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 1905 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
If the committee were interested in the outcomes from the different approaches, would we be able to access them?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Amendment 351 would require the initial board of qualifications Scotland to be treated as a transitional arrangement only, by putting in place processes to reappoint all board members through an open process within six months of the board’s establishment. It is an important amendment, as the new body cannot simply be seen as the Scottish Qualifications Authority with a new name. We have debated that issue at length in the committee and during this legislative process, so I will not cover it again. Suffice it to say that trust in the system is at an all-time low and anything that we can do to improve trust should be done. That is why amendment 351 is important.
By requiring a fresh appointments process, the amendment would ensure that the board of qualifications Scotland would be open to new voices and expertise. It would also help to tackle the cultural, structural and institutional problems that have made the SQA so remote, unaccountable and resistant to change.
The amendment would send a clear political message that reform means real change—that it means not just an organisation with a new name, but a change in leadership, governance and public trust. The proposed transitional approach would allow for continuity for existing learners while showing that we are serious about building a new qualifications body that reflects the needs and values of learners and other stakeholders.
The amendments to the accreditation function that we will debate again at stage 3 are among the amendments that would potentially restore trust in the system. Amendment 351 would be a good step in that direction, and I commend it to the committee.
I move amendment 351.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I take the points that the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have made about the current leadership and Shirley Rogers specifically, but I do not think that my amendment goes against retaining any leadership that can withstand the process. Having seen Shirley Rogers, I do not doubt her for a second. In any case, this should not be personal; it is about restoring trust in the system.
I do not doubt that a robust process could yield the right people, either by bringing people back in or by bringing new people into the system, if that were necessary. It would be helpful for us to have a mechanism that would allow us to have a refresh at this point. Everyone might return, but, at the very least, there would be an opportunity to ask the question.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Do you think that, with the new responsibilities on top of those current responsibilities, the SFC will be able to scrutinise the sector’s financial sustainability to the level that is required?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
On the idea of Dundee being a one-off, the publication of the reports on the financial sustainability of colleges and universities has been delayed. They are normally due in January, so can you explain why the reports have been delayed and when they will be published?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I ask the cabinet secretary to give me two minutes to talk about the wording of amendment 309, which seeks to replace “may” with “must”. It is already recognised in the bill that regulations could be laid; I am simply suggesting that they should be.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
My amendment 309 is not about stipulating the number of inspections. The bill already suggests—so the Government must, at some point, have already felt—that there may need to be regulations. My suggestion is that, because of what Stephen Kerr has told us and because of the time that can pass between inspections, there should be regulations on the intervals between inspections. The Government has already accepted that there may be a need for such regulations; I am suggesting that ministers should produce them.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Amendment 87 says:
“The Chief Inspector must have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration”
whereas amendment 317 says that they should work in collaboration. I take the point about specificity and referring to the named organisation. However, there is a slight difference in the amendments.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I thank the witnesses for the submissions that they sent us in advance, which were really helpful.
Professor Seaton, you note in your submission that “key metrics” could be used to determine success. What metrics should be used to show whether the bill has been a success?