The next item of business is a statement by Graeme Dey on industrial relations in the further education sector.
14:25
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on the important matter of industrial action in the college sector. The issue is felt across each of our constituencies and regions and, regrettably, has been topical for a decade now.
Colleges across Scotland make an immeasurable contribution to our communities, our economy and our nation as a whole. They do good work. Unfortunately, though, that is all too often overshadowed by the industrial strife that has dogged the sector for the past 10 years. Regionalisation and the introduction of national bargaining have brought some positive changes for many, yet the relationship between employers and unions, particularly in some localities, has become fractious to the point that, sadly, when many of us think of colleges, we instinctively think of industrial action.
Strikes have become the norm in the sector. I think that I am right in saying that we have had industrial strife in nine of the past 10 years, which has had an impact on students, staff and the wider community. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of those concerned want an end to that strife, not just for now but for the future.
Of course, hard-line positions have been adopted by some on both sides, but I believe that, among the majority of management and staff, there is a genuine desire to end the present dispute and find a better way forward. The path to that has not proved to be easy, but there are some hopeful signs that we can travel it. With good will from all sides, we can, I believe, reach a destination that serves the best interests of colleges, of staff and, most important of all, of students. It really does matter that we establish more harmonious relationships in the sector.
The First Minister set out the Government’s priorities last week, and we know that colleges have a proven track record of delivering. Colleges, as anchor institutions, will continue to play an integral role in enabling our vision of delivering the reform agenda, and of delivering for all of Scotland.
The disputes that have dogged colleges over the past 10 years have taken place against vastly different financial backdrops, from a time when public finances were in a healthy state through to now, when we find ourselves in the most challenging budgetary situation since devolution 25 years ago.
I acknowledge that the budget settlement that we have been able to afford colleges is not as we would wish it to be; the most difficult budgetary position since devolution has meant challenges for budget settlements for colleges and in many other parts of the public sector. We would like to be in a position to invest more, but the fact is that, were we to invest more in colleges, that investment would have to come from somewhere else in the budget—from schools or universities or from other portfolios. However, I think that it is possible to find a fair and affordable solution to the current dispute, and we could absolutely make progress in addressing the longer-term systemic issue.
Up until the past few weeks, we were at an impasse in the dispute. The employers’ full and final offer of a £5,000 consolidated pay increase over three years had been rejected, and no one was budging. It is to the credit of the trade unions that they have sought to move the dispute into a better space. On the support staff side, strikes by Unison members have been suspended to allow staff to vote on the pay deal on offer. It is, of course, up to staff to determine whether they deem the award to be acceptable, but I hope that a positive resolution can be found and that members of Unison, Unite and the GMB will have pay rises, backdated to September 2022, landing in their bank accounts quickly. The Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association has made a revised claim that would see that three-year deal being accepted, with the addition of a fourth-year pay rise for academic year 2025-26.
We are still a way off from an agreement being reached with lecturers. There are various components to the claim that, as lodged, are viewed somewhat differently, but I welcome the meaningful dialogue that has taken place between the two sides since the new claim was tabled. Credit is due to EIS-FELA for initiating that, and it is now vital that the two sides continue to work through it to find common ground.
Earlier this week, the College Employers Scotland executive agreed to resume negotiations and explore the option of a fourth year. The National Joint Negotiating Committee for lecturing met yesterday to begin fresh negotiations, with further discussions scheduled for tomorrow.
I have encouraged and continue to encourage the management side to see the move by the unions as an opportunity to bring peace to the sector until at least the end of the 2025-26 academic year and to provide a chance to fix the broken negotiating mechanism. However, as I do that, I recognise the obvious difficulty, which is that they, like the Scottish Government, have no indication of what funding they will have at their disposal for the 2025-26 academic year. As things stand, there are no extra moneys.
There are those who have demanded direct intervention by the Government in the dispute, despite the financial position being crystal clear, the Strathesk Resolutions report being candid in branding previous interventions “unhelpful” and the national bargaining processes excluding such a role. Of course, many of those who are calling for that are silent on where the additional moneys might be found. What the past few weeks have demonstrated is that, when the collective will is there, the existing structures can be made to work and, I hope, deliver an outcome that is both fair and affordable—and fairness and affordability are essential in all this.
