Official Report 1106KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-03609, in the name of Ross Greer, on industrial relations in the college sector. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is concerned by the record of industrial relations in the college sector over the last decade; understands that nationwide industrial action by lecturers has taken place in six of the last eight years, largely due to the perceived failure to implement previous agreements on pay, conditions and status; further understands that one such example of industrial action was the “fire and rehire” incident at Forth Valley College in 2021, which, it believes, became the catalyst for a national strike and resulted in the affected lecturers being reinstated to their previous positions; notes with regret reports that the nationally agreed disputes resolution process is not yet in place at all colleges; believes that staff feel their extensive efforts to support students throughout the COVID-19 pandemic have not been recognised and that this, in combination with frustration over pay awards to senior management, has left many feeling demotivated; recognises what it sees as the pivotal role played by college teaching and support staff throughout the pandemic, and believes that colleges, including those in the West of Scotland, have a critical role to play in Scotland’s economic recovery from COVID-19, efforts to tackle the climate emergency, and the eradication of child poverty.
18:04
I thank Labour and Green colleagues, whose support for my motion secured the debate, and the Educational Institute of Scotland—Further Education Lecturers Association, which collaborated on its drafting.
I make no secret of the fact that I am a supporter of EIS-FELA. I was a trade unionist before I was elected to Parliament, and I will still be one long after I leave. I am aware that college management are not pleased with the tone of the motion and some of the specific points that it makes; I will address those points in more detail later.
I start by providing some context for my bringing the motion to Parliament. We are now a decade on from the regionalisation of Scotland’s colleges. The Greens did not support that process, but we recognise that some good has come from it. Nonetheless, this is an appropriate point at which to take stock and acknowledge what has not worked.
Our colleges have seen industrial action in six of the past eight years, and there is currently an on-going ballot of lecturers, which might well lead to further strike action. Regardless of the position that members took on any one of those strikes or their views on industrial action as a whole, I think that we can all acknowledge that something is obviously wrong when there is consistent unrest in the sector year after year.
That is a point on which unions and management agree, albeit that they have an understandable disagreement with regard to how the situation has regularly escalated that far. The issue has not had nearly enough parliamentary scrutiny, so I am glad that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has agreed to my request that we hold an inquiry. I hope that this debate will be an opportunity to air some of the issues, which can then be explored in more detail through that process.
National collective bargaining in the sector has certainly been a positive development. The power imbalance in industrial relations is, by default, in favour of the employer, and it is only through collective organising that workers can even that out. Too many sectors of our economy no longer have, or have never had, effective collective bargaining arrangements in place, and I am glad that the Scottish Government’s national strategy for economic transformation reflects the Greens’ manifesto proposals to expand collective bargaining into more industries.
College management are absolutely right to point out that Scotland’s lecturers have the best pay and conditions anywhere in the United Kingdom. We should all be proud of that—it is a striking example of what a well-organised workforce can achieve, and it is certainly hard to imagine that that would have been the case without militant trade unionism. EIS-FELA should not be made to feel embarrassed about that; it should be congratulated on consistently delivering on behalf of its members.
I do not intend the debate to be a deep dive into the rights and wrongs of each individual dispute across the past decade, but it is worth pointing out that the first pay agreement that was reached by the National Joint Negotiation Committee was the subject of an employment tribunal when management refused to make the payments in full. The tribunal upheld the union’s position. Subsequent disputes were, again, the result of failures to honour the deals that were reached at the NJNC.
I played my role in that near-yearly routine, meeting both the union and management. My meetings with Colleges Scotland have always been completely candid and useful, but one consistent theme has emerged: a dispute over what the agreed deals have actually meant in practice. Management’s position has generally been that they have, in fact, honoured the deal in so far as they understood it, and that the union’s understanding was incorrect.
