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 1398 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Is there anything that could and should be in the bill that would offer further clarity in that respect? I also want to get Martin’s view on that. Obviously, things such as equality impact assessments should not be in legislation, but is there a lack of clarity in the bill on the specific issue of staff transfer?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Yes—that is fair.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
I wonder whether the cabinet secretary sees any value in the purpose behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 309, which seeks to set out in statute some kind of floor but with a recognition that, in policy terms, we would be aiming for something more regular. There might be quite a long duration between inspections, but there would still be a floor that it would be a breach of statute to go beyond, even with the recognition that something a bit more regular would be desirable. Would such an approach give flexibility while still providing some underlying reassurance?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
I am grateful, cabinet secretary.
At this point, I should put on the record that I have previously called for every member of the SQA board to go. However, given that the recent changes to the board, particularly the appointment of Shirley Rogers as chair, have had a dramatic and positive impact on board culture, I think that it would be counterproductive to throw away that progress by agreeing to amendment 351. My worry is that that would send the wrong signal, given that the change of culture at the top that many of us have called for has begun to happen. Indeed, I would be disappointed if the Government waited until we had the new body before making those cultural changes via new board appointments.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Thank you. Unless anyone has anything else to add on that, I will ask just one more question, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I have already taken up.
Damien, you have touched on the issue of TUPE costs for staff. Given that what we are talking about will largely be a transfer from SDS to the SFC, do you feel that you have had clarity from ministers—I want to find out whether Martin Boyle feels the same way—on the operational arrangements for the transfer of staff and the expectations regarding costs, the TUPE element, terms and conditions and so on?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Martin, what is your response to Audit Scotland’s reflections and the progress that has been made since then?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Before he does, I note that that is all very welcome, because the committee has, in the past, been critical of the Scottish Government’s lack of clear leadership and direction on the skills agenda but, as I said, that was only part of Audit Scotland’s criticism. The other part was about the lack of an effectively functioning relationship between SDS and the SFC, with poor communication, a lack of consensus and so on. Reaching consensus is obviously easier when both bodies receive the same ministerial direction. However, that aside—because it sounds as though the announcement in the next few weeks will provide a clear ministerial direction—have you addressed the issues that Audit Scotland raised about what was a dysfunctional relationship between the two bodies?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
I would like to go back to the convener’s initial line of questioning on the premise for the bill and the reform, which Damien Yeates and the SDS board, in essence, reject. However, in 2022, Audit Scotland published a scathing report on the lack of skills alignment. The report partly criticised the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government, but the stand-out criticism was of the inability of SDS and the SFC to work together. The report’s third conclusion was clear:
“Current arrangements are unlikely to achieve the ambitions for skills alignment at the pace required”.
Could you reflect on that Audit Scotland report? We are three years on from the report, so have the issues relating to communication and lack of consensus between SDS and the SFC been addressed?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 May 2025
Ross Greer
Thanks very much, both. That is really useful.