I accept that there is a gap between what moneys colleges would have had at their disposal if funding had risen in line with inflation over the past few years, and I acknowledge that that puts them in a challenging position. I know how that feels as a minister, when the block grant support from Westminster falls in real terms and the Scottish Government budget is further stressed by rising costs and competing demands. However, collectively, and despite those impediments, we have to find a way forward that ensures that colleges are on a sustainable long-term footing when an injection of public cash is not an option—at least, not without reducing funding to other parts of the education system or reducing funding elsewhere across Government spend.
When national bargaining was introduced, we agreed a system that, rightly, places responsibility for reaching agreement on the employer representatives and trade unions, through the NJNC; indeed, that was integral to the creation of a modern, flexible college sector. For our part, we remain committed to national bargaining. That is why I have been clear that the Scottish Government will not directly intervene in the negotiations and seek to force a resolution, as to do so would fundamentally undermine and alter the voluntary national bargaining process and would have long-term consequences.
Although I absolutely accept that the current dispute has been going on for too long, it is clear from the recent positive developments that the employers and trade unions are able to make progress within the agreed framework, albeit that, looking to the future, everyone agrees that the framework and the environment in which it functions need to be changed. Surely we should all be encouraging both sides to develop recent progress into meaningful and constructive dialogue that leads to an end to the dispute. However, as I said earlier, we are still some way off that, and goodwill gestures from both sides right now might go a long way to putting momentum into this.
The subject of the planned marking boycott and employers flagging that they will withhold pay for what is described as “action short of strike” has been aired in the chamber before. Both sides have legal advice that the employers’ response is lawful, but do any of us want students to be further impacted in that way or staff to lose pay? If sufficient progress continues to be made in the fresh negotiations, which continue tomorrow, can we not find a way of suspending that element of the action and taking away the threat of deeming to allow progress to be made on settling the dispute?
Reaching agreement is not just desirable for the immediate and obvious reasons. It will also give us space to take forward the recommendations of the lessons learned report, or whatever derivation of those recommendations can be agreed on, to ensure that the national bargaining mechanism works far better in the future.
I have convened a group of college and trade union representatives to begin the process of supporting the sector in implementing the recommendations from the most recent lessons-learned exercise. The group met again yesterday morning, and the fact that the meeting went ahead a few hours before some of the participants were due to take part in negotiations around the current dispute says a great deal about the commitment that is in play.
It is not in my gift to share with members the specific actions that are under consideration. At this stage, to do so would be unhelpful. However, I am confident that the efforts of the group will pay dividends, and I thank them again for their involvement.
As minister, my role in this is simply a convening one. I am hopeful that it will be only short term, as I seek to facilitate a broad agreement on how matters are progressed and then leave those concerned to take them forward.
Members who have closely followed industrial relations in the college sector will be painfully aware of the acrimony and finger pointing that have characterised negotiations over the years. They will recognise the talk of personality clashes and grudge holding being at play. I believe that there is now a collective will to move on from that. I hear from all sides that they are scunnered by what has gone on and that they want to move the whole process to a better place.
My role is to help them do that, and I will continue to facilitate discussions to ensure that employers and trade unions can create an environment and a process that will result in successful negotiations in the future and break the cycle of annual industrial action. I will also continue to do all that I can to actively encourage college management and the trade unions to engage constructively in seeking a resolution to the present dispute.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question should press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the minister for providing advance sight of his statement.
I note the tone that the minister has sought to strike—although it bears noting that the Scottish Government is, in fact, sitting on the largest cash-terms block grant in history—and his remarks towards the end of his statement about his optimism that progress is being made. Accordingly, I will offer three questions, which I hope will allow further light to be shed without risking that progress.
First, the minister talked about the National Joint Negotiating Committee playing an “integral” role, but he then talked about a “broken negotiating mechanism”. Despite a number of voices suggesting it, the committee remains without an independent chair. Will the minister tell us his views on such a chair and whether any progress will be made on that?
Secondly, he gave credit to the unions for moving the process to a better space and initiating meaningful dialogue. He said that strikes have been suspended by Unison to allow staff to vote on the pay deal that is on offer, but can he advise the chamber whether that is the position of all the unions that are involved in this situation?
