the plan. Narrowing the period to 40 days could make it very tight. For example, if it was laid on the day before recess, we would have very few days left when we came back from recess to be able to do anything about it.