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 821 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Bill Kidd
Now that the nice side of things has been hijacked by Mr Brown, I will take you to another side of the refreshed approach to the Scottish attainment challenge. You have told us about the successes, but what has not worked as well as you had hoped and expected?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Bill Kidd
We can take it on that basis.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Bill Kidd
I highlight something that matters to everyone and which was mentioned earlier. To what degree is SAC creating greater equality of outcomes across all income groups? How are people in poorer areas and poorer families being moved up, and is that working well? The cabinet secretary mentioned that there are areas that still need to be worked on—for example, because the Covid pandemic has held things back a bit. To what degree are lower-income areas and individuals being moved up to an equal level?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Bill Kidd
I thank everyone for the huge range of helpful replies. I have a question that was asked previously of John McKendrick. What is the likelihood of the 2026 interim targets and the 2030 aims being delivered? Does anyone have an idea about that? It does not have to be positive, but it would be nice if it was.
12:00Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Bill Kidd
Rebecca, I know that you have some background knowledge on people who are disabled or have issues other than poverty—although poverty might also be part of the issue. Are the targets possible?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Bill Kidd
That is very positive. Thanks very much.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Bill Kidd
Broadly speaking, people are still being positive in their approach to aim for the targets anyway. By the sounds of it, everybody is working together, which is excellent. We have to remember that sometimes things have to be widened out, which is good.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Bill Kidd
I beg your pardon. I mean how different sectors work together to share evidence of successful access initiatives.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Bill Kidd
Thanks very much for everything that you have given us so far, Professor McKendrick.
Do we lack an active framework for fair access? How much impact has that lack had on the progress towards bringing everyone up to the same level?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Bill Kidd
I have a specific question about a wee disagreement that there seems to be between SATH and the SQA. Maybe this has changed, but it is about interpretation. Members of SATH argued that the question in paper 2 on Scots’ reaction to immigrants was unfair as it had been removed from the course specification, but the SQA review said that all the questions that were asked across both question papers were valid and based on the course specification. Those are two totally divergent viewpoints. Is there any chance of a wee explanation about how you see that, please?