I have clearly and firmly supported the union’s position over the years, but the dispute over what was agreed has led me to make a proposal that I know neither college management nor my friends in the EIS are enthusiastic about. The NJNC is a bilateral negotiations body. I would like serious consideration to be given to the presence of a Scottish Government or other independent observer in future sessions. I recognise that that proposal has drawbacks of its own, but we need to do something to break out of the cycle.
Fire-and-rehire practices in the sector must also be stamped out. The 18-month dispute at Forth Valley College was caused by an attempt to replace lecturer posts with course instructor posts. Referring back to the point that Colleges Scotland has fairly made on a regular basis, I reiterate that our lecturers have comparatively high pay and conditions, so replacing those posts with course instructors with poorer pay and conditions, while offering staff the choice between such a downgrade and redundancy, is the absolute definition of fire and rehire. That is not to cast aspersions on the ability of course instructors, who do an excellent job in colleges across the country, but any profession that was being undermined in that way would be absolutely justified in resisting such a move.
When fire-and-rehire disputes resulted in referral to the NJNC, agreement was reached that those posts were indeed for lecturers, not course instructors, and the decision was reversed. That is an example of a trade union doing exactly what it is for: protecting its members’ interests.
Colleges Scotland contends that there is no national practice of fire and rehire in the sector, and I do not claim that there is a systematic plan in place, but that was not an isolated incident. There are live disputes at West Lothian College and Fife College on exactly that issue right now.
One really useful outcome of that dispute was clearer agreement on a future dispute resolution mechanism. Every college should have a locally agreed dispute resolution process with its EIS branch, and issues that are not resolved at that level should be referred up to the NJNC. However, a number of colleges still do not have a local process in place. I know that the reasons for that are complex. Unison, the largest union representing course instructors, is keen to have a role in processes that involve that role, and—as far as I understand it—each union and management have distinct positions that have not yet been reconciled. I hope that the Scottish Government can encourage renewed effort in that area. Given the frequency of industrial action in the sector, ensuring that every college has in place a clear resolution process seems like an essential step.
It would be remiss of me to bring up fire-and-rehire practices without offering the Scottish Green Party’s solidarity to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—and Nautilus International members who are fighting for their jobs at P&O Ferries. The college sector might have its problems, but for a company to employ thugs armed with handcuffs to force its own staff off its ships after sacking them at a moment’s notice is utterly shameful.
I am glad that the Scottish Government is reviewing its contracts with P&O. It is clear that a company that is willing to do that to its own workers, and to then replace them with workers on a pitiful wage of £1.80 an hour, is utterly unfit to run essential services—never mind that not being compatible with the Scottish Government’s fair work practices. On that point, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to the RMT.
I am conscious of time, and there are a number of other issues that I have not touched on. I certainly do not have time to do justice to the on-going pay dispute, but I highlight that management have not yet offered the EIS a new date for further negotiations. They might be waiting for the result of the ballot, but I urge them not to wait. No one wants industrial action, and a new date should be set as soon as possible so that negotiations can resume.
My motion and speech have focused largely on the issues facing lecturers, but I know that support staff face a range of challenges of their own, some of which, I hope, will be touched on by other members. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister for Higher Education and Further Education, Youth Employment and Training whether the Scottish Government could explore whether further fair work conditions could be attached to Scottish Funding Council packages for colleges, with the intention of benefiting the lowest-paid staff in particular.
The situation at Scotland’s Rural College is another that should be revisited. A pay and grading review was agreed a long time ago and is now long overdue. SRUC lecturers’ pay and conditions are markedly worse than those of their colleagues in either the further education or higher education sectors. Yet again, the situation has dragged on for so long without a resolution that further industrial action is a distinct possibility.
I also extend the Greens’ support to University and College Union Scotland members in the university sector, who are once again out on strike in response to the shocking attack on their pensions, on top of sustained erosion of their pay and conditions. A typical Universities Superannuation Scheme pension fund member now faces a 35 per cent cut to their pension and, in many ways, employment practices in the university sector are far worse than those in colleges. Zero-hours contracts and low wages are certainly more prevalent.
