Chamber and committees

Reflecting on the comments made by other witnesses, what does Unison feel are the major problems in this sector at the moment?

I appreciate that you are speaking for COSLA and that, because we do not have any detail, it is very difficult for you to respond. If the model was a commissioning model and if responsibility was taken away from local government, such that local authorities would have to enter into a tendering exercise, could there be a risk that local government, or at least some councils, might not get involved in that?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance ministers have had with ministerial colleagues regarding any plans to investigate the feasibility of a land value tax. (S6O-01586)

I congratulate Pam Gosal on securing the debate and all who have contributed to it. The purpose of the debate is to recognise and bring focus to the international day for the elimination of violence against women and girls, which takes place on Friday, and to the following 16 days of activism, which run until 10 December, which is human rights day.

As has been said a number of times, the World Health Organization estimates that, globally, almost one in three women are subjected to partner violence. It is perhaps more shocking that the statistic is similar for Scotland: one in three women and girls in Scotland experience the threat and the reality of physical violence. Those are statistics, but they are about real people and real women.

However, many of those victims are hidden. I will speak about one of those women, who has already been referred to by Beatrice Wishart: Adrienne McCartney, whose experience was recounted in an article on 3 October 2021 in the Sunday Post by Marion Scott. On that occasion, Adrienne McCartney spoke in her own words about a series of failures by the police and the prosecution service that she said had shattered her trust in Scotland’s justice system. She described an on-going campaign of abuse and harassment from her estranged husband, and she claimed that officers had dismissed her fears for her family’s safety. Eventually, her husband was charged and received a £450 fine and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service apologised for errors.

More shockingly, however, Adrienne is no longer with us. She was found dead as a result of taking drugs that she had initially been prescribed—powerful painkillers that she was taking as a result of injuries to her arm, which her husband had caused in a violent outburst—and alcohol. Her family are of the clear view that her death was a direct result of her treatment by the police and prosecution services. Unfortunately, Adrienne was only one of many women who can recount similar experiences. Members of this Parliament have to reflect on the fact that, despite all our debates, we continue to fail women and girls in Scotland.

Last week, an inquest in England found that the police had made errors that contributed to the deaths of Raneen Oudeh, aged 22, and her mother, Khaola Saleem, aged 49, in Solihull in 2018. Many of us will have heard Raneen Oudeh’s call to the police asking for help, as it was widely circulated in the media.

I congratulate everybody who contributed to the debate today, but we all have to reflect that, despite these debates, the threat that we face is probably getting greater. Both Martin Whitfield and Pauline McNeill have spoken about the experiences of girls and young women. Over the coming period, and particularly during these 16 days of action, we need to reflect on what we can do to ensure that we truly take the action that is required to eliminate violence against women and girls in this country and, indeed, worldwide.

It is estimated that 432 people own 50 per cent of the privately held land in Scotland. In 2021, a record £447 million was invested in the purchase of private Scottish estates, which was a 333 per cent increase from 2018. Given that financial backdrop, does the Government accept that it is now essential that we introduce a land value tax as a matter of urgency?

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate the committee on its report, which is, as the convener said, technical in nature. I agree with the committee’s assessment that fundamental concerns in respect of how devolution works outside the European Union need to be addressed by the Scottish Parliament.

As Sarah Boyack and Willie Rennie said, Brexit’s negative impact has been considerable, especially on the economy. The Institute for Government has argued that Brexit has opened up a new space for disagreement in many important policy areas that were previously subject to EU law.

However, I have to say to Oliver Mundell that, given that his party put a referendum on European Union membership to the people, it should have had a plan for Brexit. Its failure to take responsibility for the position that we are in, or for the tens of billions of pounds that it has cost the economy, is why we are having today’s debate.

The approach of the UK Government following Brexit could not be said to be supportive of the devolution settlement. Although many of the most controversial aspects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 were defeated at Westminster, the act was an audacious attempt at a land grab, as Alasdair Allan said. There are now concerns that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could give UK ministers unprecedented powers to scrap European laws, including in devolved areas, and that this Parliament will be unable to have sufficient input or scrutiny.

I hope that I will be able to go on to address that point later in my contribution, but Gillian Martin is correct—we need frameworks that require co-operation, which Sarah Boyack talked about earlier, to address those issues. Whether or not we are a member of the European Union, we have to work with Europe. Whether or not Gillian Martin gets her way and we leave the United Kingdom, we will have to work with other UK nations, and we will need co-operation agreements. We need to get those agreements in place, because the current situation is not tenable or acceptable.

In the short time that is available to me, I will focus on one area, which is the policy relating to procurement. The approach that the Scottish Government is taking is quite unlike the approach of, for example, the Welsh Government to the Procurement Bill that is currently going through the Westminster Parliament. The overall approach of the Scottish Government, as outlined in the committee report, seems to be that the default position will be to align with European Union law. However, £1 out of every £3 of public money that is spent is spent on public procurement. Public contracts represent a significant part of the economy, and there are significant issues in terms of labour, environmental standards, direct awards, state aid and the ability of public bodies to set their own procurement policies—for example, to buy locally or to insist on trade union recognition or good terms and conditions for the workforce in the organisations with which they are contracting. The Trades Union Congress report “Levelling up the UK: the role of state aid” outlines the choices that Governments in the UK now have on state aid and procurement policy, and it says whether those choices will be ones that support industrial policy, industrial strategy, local jobs and businesses, and the promotion of high employment and environmental standards.