Finally, the minister referred to national bargaining and mentioned the fact that industrial action has been taken in nine out of the past 10 years. However, that is in a context in which national bargaining has been in place for eight of those years. He hinted at making the mechanism work better. That begs the question whether it is now time to hold a review of how national bargaining is operating and whether it requires to be improved and altered.
Liam Kerr has asked several questions, and I hope to take a little bit of time to answer them.
I understand the premise that Liam Kerr advances about the deal that was on the table being put to members. In the context of the lecturing side, CES asked EIS-FELA to do that, but the union felt unable to do it. However, we have moved on from there, and discussions are now taking place on a four-year deal. One would hope that, if agreement can be reached, that deal would be put to the membership.
The situation with regard to the support staff unions is slightly more complicated. Unison put the deal to its members, Unite did the same but its members had not been striking at that point, and the GMB had previously accepted the deal. Therefore, it is a bit of a mixed picture.
On the wider point, I say to Liam Kerr that it is possible to be in favour of the concept of national bargaining while recognising that elements of the current process and the environment in which it is undertaken would benefit from change. The extent to which that is acknowledged can be seen in the commitment that all sides are showing to taking forward the lessons learned report work that I mentioned. There is a recognition of the problems and a willingness to address them.
On the issue of the lack of a chair, I think that Liam Kerr is referring to the Strathesk report’s recommendation about the NJNC having a neutral, independent chair. The negotiations are currently chaired on a rotational basis by each of the participants. Among those parties, there is a respectful divergence of views on the merits of, and the need for, an independent chair, but there is a willingness to explore the introduction of a facilitating role to assist with the improvement of the process, and work on that is under way.
I, too, thank the minister for providing advance sight of his statement, although I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed.
As the minister pointed out in his statement, the issue has gone on for far too long—he said that it has been “topical for a decade”. I would say that, for students and staff, it has been torment for a decade.
The minister was right to mention the vastly different financial backdrops, but what has not changed in that time is the Government or its unwillingness to act. The minister said that he would like to invest more, but that he would have to cut elsewhere in order to do that. I remind the minister that it was his Government that made the choice to redeploy college money elsewhere, his Government that failed to prioritise colleges and his Government’s choices that got colleges into this mess in the first place, so his Government must get them out of it. If he is not willing to act, I would gladly take his place.
If it is not the minister’s job to step in and save colleges, whose job is it? What exactly is his job?
There is a certain predictability about the contributions from the Labour side of the chamber, which is disappointing.
Pam Duncan-Glancy talks about money being taken away from colleges. One of the principal challenges that the cabinet secretary and I faced when we came into post was the funding of the teachers’ pay settlement. I gently remind Pam Duncan-Glancy that many on her side of the chamber demanded intervention for the settlement of the teachers’ dispute. The Government assisted the councils to do that. That money had to be found somewhere. Of course, the cries are then, “Where did you get it from? It shouldn’t have come from there.” Here we are again. The interventionists demand more action. There is no additional money.
On the point about ministerial involvement, I have been active on both fronts that I identified, working with both sides. They have been constructive—perhaps more so than Pam Duncan-Glancy.
I reiterate that there is an opportunity to move the issue on. That is the role of the minister.
This period of industrial action has clearly been difficult for Scotland’s colleges, yet we must all retain our focus on outcomes for students. With that in mind, how can the post-school education reform agenda support Scotland’s colleges?
There is an enormous opportunity for the reform agenda to support Scotland’s colleges. One example of that is on-going work to better align the relationship between the colleges—and universities—and employers, to ensure for the benefit of those employers, the economy and, of course, the students that the education that is provided aligns with the needs of those employers and leads to sustainable employment. To be clear to Michelle Thomson, I absolutely see a pivotal role for colleges in the reform agenda.
The Scottish Funding Council, Audit Scotland and Edinburgh College have all said that the key issue is the continuation of reductions in funding in the sector, with colleges facing the real threat of running out of cash. The minister himself said that that issue is of long standing and has dogged colleges over the past 10 years. What actions will be required to future proof and provide fair funding for our college sector in order to guarantee stable employment relations as well as the learning experiences for our students?
Sue Webber is a very reasonable person, and she will recognise that part of the difficulty is the actions of her party’s Government in Westminster and the impact that those have had on our budgets. However, let us set that to one side.