Scotland’s colleges have so much to offer. They are a driving force of our economy, and they are essential to our climate ambitions, as they train the joiners, electricians, heating engineers, forestry workers, mechanics and so many others who will deliver the transition away from a fossil fuel based economy. They are key to our shared mission of eradicating child poverty, as they are often where the most marginalised people can access life-changing education. They have played an incredible and often underappreciated role in allowing many young Scots to see beyond the UK’s border through the Erasmus+ scheme, before that was cruelly taken away by Brexit.
My purpose in bringing the debate to the chamber is not to paint an entirely negative picture of our colleges. There is so much to be proud of, and so much that can still be achieved, but all of it is dependent on college staff. There are clear deep-rooted problems in the relationship between staff and management across the sector—problems that, I believe, Parliament and Government have a role in resolving.
I am grateful to Colleges Scotland for its input; to EIS-FELA, as always, for its collaboration; to all members who will contribute to the debate; and to the minister for responding on behalf of the Government. I believe that broad consensus can be found in this area—we just need to be brave enough to take the difficult steps towards it.
18:12
I thank Ross Greer for bringing the debate to the chamber, and—if I may put on the persona of convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee—I pay tribute to, and thank, him for his many insightful contributions to the work of the committee. He is appreciated by all of us who serve on it.
I will also comment on the principal of Forth Valley College, which Ross Greer mentioned in passing. In my dealings with Professor Ken Thomson, I have rarely met a more inspirational educationist. He is an innovator and he brings great energy and vision to everything that he does. We are the beneficiaries of the service that he gives as the principal of Forth Valley College.
We should make no mistake about it: this is a difficult time to be a young person in Scotland. Having spent the past two years of their education pretty much in limbo, young people across the country are uncertain about what will happen day to day, never mind month to month or even year to year.
The problems that we face in higher education in Scotland were here long before the Covid-19 pandemic, but it has served to magnify and highlight those issues. It is right to point out that the restrictions that were imposed in response to the pandemic have created further issues, and it is in that context that we must view the present industrial discontent in both colleges and universities. It is not, in my opinion, for the Government to dictate to unions or management what should happen. What we should do today is remind the lecturers and the principals of the effect that they are having on our young people.
One of my constituents who is at a further education college told me that he had to wait an entire month for results and feedback on a critical assessment that determined his grade. He could not plan for imminent examinations, get a sense of where he was or plan ahead. That left him feeling isolated, alone and fearful for his future. That was all because of the industrial action. Another of my constituents, who had no knowledge of whether she would sit exams until a week and a half before she was due to sit them, felt that she had been left hanging, felt that she had been ignored and felt stressed out. All of that was also on account of the industrial action.
Students are left not knowing whether they will get into university or whether they can get the job that they want. That needs to end. To be frank, the rights and wrongs of the industrial action are secondary to the need to serve our young people first. I do not doubt the intentions of the lecturers or, indeed, the principals or that they have a sincere desire to serve students’ best interests, but they must redouble their efforts to reach agreement.
We must put the dispute behind us. Every principal and striking lecturer must be able to look themselves in the mirror and say that they have done everything that they can to reach an agreement. I say to them—I hope that we can all agree on this—that we want our students to be educated and treated with the respect that they deserve. Their future is at stake. Someone should speak up for students in the debate, and they should be more prominent in it than they have been until now. We owe it to them after what we have put them through over the past two years.
18:16
It is a pleasure to congratulate Ross Greer on securing the debate and on his motion, which highlights the record of industrial relations in the college sector over the past decade. In particular, it highlights the fact that there has been strike action in six out of the past eight years. Most of us will be aware of specific disputes in colleges in the areas that we represent. Even over the past few days, I have been consulted by staff in Ayrshire College, who are concerned about the draft budget, which has a £51.9 million cut and will have massive consequences for the workforce there.