The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 is stronger than the regulations that are in force in England and Wales, and it is clear from the committee report that divergence is a live issue with regard to the discussions that are taking place. In the past, the European Union cabotage regulations were used as a reason for the tendering of CalMac Ferries services. I presume that the tendering process that led to the award of the ferry contracts to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd took place because the Scottish Government felt unable to make a direct award.

The debate highlights the very technical aspect of many of the issues that we are discussing, which is clearly highlighted in the report that we are debating. However, it also highlights the huge potential for us to look at wider issues that impact on people’s lives and the decisions that this Parliament makes day in, day out.

Yes, there needs to be improved intergovernmental co-operation. The Scottish Government needs to set high standards through public procurement, food procurement, labour and environmental standards and a wide range of other areas that the Scottish Government has responsibility for.

I believe that this debate is an important one, and it is important that we get the frameworks and issues right. However, the reason why it is important has to do with what we can deliver as a Parliament. I very much hope that we are able to flesh out some of the real challenges that we face to ensure that we deliver for working people and the people who put us in Parliament, as we go forward.

It is a pleasure to speak to this motion on the higher education workers dispute, and I thank all the members who gave the motion cross-party support.

As the motion notes, several universities have already had strike action in recent months, and many more staff across the country are currently being balloted. The most recent Unison strike took place on 4 October, when Unison members—mainly cleaners, administrators and library, catering, security and other support staff—took part in action. Further action is due to take place on dates later this month at Edinburgh Napier University, Glasgow Caledonian University and Robert Gordon University.

Those workers will be joined by members of the Educational Institute of Scotland-University Lecturers Association and of the University and College Union, who all have strike dates in November. The UCU action will be at every single one of the 17 Scottish institutions, on three dates later this month, and will involve up to 8,000 members.

Further ballots are on-going at many other institutions, including the University of the West of Scotland, in the region that I represent. Unite the union, too, is balloting its 2,000 members across 11 institutions. We therefore face disruption at universities across Scotland, with staff—many of whom are on low pay—taking action despite the loss of income that that will involve for them. In addition, of course, students are being impacted.

University of Glasgow members were also on strike but, earlier this month, they accepted a breakthrough pay deal, which will involve overall pay rises of between 6 and 12.9 per cent this year, and a pay increase of £2,332 for the lowest paid.

However, the Universities and Colleges Employers Association says that it has made its final offer to staff, of a below-inflation pay award of 3 per cent for most higher education workers, and a 3 to 9 per cent award for some of the lowest paid. Given the rate of inflation, those are pay decreases in real terms.

The strikes are about pay, but they are also about other terms and conditions. The UCU held two ballots: one for strikes on pay and conditions; and the other for strikes on pensions. In the pay and conditions ballot, 81.1 per cent voted yes, on a 57.8 per cent turnout. In the pensions ballot, the yes vote was higher, at 84 per cent, on a 60.2 per cent turnout.

The UCU says that, on average, the cuts to pensions are in the region of 35 per cent, and that those are going ahead despite being based on an outdated valuation of the pension fund. The UCU also estimates that, in the jobs in which it organises in the sector, pay has been cut by about 25 per cent in real terms since 2009. Unison estimates that, for its members, the cut has been about 20 per cent during the same time period.

About one third of university staff in Scotland and across the United Kingdom are on precarious, fixed-term contracts. Some of those workers have been on those contracts for upwards of 30 years.

The average working week in education is now more than 50 hours, and UCU Scotland says that, in a survey that it conducted in June 2021, 76 per cent of respondents reported an increase in workload during the pandemic. A further, more recent UCU survey, from March this year, found that two thirds were considering leaving the sector due to poor pay and conditions.

In response to debates of this nature, Scottish ministers normally say that the institutions are independent and that the terms and conditions of the staff are not the responsibility of the Scottish Government. However, the Scottish Government provided more than £1 billion in funding to Scottish universities last year. Those institutions are substantially funded by the Government.

In addition, the sector generates income. The UK university sector generated income of £14.1 billion last year.

It is estimated that vice-chancellors took pay packets of an estimated £45 million. For example, the principal of the University of Edinburgh is reported to have a salary of an estimated £363,000 a year, and the principal of the University of Glasgow is reported to have an estimated salary of £368,000 a year.

Education is fully devolved and the Scottish Government is responsible for the model in our higher education system in Scotland, which is one of endemic low pay, poor conditions, excessive executive remuneration, casualised contracts and the marketisation of the sector.

I urge the Scottish Government, as a major funder of the sector in Scotland, to get directly involved in these disputes; to urge universities and the University and Colleges Employers Association to take meaningful steps to negotiate a fair resolution to the disputes; to ensure that the fair work convention is the minimum standard for accessing funding from the Scottish Funding Council; and to look at how that convention can be strengthened and, as a priority, investigate and report to this Parliament on employment conditions in the education sector, particularly in higher education.

We have a system in which students are treated as consumers and in which many workers are on temporary contracts and paid a pittance while vice-chancellors award themselves record pay packets. It is unsurprising that workers across the country are demanding improved pay and conditions. The Scottish Government cannot claim to be a bystander in the disputes. The Government funds Scottish universities by more than £1 billion each year. It has a responsibility to ensure that staff are paid well and have proper conditions of employment and that the universities, which are provided with funds, act as good employers.

Will the minister give way?

Does the minister accept that the model for the higher education sector in Scotland is, as I outlined, one of endemic low pay, poor conditions, excessive executive remuneration, casualised contracts and marketisation? Does he accept that it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to ensure that the model is acceptable to the people of Scotland? Will he look at fair work and at how employment practices can be improved in the sector?