Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 6 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1594 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Budget Scrutiny 2025-26 and Economic and Fiscal Forecasts

Meeting date: 10 December 2024

Ross Greer

That was the final question that I wanted to ask. Otherwise it has all been well covered.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Budget Scrutiny 2025-26 and Economic and Fiscal Forecasts

Meeting date: 10 December 2024

Ross Greer

My question is on that point, because a lot of the larger substantive issues that I was going to ask about have been well covered already.

It is not about the relative worth or otherwise of the policy, because I understand that that is not for the witnesses to comment on, but about the transparency and presentational issues around things such as the hospitality relief. As you point out, Graeme, a huge number of the businesses that would be eligible for that already receive substantive relief through SBBS, and many of them receive 100 per cent relief. Is there a presentational and transparency challenge here, given that reliefs are layered on top of each other and there is a fragmented NDR relief landscape?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Scottish Qualifications Authority: “Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

That is the core point. On that specific example, I do not have the depth of knowledge about that paper, but I accept that you cannot give marks for an answer to a question that was not asked.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Scottish Qualifications Authority: “Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

Cabinet secretary, although I accept that the SQA’s report was externally quality assured by the Welsh equivalent body, the report is about quality assuring the SQA’s own processes. The SQA came to the conclusion that the issue was not the exam paper or the marking scheme, but unusual underperformance by pupils. If it is not the chief examiner’s role to look into why that was the case, in relation to questions about presentation and so on, where in the system does that responsibility lie? Whose responsibility is it to look into that further?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Scottish Qualifications Authority: “Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

Absolutely—that is something to consider for the wider reform programme, not just for history.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

The Promise (Staff Recruitment and Retention)

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

Yes—hostage to fortune and all that.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

The Promise (Staff Recruitment and Retention)

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

Does anyone else want to come in on case workload?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

The Promise (Staff Recruitment and Retention)

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

It says a lot about how we do governance reform in Scotland that multiple integration processes have led to more fragmentation.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

The Promise (Staff Recruitment and Retention)

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

The Scottish Government would agree with you on the challenge of annual funding settlements, which is also a significant challenge for it.

Do Fiona Duncan or Claire Burns have any final comments on resources before I move on?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Scottish Qualifications Authority: “Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Ross Greer

I am grateful to Fiona Robertson and the SQA for the briefing that they gave to Opposition spokespeople on the eve of the review being published. Members of Parliament have made it very clear that we wanted more engagement from the SQA in recent years, so we got that.

On the convener’s point about variation, it is entirely legitimate to say that there is variation every year—of course there is. The variation on this subject this year was clearly an outlier—any higher maths student could tell you that that was an outlier. That is why there is concern here.

I welcome the TES column that was written by the principal assessor and the team leader. There is plenty in it that I agree with, but the point in their column that I really disagree with—this is at the core of my concern about the review and what is not in it—is that they say that it is not the responsibility of the SQA to look into why there was a drop in performance, and that, essentially, its job with the review was to quality assure its own processes. I am not going to dispute the outcomes of that review. However, if it is not the role of the chief examiner to look into why there was such a significant drop in performance, whose role is it?

If, for the purposes of this question, we accept the premise—others have already covered potential issues with the review itself—that the review found that there were no issues with either the exam or the marking, as has been pointed out already, the conclusion is that the fall in the rate was due to a drop in the performance of students. I feel that the review is only half a review, because it does not look into why there was a drop. If it is not the chief examiner’s job to look into that, whose job is it?