Stephen Kerr is correct to put on record the pressure that students have been under during Covid. Of course, they will also be affected by industrial action. Many people who work in the college sector are very aware of that, so it is a difficult decision for them to take industrial action. It shows that industrial relations in the sector have deteriorated and that the Scottish Government needs to intervene to repair the relationships between Colleges Scotland and trade unionists. The issues have to be viewed in the wider context, and there can be absolutely no doubt that the level of cuts that colleges face has been a factor in the situation.
If we compare the treatment of colleges and college students to what happens in other parts of the education sector, we see a dramatic contrast. More than £8,000 is spent each year per secondary school student. The figure is more than £7,000 per pre-school child, more than £6,000 for primary school students, just under £6,000 for university students and just over £4,000 for college students. We know the class nature of college students and that, historically, working-class communities have looked to colleges, as have some of the trades and sectors that we need for our society and economy to survive. Whether it is building trades, beauty or hairdressing, they are many of the service industries to which working-class people look.
Since 2014, the college sector has been subjected to numerous industrial disputes. The grievances have been on issues such as equal pay, common conditions of service, transfer to permanent status for staff who are on insecure contracts, annual pay agreements, fire and rehire, which has been referred to, and disciplinary and grievance procedures and policies. It is clear that there are significant cultural issues in the sector, given that industrial relations are in such a dire condition.
I first became an elected representative in 2005, and I recall at that time being approached about issues at what is now Ayrshire College at Kilwinning. Although the issues then were different, the recurring theme is that the whole sector has been subjected to a backdrop of poor industrial relations.
We know that the EIS-Further Education Lecturers Association is in dispute, and that Unison has lodged a formal dispute with colleges. We also know that 92 per cent of college workers rejected the pay offer. As Ross Greer said, UCU members are in dispute as a result of a 35 per cent cut to pensions and a 25.5 per cent real-terms cut to their pay since 2009.
I thank Ross Greer for raising the issues, and I hope that the Scottish Government will actively engage with them.
18:20
I thank Ross Greer for bringing the debate to Parliament. Colleges are central to promoting the skills and social mobility across our communities that are needed for Scotland to thrive into the future, not least as we come out of a global pandemic. They are essential to the partnerships that schools have with the wider community, as well as being providers of courses that fit directly into apprenticeships and careers.
Neither the Parliament nor the Scottish Government is the employer here, and they are not parties in the dispute that is under way. Therefore, it is up to the colleges as employers, and the unions that represent their workforces, to reach a settlement, and it is for them to do so voluntarily and collaboratively. I hope that we can agree that both sides now need to employ all their efforts to that end, in the interests of students, staff and colleges alike. The Scottish Government is clear that support staff and lecturing staff are equally valuable in our colleges, and, again, I hope that that fact is recognised across the chamber.
As a Parliament, I hope that we can also be clear that the practice of fire and rehire is appalling and that no college should use it or attempt to justify it. Employment and trades union law remain reserved to the UK Government, and some parties here argued for that to remain the case in the course of the Smith commission. However, that does not prevent the Parliament from working with unions to highlight that fire and rehire is a practice that cannot be allowed to continue.
I believe that the Scottish Government is making its view on that clear, but it is now time for the UK Government, where the legislative powers lie, to ban the practice entirely, just as it should learn from the experience of the pandemic and all its economic consequences by legislating to protect workers’ rights more broadly.
I fully concur with the member’s points about what the UK Government should do, but does he not accept that, in the college sector, it is a matter of policy from the Scottish Government?
As I said, the colleges are the employer, but my point about fire and rehire is that it is an example of weakness in UK employment law, which is a point that other members have made. If I can go off on a relevant tangent, I also hope that employment law will not be found to be similarly weak when the workforce of P&O Ferries comes to challenge its atrocious treatment in recent days.
The Parliament has a role in pressing the UK Government to legislate to fix the gaps that exist in the UK’s employment law and that seemingly allow a college to fire and rehire people. We should keep making that point until either we have action on that front from the UK Government or the relevant powers to address the matter come to this Parliament.
