Chamber and committees

One of the things that has potentially changed post-Brexit is the opportunity for Europe-wide co-operation on fisheries science and innovation. Can you say anything about the Scottish Government’s approach to that and how it works with the fishing industry to ensure that the science continues and enjoys support?

As has been alluded to, international negotiations are going to have an impact, just as the changed landscape post-Brexit is having a wider social impact on fishing and other rural communities. I know that a number of members are keen for the committee to look at that in the future. How will negotiations impact on the delivery of the JFS’s policies? Can you give an example of how those negotiations will determine our ability to implement those policies? That question is for Professor Harrison in the first instance.

On the back of your statement, cabinet secretary, will you say something about what the process of developing the joint fisheries statement has been like from the Scottish Government’s point of view? Does it say anything more generally about the relationship between the four Administrations? Could the process be changed or improved in the future?

As has been touched on, regional inshore fisheries groups play an important part in developing fisheries management plans under the JFS. Do you see the role of RIFGs changing? If so, how might it change, and how might that be supported in future? I put that to Helen McLachlan.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the pressures on existing services and vessels that serve North Uist and Harris. Delays at Ferguson’s yard have certainly contributed to those pressures and to the human consequences of them. Can the cabinet secretary give an indication of how the new vessels will be utilised to alleviate some of the pressures and problems in my constituency and elsewhere?

I appreciate the tone of much of what the minister has said about accepting the need for more responsiveness on the part of CalMac and CMAL. Does she agree that both organisations would be more responsive to communities if any of their board members had to use a CalMac ferry in their daily life?

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.

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 bow to no one in my respect for mince and tatties. However, given what the member said about making a bowl of soup, does she recognise that, in many communities in Scotland, accessing a shop that sells fresh vegetables is no simple task?

Will the member take an intervention?