 Over the last 10 years, the Government has been implementing an ambitious programme to reform post-16 education. Our purpose has been clear and consistent over that time to create a national college sector that is more efficient and effective and able to meet stretching measures and outcomes. We remain committed to creating a sector that is better suited to our national priorities, including the delivery of skills and opportunities, particularly for our young people to meet their needs and that of our economy. I am increasingly confident that our colleges have a clear-focused role in delivering a skilled workforce for their regions and have developed new and enhanced relationships with employers around curriculum planning, work experience and employability skills. Delivering the right curriculum in the right place has been critical to this development, alongside significantly improved partnership arrangements with local authorities, universities, schools and community planning partnerships. The focus is now very much on full-time learning opportunities that are leading to recognised qualifications and employment, particularly for young people. The evidence increasingly demonstrates that this approach is working. The number of full-time funded students aged 16 to 24 has increased by more than 11 per cent since 2006-07. Our youth unemployment rate is at the lowest rate since the series began in 1992 and is the third lowest in the European Union. In 2015-16, almost 12,000 more students successfully completed full-time courses in both further and higher education, leading to recognised qualifications than in 2008-2009. Colleges are not just delivering for young people. Under this Government, the number of full-time students aged 25 and over has increased by over 33 per cent since 2006-07. The sector is also delivering for women with the number in full-time courses up by over 12 per cent over the same period. Our colleges play a key role in our success in higher education. Over 41 per cent of all full-time college activity in 2015-16 was in higher education, the highest proportion ever. Colleges are also playing a crucial role in widening access. Many students from the most challenging backgrounds begin their post-16 education journey in college. Over 16 per cent of college provision was delivered to students from the 10 per cent most deprived areas in 2014-15 and over 29 per cent of all students came from the 20 per cent most deprived communities. Those are real achievements for our colleges to be proud of. Staff, lecturing and support staff and the students themselves have all helped to make this happen. I am in no doubt that our college sector is now better placed than ever before to enable students to flourish and to succeed and to build the workforce that Scotland's employers need now and in the future. As we move forward, our colleges must continue to develop and innovate to deliver the type of learning that society, the economy and individuals need for the future. I know that all college staff and leaders are committed to this ambitious programme of change and improvement. I appreciate that, over the past few years, we have seen significant restructuring of the sector to create a more sustainable and viable platform for delivering high-quality, further and higher education. College staff have played their full part in securing the necessary and beneficial changes, and I want to commend them for their commitment. I also understand that there is still more to be done to secure the vision that we have for a world-class college sector. From the outset, we agreed with college employers and staff that a harmonised approach to pay, terms and conditions for both lecturers and support staff was integral to creating a modern, flexible sector. We agreed that this would best be delivered by a system of national bargaining that rightly places responsibility for reaching agreement with representatives of employers and staff through their national joint negotiating committee. The present dispute has its roots in the agreement that was reached last March by that national joint negotiating committee and a disagreement between the college employers association and the EIS on the relationship between pay and terms and conditions. On pay, while the precise levels of increase will vary depending on personal circumstances, the agreement already reached will see all unpromoted lecturing staff receiving an average pay rise of 9 per cent over a three-year period. That means that unpromoted staff will now earn up to £40,026 per year at the top of their salary scale. While some details remain to be resolved, that part of the agreement has been in place for some time. What has not been agreed are the terms and conditions. While both parties agree in principle to harmonisation in order to create the right platform for an FE workforce for the future, the nature of that harmonisation is disputed. The employers are clear that a national pay award has to be linked to agreement on harmonised terms and conditions. The EIS maintains that they should be separate. Although both sides agree that matters such as staff teaching hours and annual leave should be the same across the country, instead of varying from college to college as they do now, they disagree on what the harmonised terms and conditions should be. Two key issues are the number of core teaching hours and the number of annual leave days. The employers have proposed up to 24 hours per week of core teaching time for the majority of lecturers. The EIS has proposed up to 22 hours. The employers believe that they are asking for no more than the sector norm on hours. The union does not accept this. On annual leave, the employers have offered that existing staff retain their current entitlement without change, while new staff would have 56 days per year. The EIS has proposed 64 days per year for all lecturers with no detriment for existing staff. The dispute is not simply about pay, with the issues of core teaching hours and annual leave being amongst the most difficult to resolve. Talks have been under way for some time. The Minister for Higher Education and Science has met each side on several occasions over the last six months to encourage and facilitate a resolution. Over the past few weeks, the sides have made some welcome progress, but a settlement has not yet been reached. We remain in the middle of a period of strike action, which is having an impact on students. Four days have already been