Chamber and committees

Thank you. I certainly agree with that sentiment. If you look at pay growth in the sector over the past 30 years, you see that pay growth for senior management, and in particular principals, has completely outstripped, by a huge margin, that for lecturers or support staff.

I appreciate that you shared with the committee the lessons learned report that Strathesk recently completed. However, I got a distinct sense of déjà vu when reading it. The report notes that the most consistent theme is the crushing lack of trust between the parties in the National Joint Negotiation Committee negotiations. In fact, it refers to it as a

“debilitatingly low level of trust”.

The report also observes the fact that that conclusion is not new—it was the key conclusion in the similar review that was conducted by John Sturrock five years ago. Why has no progress been made on resolving the core issue that is resulting in such regular industrial action?

I accept that the relationship that union and college management have individually with the Scottish Government is better than the relationship that they have with one another. However, given that this conclusion was exactly the same one that John Sturrock came to five years ago, what specifically has the Scottish Government done in that intervening period to play a constructive role in facilitating a better relationship between unions and management, rather than your direct relationship with each of them? What role have you played in this period of time to try to resolve what John Sturrock concluded about their relationship with one another?

Will the Scottish Government issue a fuller response to the exercise? I accept that it is primarily for the unions and college management to respond to, but there is a role for Government here, and there are conclusions in relation to the Government. Will there be a fuller response from you on the contents of the report?

Thanks for that, minister. Can I clarify on what timescale the committee should expect to see the Government’s response?

My instinctive position is that this is an appropriate point at which to close the petition. The arguments for and against an inquiry have already been heard, and Parliament previously considered that there was no need for an inquiry. The petition was held open for the purposes of the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill, which the Government introduced to rectify the issues that came about as a result of the Supreme Court judgment on the named person policy. In the end, the Government withdrew that bill in the previous session of Parliament. I understand why the petitioners still feel the way that they do, but the arguments on an inquiry have already been heard, a position has been reached and nothing has changed since that point. The reason why Parliament kept the petition open is also no longer relevant.

I have a final question on boards. Derek Smeall has been mentioned; you might be aware of the evidence that he gave on the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board. Does Colleges Scotland have a view on that? Do you align with the view that has been expressed to us that it is pretty hard to justify why that regional board exists at all?

You mentioned the latest lessons-learned report, publication of which is still to come. From that and internal reflections from within Colleges Scotland, are there further changes to the national joint negotiating committee framework that you would like? Is there anything structural about the process that could be improved? Some of the evidence that we have received and a lot of the wider public discussion on the matter comes back to challenging interpersonal relationships between people on the two sides who have been in the room for so long that issues have become entrenched. That is a cultural issue that can be resolved. Are there structural issues in the process that could result in improvement if they were changed?

On pay, although I recognise that it would not free up the money that would be required for settlements that are claimed by the lecturers or support staff unions, because the scale is totally different, is there an issue with unions urging college staff to show pay restraint, given that some principals in Scotland earn more than the First Minister and quite a number earn more than the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills?

You can surely understand why the workforce find it hard to stomach messaging on pay restraint from individuals who are on more than 150 grand a year, and some who are on far more than that.

I have a brief question on boards. There is a long-standing Government commitment to enabling permanent trade union representation on boards. Some boards already have that, but there is the Government commitment, for the sake of consistency. Does Colleges Scotland support that? Do you think that it would help to improve things?