Seòmar agus comataidhean

They were all from the university sector, unfortunately; none came from elsewhere. Obviously, we are looking into that. That may have been because of the timescales.

One institution withdrew its application. I think that, ultimately, in total—I stand to be corrected—only one project or possibly two projects did not progress. All the funded projects are international in scope, and 13 involve European partnerships. The funding ranges from enabling involvement in the European Union strategic network to creating opportunities for disadvantaged groups through short-term projects.

I fully accept that the programme is in its infancy, but we would expect that with something that is being piloted.

At the risk of passing the buck, I guess that you might want to ask them whether it has been beneficial. I think that they would say that it has been. I should say that the universities have seen the benefit as well. They have asked whether we would set up a similar group to engage with them directly.

The tripartite group has proved to be a helpful platform. It has probably taken longer than I expected to start to pay the dividends that I had hoped for, but it has provided an opportunity to have full and frank discussions about key topics on which the colleges feel that they would benefit from our taking a different approach. Having the SFC there to discuss the nuts and bolts of that has been helpful. There have been a number of meetings so far, some of which I have attended and some of which I have not been able to get to. There have been a number of areas on which we have made progress, but, more than anything, establishing the group was about developing a better collective understanding of the perspectives around the table.

I will give an example of that. Prior to our setting up the tripartite group, the colleges asked for flexibilities on their credit targets. They wanted the same money but a bit of flexibility as to how they used it. That flexibility was granted in part, but it was not as fully utilised as one might have expected or hoped. That was largely down to a lack of understanding—on both sides—of what that meant in reality and a lack of explanation. In essence, the colleges had asked for a one-size-fits-all approach that did not entirely suit all the individual colleges. There has been a bit of a shift so that, if there is an ask from the sector, it is fully understood, can be fully deployed and suits the interests of the majority. That is the way in which the matter has been taken forward.

We have been considering a number of areas, such as increased credit flexibilities and the timescales for, and timing of, decision making. Some of the decisions that the SFC made did not align with the timetable that the colleges worked to. That seems like a simple thing to fix. It has not been entirely simple, but we are getting there.

We have also been looking closely at the disposal of assets. Treasury rules and other things mean that there has been no driver for colleges to dispose of assets that they do not need in order to invest in the fabric of their buildings or whatever. We are still working through an option to facilitate that and allow colleges to move forward. They are enthusiastic to get to an end point on that, which we are working towards.

The colleges are driving a lot of what is being discussed, as they have a number of asks and suggestions. When there is a tangible return, I would like us to write jointly to the committee to explain what has been delivered. That would be useful, but I will need the other parties’ agreement to do that.

Do you mean what I talked in my statement about introducing?

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.