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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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 2379 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I will start with amendment 82, if that is all right. It would define foundation apprenticeships as a
“Scottish apprenticeship delivered as part of the senior-phase education pathway, delivered in partnership with local authorities, schools, colleges of further education, and employers.”
Members will be aware of the evidence that we took and the concerns, including from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, local authorities and others, that foundation apprenticeships were not significantly addressed in the bill, which they considered a bit of an omission. I seek to address that by defining foundation apprenticeships in the bill.
Amendment 81 is the paving amendment for the definition of foundation apprenticeships.
Amendment 76 would make it clear that apprentices doing foundation apprenticeships are not employed, which goes back to the point that I made to Willie Rennie.
Amendment 92 would provide that the Scottish Funding Council
“must ensure that foundation apprenticeships ... are delivered through ... partnership ... with local authorities”
and that there must be a report on uptake with details of who accesses foundation apprenticeships, their region, whether they have any disability and information relating to the index of multiple deprivation. Such details would help us clearly understand the demographics and the way that people access foundation apprenticeships, in order that we can ensure that all young people access the opportunities that are available through them.
On a couple of other amendments in the group—
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I am happy to.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I agree whole-heartedly with the points that Ross Greer has just made, but why has the term “sufficient” been used in the amendment, as opposed to linking the provision directly with the minimum or living wage?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Will the minister take an intervention?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
On defining “foundation apprenticeships” in the bill, I understand concerns about the name. The minister has set out that there are regulation-making powers to change what they are called. However, my concern is that, if foundation apprenticeships are not mentioned in the bill, there may not be a mechanism for the SFC to provide funding to local authorities or schools to continue to offer such apprenticeships. Does the member share that concern?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Minister, I did not mean to cut you off mid-flow. I just thought that you were moving on to another amendment.
I have the same concerns about amendments 6 and 7 as I do about amendment 5 in the previous group, which relate to the wording:
“such other persons as the Council considers likely to be affected.”
It is hard to imagine that apprentices or staff would not be affected by changes to the frameworks or that framework changes would not benefit from the input of apprentices or trade unions and staff. On that basis, can the minister explain why they were not included in amendments 6 and 7?
12:30Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Does the member recognise, however, that if social care services are not in place, there is a risk that some people who rely on them—even before they have a terminal illness diagnosis—might find life very difficult, which could be a factor in their decision making? Does the member not think that it would be useful to ensure that those services were in place and up to capacity before the act came into place?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Will the member take an intervention?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Does the member accept that significant variables exist in relation to the cost outlined in the financial memorandum, which would depend largely on whether this was in or out of the NHS? In both situations, a significant cost would be attached, which is why it would be useful to assess it ahead of time.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I fully take on board the points about the timescales, particularly in terms of royal assent versus the bill’s commencement date, which are issues with amendments 8 and 10. Therefore, I will be happy not to press or move my amendments at this stage and instead to work with the Government and the member in charge of the bill on tighter amendments with the same intention, which is to review the operation of the bill to ensure that it delivers for pupils and young people as we all expect it to.
I will also be happy not to move amendment 9, given the timescales that are involved. I take on board Liz Smith’s point about the Equality Act 2010 and on whether schools hold relevant data. That is worth exploring between now and stage 3. It is important that we understand the impact of any legislation on protected characteristics, and equality impact assessments are intended to do that. Therefore, it is probably worth our having a conversation on the technicalities in that space to see what we can do at stage 3.
On that basis, I am prepared not to press or move any of my amendments in the group.
Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.