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 1535 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I agree absolutely. It comes back to a point that a few of us raised earlier, and not just in relation to the bill. The fact is that, we are four years into this parliamentary session and multiple areas of education reform have been carried out simultaneously. We have had the national discussion about the curriculum, Professor Hayward’s review and we have the set of governance reforms that are contained in the bill. In addition, we now have what we did not expect to have at the start of the session: the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which addresses some of the issues around the skills landscape.
Throughout the process, a number of us have raised concerns that the sequencing of all that is challenging to the point of creating areas in which it is impossible for us to address the issues adequately without knowing what the outcomes of other elements of the process will be. I do not think that there was ever a perfect way to do that, but, at some point, there needs to be a chronology or a sequence, and we need to make those decisions. Part of the issue is that, at this time, some of the processes seem to have gone nowhere.
On the national discussion and the broader vision, the idea of trying to coalesce around some kind of consensus on the curriculum and on the core ethos of Scottish education seems to have disappeared. I do not see what the outcome of the national discussion was. If we achieved consensus on a refreshed vision for Scottish education, it would probably make it easier for us to answer some of the specific questions of governance, structure and function.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
The frustration across the committee is clear. Indeed, I share the frustration with the Government that this issue has been considered for so long—yet here we are at stage 2 without the Government having put forward a satisfactory solution. However, as has been mentioned, it is worth reflecting on the fact that, even after the significant volume of evidence that we, as a committee, took at stage 1, we could not collectively come to a clear, satisfactory conclusion on the matter. Clearly, this is the single most challenging issue with regard to the bill.
A majority of committee members and, I think, a majority across the Parliament want there to be a greater distance between the accreditation function and the rest of the functions that are currently proposed for qualifications Scotland. However, all the options that are in front of us have significant pitfalls.
Putting the accreditation function into Education Scotland would do the opposite of creating that greater distance, because, in essence, it would give the function to the Scottish ministers, and that would undermine the principle of what we are trying to achieve.
09:45My initial preference was to move accreditation to the SCQF Partnership. However, as I started drafting amendments to that effect, it became clear—as has been made clear from a lot of the issues that have been raised today—that the SCQF Partnership is not the right home for it, not least because that organisation is a charity, not a public body.
I will come back to this point when we get to the relevant group later, but I will say now that we need to look at the status of the SCQF Partnership. The body is integral to the Scottish education system. As successful as it is, it is not part of our public sector and is not accountable in the way that the rest of the public sector is. That is not a criticism of it but a question about its status.
Obviously, we cannot simply remove accreditation from qualifications Scotland and not put the function somewhere else. I am interested in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s proposals on curriculum Scotland. I am wary of them, to be honest, but we will get into the substance of that in a later group of amendments.
I am willing to reconsider the options on accreditation once we have had the debate on whether to set up a new body. Like John Mason, I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It recently considered similar issues, particularly in relation to proposals for new Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-appointed bodies. It proposed a moratorium on their establishment, to which Parliament agreed.
I absolutely agree with Stephen Kerr’s point about the need for a more granular discussion of the issue. This debate has been incredibly valuable in that regard. A range of new information on potential costs has been put on the record this morning, not least by the cabinet secretary. We need more discussion at that granular level, and I certainly want a greater understanding of some of the specific issues that have been teased out.
I repeat what I said earlier in an intervention on the cabinet secretary and what Martin Whitfield has also said: there is clearly a collective desire for us to reach a satisfactory conclusion. There is also clearly a recognition that none of the options that are in front of us is perfect. Given that, I suggest that none of the amendments be pressed at this stage if the Government can commit to facilitating discussion, for all interested members, to enable us to try to coalesce around a satisfactory solution—it will not be perfect—ahead of stage 3. If we cannot do that, I and other members will have to pick the least imperfect of the options. At the moment, I would probably lean towards placing accreditation with the inspectorate, imperfect as that option is. However, I do not think that we have to choose that at this stage. I think that we can come to a more satisfactory conclusion at stage 3, if we can have those further detailed discussions between now and then.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I am particularly grateful to Martin Whitfield for making that point and clarifying that we want to hear from young people who may not be taking a qualifications Scotland qualification. On that basis, I would be happy to support his amendment 226 if he moves it at this stage, but it would be helpful if he could acknowledge that if both my amendment 119 and his amendment 226 are agreed to, we will need to do a little bit of reconciliation to tidy things up at stage 3.
The primary intention of the wording that the Government and I landed on in amendment 119—
“young people who are undertaking, or have recent experience of undertaking”—
qualifications, was, as I mentioned earlier, to ensure that we do not disqualify a young person as soon as they have completed their course. The experience of a young person who has, for example, just finished high school is really valuable: having been all the way through the process, they can reflect back on it—that is a voice that we want to hear.
