Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a good point, thanks.

Finally, on a point of process, you are aware of our inquiry into the wider commissioner landscape. Would it make sense for Parliament to consider the report and the recommendations that the committee produces before moving ahead with not just your bill but the range of proposals for the creation of new commissioners? Would it make sense for Parliament to consider what this committee ends up recommending before proceeding further with any of the range of individual commissioner proposals, to avoid a potential mismatch between what we end up agreeing for the landscape overall and what we do on a case-by-case basis over the rest of this parliamentary term?

I appreciate that and I realise that this is somewhat going back to ground that has been covered. There are already, as has been mentioned, a range of third sector organisations and charities that advocate effectively on behalf of disabled people and particularly those who find it most difficult to do that for themselves. They lobby us and give evidence very regularly—there are some very effective organisations. What you are proposing would add something new to the landscape.

I get the logic that, if there was not that landscape of organisations that are already advocating for disabled people, there would be a very clear case for having somebody to do that and to gather those voices and experiences and bring them to Parliament. However, I am not sure why there is a case for that when we already have that wider landscape of people who do that. That is where my question comes from. Is Parliament not responding to them effectively enough?

Thanks—including for that distressing reminder of how close our next election is.

Good morning. I will follow up on Jamie Halcro Johnston’s initial question about an individual MSP advocating for a disabled constituent. I will move the discussion to a whole-Parliament level and touch on some of the points that you have made. I understand entirely what you said about the difficulties that disabled people face in advocating for themselves and using their own voice in settings such as the Parliament, but there is a question for us as an institution. In our inquiry into the wider commissioner landscape, we touched a few times on wider issues relating to effective parliamentary scrutiny and questions of reform 25 years into devolution.

I presume that part of your motivation for bringing the bill forward is that Parliament, as a whole, has not been effective enough in, for example, advocating and legislating for disabled people. Why do you think that that is? If we can move from Jamie’s example of the individual MSP level to that of the institution as a whole, what is holding the institution back from effectively fulfilling that job—and what is holding it back so far that there is a need for an independent commissioner?

On a similar line of questioning, Professor Gillespie, your university funding situation is obviously different. Universities are not in the public sector, so fair work applies a bit differently. How are universities evaluated for their commitment to fair work in so far as it relates to the public funding that they receive?

Thanks, convener. My first question, which is for Shona Struthers, is on the state of industrial relations in colleges. That is a very familiar topic.

It has been quite some time now since the Strathesk Resolutions report was published. We have had the response from employers and the response from unions. We are now waiting for the Government’s proposals to take matters forward. In the intervening period, we are locked into another round of national industrial action over a pay dispute. Do you think that there has been any progress in national collective bargaining and industrial relations since that report was published?

On the wider issue of fair work, I am interested in your understanding of SFC funding conditions and how it evaluates outcome agreements. From the best I can gather, colleges’ commitments to fair work, where they are tied in with conditions around funding, are part of the outcome agreement. Are you aware of how or whether the SFC evaluates whether a college has met its fair work obligations?

On individual universities’ fair work agendas and their relations with trade unions, the major point of dispute in the university sector over recent years has primarily, although not entirely, been about pensions as a UK-wide issue. However, do you think that there are points for improvement in the Scottish sector specifically? Is there a role for the Scottish Government there? I am thinking beyond the obvious point that, if there was more money in the sector, there would probably be less unrest. Is there a role for the Scottish Government in improving industrial relations in the university sector, or should that, in your view, be left up to the institutions and the unions?

You will have heard the questions that I asked the first panel—they are similar to those that I asked the panellists last week. I am interested, in particular, in what the SFC’s role is in ensuring that colleges are fulfilling their fair work commitments. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the primary way in which the SFC would be involved in that is through the college outcome agreements. If there are commitments to fair work in an outcome agreement, the SFC would have a role in checking that those have been fulfilled. Can you outline how that works in practice?

That is really useful. I would like to come back to what it looks like in practice if there is a problem and you need to get involved.

First, though, when an outcome agreement is being drafted, is each college allowed to take a bespoke approach to fair work, with quite a lot of flexibility, or do you approach them all with a minimum set of standards based on Scottish Government fair work policy? What are the baseline criteria? Do you say, “You cannot have a fair work agreement that does not at least meet X, Y and Z standards”?