I hope that everyone recognises that any settlement has to be affordable to the Scottish Government, but I believe that the ball is now firmly in the colleges’ court. I urge the employers to return to the negotiating table as a matter of urgency in order to resolve a dispute that is in nobody’s interests, least of all those of students. Their experience of learning and wider student life has already been affected by the unavoidable consequences of a global pandemic. I believe that one way in which employers can show good faith in the negotiations is if colleges take an unequivocal stance now against fire and rehire as a working practice.
18:24
It is a pleasure to take part in this members’ business debate. I extend my congratulations to Ross Greer on securing it and on the cross-party support that has made it possible.
Our college sector is very important. I thank the college lecturers and management, but most of all the students, who have put up with a huge amount in the Covid pandemic over the past two years.
Before the Covid pandemic, colleges were places that managed to shelter children who found school too difficult, too horrible or not to their liking. College lecturers stepped out of their way to make those people in their early adult life welcome and to say that education was possible for them—perhaps not in the way that they had experienced it at school, but in a different way. I think of the college lecturers who went above and beyond that and formed courses that were almost specifically designed for individuals who were challenged by the sort of learning that schools seemed to put out. The flexibility and imagination and, above all, the care that college lecturers and, indeed, the support staff around them showed to young people show their merit.
They went into Covid, with the challenges of lockdown and of reaching out to young people who were often unable to join in using information technology or other technology, and were maybe limited to making a phone call or sometimes even to letters, and they kept those young people interested in their futures. That speaks highly of a well-motivated, highly experienced and incredibly valuable group of professionals.
The motion is about the challenges with industrial relations, which also predate Covid. In this debate, we should be looking to the heart of that to try to end the appalling industrial relations between the trade unions and the colleges. An individual does not lightly choose to vote to take industrial action and to move that industrial action to the point of a strike—no worker does that with any enthusiasm whatsoever. However, college lecturers and workers have been put under emotional stress, and they have reached that stage in different geographical areas and different employment disputes. That speaks volumes about an attitudinal difference and problem between the colleges and their staff.
It is for the Scottish Government to step in to facilitate a rebuilding of those industrial relations. I will give one simple example that would help. Why can there not be proper facility time for full-time trade unionists and trade union representatives so that they are paid to deal with their trade union points of order and so that industrial disputes could perhaps be avoided by simple discussion at college level? That exists in many areas of our economy, but it does not appear in the college sector. That is a simple step—it will cost money, but it might prevent children from giving up on their further education.
In the short time that I have left, I want to discuss the budget and the flat-cash position this year. Members from across the chamber have talked about the importance of that issue. Young people go into schools that have been rebuilt, and people go to universities that are among the finest architectural establishments in Scotland, but our college estate has been abandoned and left behind. The young people who go to our college estate reflect on their value when they see how society wants them to be educated.
We are at a crossroads at which we can see an opportunity for a glorious future for our college sector, which is important. It is important to the lecturers and the colleges but, most of all, it is important to the young people of Scotland.
18:29
I join other members in thanking Ross Greer for bringing forward the debate, and I thank the members who have contributed to it. The issues that have been raised are important, and the Parliament should be prepared to debate them.
First, I echo the comments that Martin Whitfield made. I have made such comments before, but I take the opportunity to do so again, because we cannot emphasise enough the gratitude that we should all have for the contribution that our college teaching and support staff have made to the sector throughout the pandemic. It has been an extraordinarily difficult period for our institutions, and they have managed to continue to deliver in difficult circumstances for students over the length and breadth of the country, by pivoting the way in which they deliver. We are all grateful for their efforts.
As we emerge from the pandemic and look forward, our tertiary education institutions will have a critical role in rebuilding our economy and society. They will be instrumental in any economic recovery strategy, working with our business base, their local communities and local people, and fulfilling their civic roles as local anchor institutions.
