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 2149 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
On the point about the definition, I think that, if the substantive amendment was accepted, we could add a definition at stage 3. It does not have to be a case of either/or. However, can the cabinet secretary give me a bit more detail on her point about the specific wording and her concern that it would not do what I am trying to do? Can she say more about what would be needed at stage 3 so that I can understand what she is, I think, offering to undertake?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I am sorry. If there were a mechanism for that, I would enjoy the back-and-forth.
I worry about this. I understand the point that has been made about Ross Greer’s position. However, I have to say to my colleague Willie Rennie that I am still a bit disappointed that we are in the position that we are in, which is that there are options for change on the table just now that, if Ross Greer and others were really minded to do so, they could support. I am a team player, I understand what Willie Rennie and Ross Greer are proposing and I accept that there needs to be discussion. However, I put on the record that I am disappointed that it appears that we cannot have that discussion now and that, in choosing not to agree to the amendments, members have actively decided not to make the decision for change. I am disappointed about that, and I would like to hear Willie Rennie’s response to that.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I would hope that the Government would be able to work with us to look at such aspects of implementation. However, I am not prepared to accept that any delay here is the committee’s or Opposition members’ burden to bear. It is the Government’s burden, because the bill has been introduced according to the Government’s timetable. It has been delayed in the past, it has taken far too long to get here, and the fact that it needs more than 300 amendments is unfortunate. Had the bill been stronger, and had it built on the recommendations and suggestions in the expert reports, we would not be in this position and the Government, with its resource, capacity and great expertise, would have been able to answer all of these questions before we got to this stage.
My amendment 295 would place the accreditation function with curriculum Scotland because that agency would, I think, be able to drive forward the changes that we need in the curriculum.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Curriculum Scotland would contain many of the functions of Education Scotland, along with the improvement function that Ken Muir spoke about and the SQA’s accreditation and regulation directorate. That would bring coherence to the education landscape as opposed to cluttering it, and there would be scope to move current functions and the resources that are associated with them. I take the member’s points about cost.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I take the point that, as the cabinet secretary and Ross Greer have said, that function has already been created in the SQA, but that is after a significant amount of concern was expressed about the organisation, after various problems with exams—I will not rehearse them, but they started in 2020 and continued in relation to the history exams. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, rather than leaving whatever replaces the SQA to create a preferable structure in the midst of a crisis, it would be better to properly set up that new structure in legislation, so that we have the right kind of structure from the beginning?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
On co-ordinated support plans, do you have any understanding of why there is such underuse? What is your understanding of that?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
On that, in the report that was published earlier in the week, the commissioner mentions concerns about informal exclusions. Would you consider that to be an informal exclusion?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I am sorry, but I think that I stopped you as you were discussing some of the cases. Are there any other examples that you can put on the record?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
We spoke a moment ago about youth work and participation. One of the things that you said in the report that you published this week was that you think that the inspector should have a role in examining what inspected establishments are doing on participation. How would that work, and how important is it?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
We have often heard in the chamber and other places—and parents have been told this as well—that a diagnosis is not needed for young people to get support, but in reality parents do need that. What is your opinion on that?