A demonstration of our commitment—my commitment—to the college sector is to be found in the financial settlement that it has received. I have acknowledged that that settlement is not what I would have wanted it to be. However, it is in line with the funding that the sector received last year, as we said it would be, in very difficult and challenging financial circumstances.
I believe that there are better ways of working between the Government, the colleges and the universities on budget settlements and many other things. We are committed to working with the colleges to try to ensure that, whatever the budget settlements are, they are delivered to the best effect for the colleges, and certainly with the least harm.
I have had a lot of contact from college lecturers and union officials who, I know full well, do not want to be on strike and want only to be in the classroom doing what they do best. They are eager that a fair resolution is found urgently.
I welcome the statement from the minister, but what further steps can the Government take within our devolved competence to ensure fair work in our college sector and resolve what is a long-running pay dispute?
On the context of the pay dispute and the wider situation, I outlined in the statement what action we are taking. On fair work in the wider sense, Fulton MacGregor makes a fair point. We make progress on certain issues, such as trade union representation on boards, which has real potential to improve the situation in the longer term, yet trade union reps are not going on to the boards for a variety of reasons. We need to work on that. Better trade union representation—active trade union representation—at the heart of the governance of individual colleges will certainly improve the governance and the individual relationships in those localities.
In his statement, the minister mentioned the criticism that the Strathesk Resolutions report levelled at previous interventions. It is right to say that it described those as “last-minute”. Given that there is now a chance to fix the broken negotiating mechanism, is the minister willing to take that on? How does he see that helping to improve the environment in which discussions take place?
I do not say this to dodge Martin Whitfield’s perfectly reasonable question, but he will recognise that it is not for me to drive such change. Rather, it is for the participants to outline what they would find acceptable and what common ground they would find in the context of change. A bit of that is taking place at the moment.
There is a recognition that the mechanism as it currently functions needs to be examined. More than that, it is about the culture that surrounds the approach to the negotiations. We all know that, over many years, there has been great angst and strife in the discussions, and much harking back to what happened years ago. What we need is a reset of approach and culture in addition to looking at the mechanism.
I will continue to work with the trade unions and the colleges. In fact, we will continue to meet over the summer to try to get the discussions into a better space.
I have just had to do a wee bit of thinking ahead, because the question that I had in mind was similar to the one that has just been asked. As the minister has alluded to, trust is at the heart of any good relationship. The Strathesk report identified the lack of such trust as being central to the current state of industrial relations in the further education sector. Can the minister say how we might, first, rebuild that trust, or help to do so, and, secondly, take forward the report’s wider recommendations?
We might not adopt all the report’s recommendations, but we need to find common ground. Some areas of the report contain respectful disagreement. As I said in my statement, I think that we will see some derivation of the report being implemented.
Bill Kidd hits the nail on the head: this is a trust issue. At the heart of the systemic problems around pay negotiations over these past many years has been a lack of trust and good faith. We cannot wave a magic wand to fix that. The negotiating mechanism itself could be improved, but the culture around it and the approach to be taken are the bigger problems.
Another aspect that comes to mind and also feeds into trust is the accuracy of the data that is deployed in the negotiations. Often, the claim, or the stance that is promoted, is that a piece of data is accurate, but it is later disputed. We need to find a mechanism for checking such assertions so that everyone is clear on the facts as they are.
I hope that the minister will share my belief that one of the foundations of good industrial relations at national level is having well-trained and well-supported trade union representatives at local level within each institution. Earlier this week, I was concerned to learn that City of Glasgow College is proposing the closure of the trade union education centre that it runs jointly with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I am concerned not just about the outcome and its impact but about the process that is being followed. The proposed closure is just five weeks from now, which does not allow for adequate consultation with college union representatives. What discussions, if any, has the minister had with the college and the STUC thus far? Does he share my objection to the closure of an asset that is incredibly valuable to Scotland’s trade union movement?
I have not had direct discussions with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, but the issue has been raised with me, so I am aware of it. My understanding is that the current contract for the provision concludes at the end of June, although it may have been extended slightly. The host college’s view is that the course is underutilised and underfunded by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, in partnership with which it operates the provision. That is the college’s view; I am not saying that it is mine, too.