Katy Clark and Martin Whitfield talked about the budget settlement. I will briefly reflect on where we are. I understand that the circumstances in which we find ourselves are challenging for colleges. However, we have to recognise that the budget that we have provided comes against the backdrop of a Scottish Government budget about which the Scottish Fiscal Commission, independently of Government, has said to the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is a 5.2 per cent cut in real terms to the Scottish Government’s budgetary leeway.
We should be clear that the settlement for the tertiary education sector does not follow that trajectory. However, we should not pretend that we are in anything other than difficult circumstances.
What the minister has said relates to the Covid recovery moneys that were given to the Scottish Government. In fact, it is the largest increase in the block grant that the Scottish Government has had in the devolution era. It is important to get straight the facts of the matter.
I have referred to the facts of the matter. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that, in the coming financial year, compared to the one that is just ending, we have, in real terms, 5.2 per cent less to expend. However, I do not want to get too caught up in that, because that is not the fundamental purpose of the debate. I mentioned it just by way of context because the budget was mentioned.
The challenge for us now is how to work collectively to ensure that colleges are well placed to respond to the circumstances that we are in. That is my commitment. I have been meeting the Scottish Funding Council, Colleges Scotland, college principals and, of course, our trade unions. In recognition of the point that Dr Allan made, I say that I recognise the equal importance of the support staff and the lecturers. I am meeting not just EIS-FELA on those matters but Unison, Unite and GMB, and we are having the discussion about how we make sure that colleges are well placed to respond to the challenges and opportunities that are ahead.
I share the understandable concerns that have been raised about the frequency of industrial action. It is undeniable that that has been the experience over the past few years. Dr Allan was correct in saying that, fundamentally, its resolution is for the college management and unions, but I do not shirk the Scottish Government’s role in such matters.
Katy Clark expressed the hope that we will be actively involved; I hope that I have demonstrated the extent to which we are in dialogue with the sector. Martin Whitfield referred to there being such a role, and we take that seriously. Following previous industrial action, my predecessor, Richard Lochhead, committed to a lessons-learned exercise. As with many things, that was disrupted to a degree by Covid-19, but Scottish Government officials have had discussions with the employers’ association and trade unions. A final summary report on lessons learned will be published, and advice will be provided to ministers in due course.
What are the minister’s comments on Ross Greer’s proposal that the Scottish Government should take a seat at the negotiating table?
That would fundamentally alter the nature of the process. It is not usual for the Scottish Government to seek to become involved in every negotiation process across the labour market. I referred to the lessons-learned exercise that is under way. That will make recommendations that will inform what we might do in the future. I will not presuppose what that will say.
Forth Valley College is mentioned specifically in the motion and has been referred to during the debate. I do not always agree with Mr Kerr. I think that he should speak in his persona as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee more often, rather than whatever other persona he speaks from. I regularly meet Ken Thomson and I find him to be forward thinking. He is trying to lead a college that is fundamentally responsive to the needs of the community that it serves.
It is undeniable that there have been challenges with industrial relations at that institution. There was an issue with the utilisation of assessors and instructors to replace lecturing roles. It is important to say first that we should not dismiss the importance of the people who work in colleges as assessors and instructors. That is a long-standing practice. They play a valuable role.
The specific circumstance was, however, one in which there was a suggestion that people should transition from one role to the other and there was then industrial action. I expect and hope that agreement can be reached. If agreement cannot be reached, there should be some form of arbitration mechanism. That is precisely what we have in the National Joint Negotiating Committee circular. We have that mechanism and it was utilised in the specific instance of Forth Valley. It resulted in agreement with the union position and resolution of the issue. It was a clear statement that what happened there was not intended to be national policy.
Time is against me. I would like to have said more. Having been the fair work minister in the previous session of Parliament, I think that fair work is important across the entirety of our labour market. Our college sector should be no different. I assure members that I will do everything I can to ensure that fair work and harmonious industrial relations are features of our college sector.
That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:37.Previous
Decision Time