Seòmar agus comataidhean

That has not been considered, but it is a fair ask. A couple of months ago, I had a useful conversation with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. In the public sector bodies, we are quite well engaged with trade unions. I have met them and there is engagement with the staff cohort, so the unions have the opportunity to feed in ideas and concerns.

In relation to employer engagement, which we discussed earlier, I have been asked about ensuring that the voice of staff is heard. That is a fair point, and I am mulling over how to do that. The employers that were in the room at the time heard that point, too. Often, the best ideas come from people who work at the coalface and not just from the management of companies. We need to develop that. We have not taken forward direct involvement for unions, but I will take that away to consider.

Indeed. We are getting under way a piece of work that is a review of the guidance that is issued to college boards. Perhaps Adam Mackie will explain the detail of that.

Our position, as we have discussed in the chamber on other occasions, is that colleges ought to be exhausting all possibilities to avoid compulsory redundancies. We have to recognise that they are stand-alone institutions and that, regrettably, circumstances might lead to such a situation, but we are encouraging them. For the most part, college principals and boards are very much committed to trying to avoid compulsory redundancies.

You are referring to a negotiating committee.

I agree with you, and there is no doubt that there is scope for doing this far better than is currently the situation. However, we need to get agreement on what those changes might look like. I have had a number of conversations with all sides on it, and I do not think that we are in the space where there would be agreement right now. However, it is incumbent on me, as minister, to try to drive that forward, because we cannae go on as we have been for years. There have been far too many personality clashes involved in it. There are question marks about the structures and how they work, so I think that we need to review it.

Graeme Dey has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 5, paragraph 6—

Original text—

If a regional board comes to the conclusion that there is something of concern to it, it has the opportunity to escalate that to the Scottish Qualifications Authority

Corrected text—

If a regional board comes to the conclusion that there is something of concern to it, it has the opportunity to escalate that to the Scottish Funding Council

I am delighted to be here today to discuss the Colleges of Further Education and Regional Strategic Bodies (Membership of Boards) (Scotland) Order 2023, which makes changes to the constitution of the boards of management of all regional and incorporated assigned colleges, regional college boards and the board of management of New College Lanarkshire. For ease, I will, from now on, refer to the changes as affecting “college boards”.

The order makes amendments to existing legislation to ensure that there are two trade union nominee members—one from the teaching staff and one from the support staff—on college boards. Consequential amendments to the board sizes are also made to ensure that there remains a balance of independent board members. I hope that, among other things, that will go some way to improving industrial relations in the sector by giving greater voice to trade union views in decision making and by helping to improve confidence, particularly among the workforce, in decisions that are made by college boards.

I am grateful to the committee for its work in scrutinising the Colleges of Further Education and Regional Strategic Bodies (Membership of Boards) (Scotland) Order 2023, and for accommodating my diary today in order that I can also attend a similarly important event elsewhere this morning. I also want to put on record my thanks to Ross Greer, the good governance steering group and the trade unions, who have all provided input at various times to help develop the order and prepare the sector for its implementation.

It is no secret that industrial relations in the college sector are far from ideal, and that has been the case for some time. Concerns have been raised through the committee and through my engagement with trade unions about a range of workforce issues, including college governance. I have been clear throughout that engagement that the workforce issues are a matter for colleges to consider, but it is my expectation that there will be meaningful engagement and collaboration with trade unions and workers on such matters. I should add that existing processes are pursued when issues arise.

The order will make improvements to college governance by adding trade union nominees to college boards, and I am optimistic that it will improve confidence in college board decision making by giving trade unions a more direct route to bring workforce issues to boards. That aligns with the Scottish Government’s wider fair work agenda, which, at its centre, is about workers having an effective voice. Having trade union nominees on boards will further the input of trade unions in decision making.

I welcome the committee’s continued focus on college governance and industrial relations and its scrutiny of that legislation. The Government has always been clear that, although industrial relations are matters for trade unions and college employers, it will work alongside both to encourage and improve relations and ensure good governance in the sector. I look forward to taking any questions that the committee may have.

I cannot speak to what Michael Russell said all those years ago. My position is realistic. We have been very clear with colleges. As I said earlier, for the most part, college boards and principals want to do anything that they can to avoid compulsory redundancies. That is where we are.

The regional set-ups congest the landscape a little bit. To go back to the original point, it is not for ministers, as I have kept saying, to intervene in individual disputes, but there are processes in place. If we take the example of Glasgow and the current set-up there, the escalation route is to the regional board.

In the context of the dispute that has been running at one college in Glasgow, that route has not been followed. I met the trade unions last week and, to my surprise, I learned that they had not pursued it. That raises the question about the board’s role: should it be proactive when it sees a dispute?

On the back of those discussions, I met the board last Friday. I encouraged the board and the trade unions to get together—I did not care who made the first move—to explore some of the claims that have been made around the dispute. I am pleased to say that, on Monday, they took that opportunity. There have been discussions, and I understand that, as of today, the trade unions are to go back to the board with further information.

I outline that example because it shows that processes exist. I am not saying that they are perfect. As you know, we are considering future governance arrangements in the regional set-ups. That is the process that can and should be followed. If a regional board comes to the conclusion that there is something of concern to it, it has the opportunity to escalate that to the Scottish Qualifications Authority [Graeme Dey has corrected this contribution. See end of report.], which I would expect it to do, if that were the case, in any such circumstances.

Do you mean the machinery within the college, if they are sitting on the board, or the whole machinery?