I understand that no final decision has yet been taken on the matter. If that is so, any decision to end the course or to move it to another college—which is perhaps the more likely outcome if it will end in Glasgow—would be the subject of consultation. I understand that the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board has not yet had any direct engagement with the trade unions, but they are due to meet next week. I encourage the unions to raise the issue directly with the GCRB. [Interruption.]
I encourage members who are chatting at the back to keep their conversations out of the chamber.
As members will know, a number of colleges have undertaken restructuring exercises, including the one at UHI North, West and Hebrides. What engagement has the Scottish Government had with the college and its staff throughout the on-going dispute, particularly given the impact that the loss of even a small number of jobs can have in a rural community?
I visited the college in question in September last year. I had discussions with the new board and the principal, and I met the student body as well. We were very much alive to some of the challenges that are faced there, and I know that that is an on-going situation. I have also met—not specifically on that college, but on the University of the Highlands and Islands in a general sense—the Scottish Funding Council and the UHI itself to discuss the future direction of the colleges and UHI central.
We are all committed to the concept of the UHI, but there is recognition, certainly among the constituent parts of the UHI, that things need to change. There is a view that the funding that is available to the institution could be better utilised across the piece. I am committed to working with the UHI on behalf of all the colleges to improve things, but I stress that any change would be made from the bottom up.
The minister has done his best to strike an optimistic tone. We certainly hope that that optimism is well placed, because the matter has been allowed to drag on for far too long, with increasingly polarised positions. I hope that this is the beginning of the end of the dispute. Does the minister accept that the Government’s intervention on teachers’ pay, although it may have resolved that dispute, has aggravated the colleges dispute still further, particularly where money was taken from the college sector?
I accept the point to the extent that, if we spend money once, we cannot spend it again. However, I suspect that very few voices were raised in the chamber at the time protesting against the settlement of the teachers dispute. That is simply the reality of this place. I want to be clear with Alex Cole-Hamilton. I think that I am being realistic about the chances of the current dispute being settled. I hope that I have not been overoptimistic. I have said that there is quite a long way to go before we get to that position, but I am optimistic about the longer-term situation being resolved, because the will and the commitment are there to do that.
Whenever there are such disputes, it is always hard-working Scottish students who are impacted. Students in Scotland’s colleges have had their learning disrupted for years due to on-going industrial disputes. Although we recognise that negotiation is key to ensuring a mutually beneficial outcome, what actions is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the learning experience of Scotland’s students is maintained, given that the college sector is an essential component of future-proofing Scotland’s economy?
First, I do not know any lecturers or college principals who want students to be adversely impacted by this. However, the member is right: the students are caught in the middle of it, and they have been for a number of years.
On how we address that in a practical sense, the member will remember that a number of mitigations were put in place last year, quite successfully, around the marking boycott that impacted our college students. Colleges are already looking at those mitigations, but I stress that it is far better that we find a way to avoid being in that situation again. I do not think that lecturers want to be doing that to students; principals do not want that; and students want to find themselves in that position least of all. I reiterate the plea that I made earlier that we get the negotiations sufficiently advanced that we can suspend that action, pending getting the dispute—finally—settled.
We are facing the most difficult budget since devolution began. Will the minister outline how the UK Government’s financial decisions have impacted on Scotland’s public finances? Does he agree that the Opposition parties have to recognise the financial context when they demand action from the Scottish Government?
Good luck with that. However, Rona Mackay is right. We have to be realistic. I hear much criticism of the Scottish Government and the decisions that we made in relation to the teachers’ pay settlement. I have heard us criticised for fixing the junior doctors dispute, but that too has a cumulative impact on the Government’s financial position. The fact of the matter is that the core grant that is available to the Scottish Government has gone down by £500 million, and that has an impact. That is the reality of the situation.
The minister says that he will not intervene in the dispute and, in the very next breath, calls on EIS-FELA to call off its action. Is that not intervention? Why does he not call on the employer to resolve the dispute? Why does he not intervene to support that?
I draw Richard Leonard’s attention to the Official Report, because he was clearly not listening. I called on both of them. I called on the employers to remove the threat of deeming. That is exactly what I did. I draw Mr Leonard’s attention to the Official Report.
That concludes proceedings on the ministerial statement. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow those on the front benches to change.
Air ais
Portfolio Question Time