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 754 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Thank you.
Finally, I have heard good things about the expertise in SDS with regard to supporting apprenticeships, particularly from the trade unions, which are very concerned that that expertise will be lost with the move to the Scottish Funding Council. I forget how many staff you have working on this—I think that it is in the region of 100 or so—and we do not yet know how many of them will be moved over. The trade unions are very worried about losing the skills and expertise in delivering apprenticeships when that funding is moved to SFC.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
I have three questions, which I will try to get through.
One of the challenges faced by not just SDS but everyone delivering apprenticeships is meeting the target of 25,000 apprentices with a fixed sum of money. Anecdotally, one of the criticisms that I have heard is that it means that there is a focus on quantity rather than quality.
I would love to hear your interpretation of that challenge—that is, that we are spending public money training young women to be hairdressers and to work in retail, and trapping them in low-wage jobs, instead of spending money getting more people into engineering. I understand that part of that is the trade-off between the target that you have to meet and the amount of money that you have available, and I know that an engineering apprenticeship costs more to deliver than a hairdressing apprenticeship, but are we not trapping those young people in low-paying careers?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Did you look at careers advice or anything like that? One of the challenges, anecdotally, is that everybody says that careers advice is terrible. When you speak to careers advisers, they say, “Oh, but we have to be neutral. We can’t direct children.” However, as you have just described, children are coming to that stage of their life, the teenage years, with ingrained biases, and if careers advisers are not working against those biases—if they are letting the children lead—we cannot undo the damage that society has done. Would you say that careers advice is one of the areas where we may be able to make inroads?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
My final question goes back to apprenticeships. How do we achieve parity of esteem between apprenticeships and the highers and university route? One suggestion that I have heard is that we should change the name from “highers” or make apprenticeships higher equivalent. What are your thoughts on that?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Thanks for that.
My next question is about the delivery of apprenticeships through colleges versus other training providers. I realise that there is some push and pull in that respect: colleges are always desperate for more funds, so they would like to take on more of the apprenticeship training role, but employers including Lothian Buses, which the committee has visited, say that colleges are inflexible. They work to the academic year, which means that, if you employ someone in January, they cannot start training at the college until September. Moreover, colleges have trouble getting lecturers to do this kind of work, and it can mean an apprentice having to go to college three mornings a week instead of one day a week, which disrupts their work.
How do we deal with that balance? Colleges definitely want more money, but they do not seem to be up to the job of delivering the skills in the way that businesses need them to. They cannot keep up with the tech, and they cannot deliver on the timelines.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Is there an issue with the funding model for colleges, too? Colleges seem to be very fixed when it comes to the academic year, with the struggle to get lecturers and so on. One of the things with apprenticeships is that the funding is only available once you have achieved a certain outcome, whereas colleges get their funding every October, no matter what. Would conditionality of funding on outcomes for colleges help them shift faster?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
I have two slightly smaller questions—Murdo Fraser has been asking bigger questions.
I was an electromechanical engineer in my former life, and one of my abiding interests is in how we get an improved gender balance in the green skills area. Did you look at that? Where might the key points be in the system to address the terrible gender imbalance in things like construction and engineering?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Thank you.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Thank you very much.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
I will direct my final question to Dr Elliott, although others, including Dr Gill, may have a view as well. You can see the problem that is before us when it comes to SPCB-supported bodies. What steps could be taken to give a more coherent view? We are having trouble even in defining the bodies into categories or groups, because there is so much messy overlap. What would a more coherent model look like?