Does Martin Whitfield appreciate that point and recognise that, if we agree to amendments 119, 120 and 226, we will need to do a little bit of tidying up to capture both of the points that we are getting at? The requirement does not necessarily need to be for the young people to be currently undertaking the qualifications, because those who are not undertaking any qualifications are a particularly important marginalised group who we need to hear from, but we do not want to exclude those who have already undertaken a qualification, such as school leavers.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I do not want to be too flippant, but the rationale is quite simple. The organisation that we are replacing has proven itself undeserving of our trust and incapable in governance, in how it structures itself and in the operational decisions that it makes. That is why Parliament is now taking the dramatic step of abolishing the Scottish Qualifications Authority and replacing it with a new body. I want to ensure that we build in safeguards so that we do not repeat some of those mistakes. It sounds as if the cabinet secretary is essentially asking us to trust the new organisation and, although I hope that the new organisation will prove itself deserving of our trust, I do not think that the risk is worth taking, given why we have got to where we are now, and I think that we should put that safeguard into the legislation.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying out her rationale. I must admit that I am still somewhat unsure of the Government’s position and of exactly what the cabinet secretary is offering me. If the Government is willing to accept that we should legislate to separate those roles, I am perfectly happy to work with the cabinet secretary and come back with an amendment at stage 3 that addresses the point around the GTCS in particular—although I do not entirely agree with it, I am perfectly happy to address that point for the sake of achieving wider agreement.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I am grateful for that. It is valuable for us to achieve consensus wherever possible. On the basis that we will come back at stage 3 with an amendment that sets out the separation of those two roles, I am perfectly happy to not press amendment 47 to a vote or to move amendment 48.
On Mr Kerr’s amendments, I think that amendment 222 is too prescriptive and amendment 223 too restrictive. I have some sympathy for what is in amendment 221 as a broad statement of principles but, given that we will be coming back with amendments at stage 3 to address the points that we have been discussing on the separation of the roles, I would not vote for amendment 221 at this stage, although I could conceive of something in that area that I would be able to agree to at stage 3.
On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s reassurance, I will not press amendment 47 or move amendment 48 when we get to it.
Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 221 to 223 not moved.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments. She rightly points out that my amendment 3 in a later group covers very similar ground.
The cabinet secretary’s specific concerns around the drafting of the amendment are perfectly understandable. What I am really trying to get at—and I am looking to get reassurance on the record on this from the Government—is whether the Government is unequivocal that qualifications Scotland’s public service duties here in Scotland will be a greater priority than its international commercial activity. That is the core motivation behind my amendment.
Since the end of the SQA’s term—or certainly since the time of the pandemic; the situation has been slightly different since then—there has been no clear hierarchy of priorities in the organisation. If the cabinet secretary were able to intervene on me to assure me that the Government’s position is that those core public service responsibilities in Scotland will be a higher priority than international commercial activity, and that we can work together on a stage 3 amendment on that basis, I would be happy not to press amendment 2 at this stage.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
The motivation behind this amendment is quite simple: it is based on the experiences of our predecessor committee in the previous session of Parliament, the Education and Skills Committee, in scrutinising the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
As far as I am concerned, the SQA’s primary function is to serve learners in Scotland in the delivery of qualifications that are relevant for them. However, in the previous session, we found that there had essentially been mission creep in the SQA’s commercial activities, which had resulted in a significant amount of time and energy from senior management at the SQA in particular being diverted away from the organisation’s core mission of serving learners in Scotland. It had also resulted in levels of international travel that were pretty hard to justify, with spending on pretty luxurious travel, accommodation and so on, and in the SQA taking its eye off the ball in many ways. That is what has led to the bill being necessary and to the fact that we are going to abolish the SQA and replace it.
Amendment 2 would set down a pretty simple principle right at the start, and would make it clear that the founding principle of qualifications Scotland is to support those who are undertaking its qualifications in Scotland.
I move amendment 2.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
The cabinet secretary is quite legitimately laying out the challenges with each of the amendments in the group. Willie Rennie opened the debate on the group by acknowledging that none of the proposals meets the three criteria that we have all coalesced around. There is also quite clearly a majority on this committee and in Parliament for us to resolve the issue now through the bill—not through the review that the Scottish Government is proposing. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that? Would she be willing to facilitate some kind of cross-party discussion to reach a solution ahead of stage 3? If that were the case, I would urge members not to press amendments in this group and instead to go away and try to resolve the issue. If the Government cannot recognise that there is a majority to address the issue through the bill, I and other members will be forced to choose the least worst of the options in front of us now.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Ross Greer
I am conscious that we are now at that part of the proceedings that George Adam referred to at stage 1 as the MGM chorus line of everyone who could be involved.
The cabinet secretary’s reflections on the issues with the composition of the SQA board in 2000 were interesting, but the amendments that I have lodged reflect the issues with the SQA board that we have seen in the past decade. The cabinet secretary, Liz Smith and I will be particularly familiar with those issues from our time on the previous session’s Education and Skills Committee, whereby many—not all, but many—of SQA’s governance failures could be partly traced back to the fact that, for substantial periods of time in its recent history, the SQA has had almost no individuals who are educators on its board. Indeed, until very recently, it had only one headteacher—and no classroom teachers at all. However, it did have three management consultants. I do not want to dismiss the importance of corporate governance, but I think that the public would expect our national qualifications agency to have more educators than management consultants on its board. Again, that is not a judgment on the three individuals who were there at the time.
To that end, amendment 27 sets out a simple principle that a majority of the board must be qualified educators. It does not specify that they should be working in a school, a college or another setting, just that they are qualified educators.
To address Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point, I should make it clear that amendment 27 does not exclude union representation. There is, perhaps, a nuance to highlight here. If Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments were agreed to and a teaching union representative were required to be on the board, that representative would, in practice, be required to be a qualified educator. I do recognise that full-time union officers are sometimes not drawn from the profession that they represent.
In this case, it would be desirable and reasonable for the Parliament to say that, if we agree that the unions are able to nominate individuals to the board, those individuals must be from the profession concerned. I would not exclude union representation, although it would somewhat narrow the criteria that the union could use to nominate individuals. I will come back to that point in a second.
10:45