lost to strikes since the end of last month, with a further two days planned for this week. Currently, the EIS plans to escalate the action to three strike days a week until the beginning of next month. That escalation will see the impact on students deepen and harden, with some at real risk in this crucial end-of-year period of not being able to progress to future years study or indeed to qualify. That, Presiding Officer, is not acceptable to me. I therefore decided, alongside the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, to formally intervene and we met both sides separately on Sunday evening to this effect. Through this intervention, we actively sought a way forward that allows both sides to work constructively for a solution so that the sector can focus on delivering the high-quality education that its students have a right to expect. There are five key elements to this intervention. First, I emphasised in both meetings my serious concerns about the detrimental and disruptive impact of the current dispute on students and that this should be to the fore of all of our thinking. Secondly, I insisted that a robust evidence base was needed to establish baselines on the issues of key importance, the sector norm for class contact time and for annual leave, so that competing bids could be fairly assessed. Without agreed baseline data and undisputed understanding of the current terms and conditions of lecturers, there is no prospect for agreement. Thirdly, in both meetings, I reaffirmed the Government's absolute commitment to securing national bargaining. I know that there is a concern on the part of unions that the employers are not committed to national bargaining. I therefore made it crystal clear to the employers association my firm expectation that they would act collectively to deliver national bargaining. Fourthly and most significantly, I informed both the union and the employers that I was making a significant change to the way the talks will be conducted from now on. We are placing a Scottish Government-appointed mediator in the talks, charged with seeking to help the parties to break the deadlock. John Sturrock is a highly respected Queen's Council and widely recognised as a leading mediator and facilitator. As an independent guide to the process, he will now facilitate the talks in an effort to bring about improved relations between both parties, encourage effective communication and respectful dialogue, help to identify options for progress and work with the parties to try and break the logjam. Finally, and fifthly, to assist this process, I asked the EIS to suspend the planned strikes due to take place this week and going forward, whilst this process of active dispute resolution is in progress. I asked that the union give this careful consideration following our meeting and I reiterate that request today. I want this dispute to end and I want agreement to be reached on harmonising pay and terms and conditions for college staff through national bargaining. For the Scottish Government to directly intervene and force a resolution, we need the end of national bargaining. I am not prepared to consider that outcome. I therefore urge both parties to work constructively with our independent facilitator to find the common ground and achieve an agreement. This will enable all to move forward together to the benefit of the sector and its students. The students in our colleges deserve nothing less. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the statement. I also restate the Scottish Conservatives' very strong condemnation of the strike action that is taking place. I am sure that I am not the only member to have received letters and emails from constituents very rightly angry about the detrimental effect that this is having on their studies and exactly the reasons that the cabinet secretary has set out, especially at this crucial time of exams. My first question to the cabinet secretary reflecting the concerns of constituents is to ask him what discussions he is having with the colleges to ensure that within the marking of the students' exams consideration is being given to the circumstances of the industrial action. Secondly, on page 8, the cabinet secretary has demanded very robust evidence for the baseline to support the key bargaining demands on terms and conditions. Given the nature of this very long-running dispute and the commitments that the Scottish Government originally made, can I ask the cabinet secretary why it has taken over a year for him to make this call for evidence that would clearly be so crucial to resolve the dispute? Finally, what timescale has been put in place for this baseline evidence to be submitted by both sides so that mediation can be effective? First of all, I know that there are certain things that she has to say from her perspective as the Conservative education spokesman that my perspective on this is to resolve the dispute because of the effect that it is having on students and their wellbeing and their prospects, and that is what is driving the actions that I take forward. That is why I want to secure an agreement between both parties to resolve those issues. Secondly, on the questions of marking of examinations and other material, I know that college staff, despite the fact that they are out on strike, are working in many ways beyond some of their normal arrangements to put in place the type of support and assistance that tries to minimise the effect of the industrial action on students. Obviously, the best way to minimise the effect on students is for the strike to end so that the education process can return to normal. On the question of baseline evidence, I have in front of me baseline evidence that is provided to me, which indicates, for example, that if the number of hours of core class contact time was set at 24 hours, five colleges would see an increase in the number of hours that are taught. If they were set at 22 hours, 18 colleges would see a reduction in the number of hours that they are taught. I have that information in front of me, but that is disputed by the trade union within the dispute. What became very clear to me in my discussions at the weekend was that, unless there is an evidence baseline that puts all that material together, that is accepted across the board, that cannot be the source of dispute, there is no prospect of us reaching an agreement. Why has that taken so long to be undertaken? That is not the Government's responsibility. That is a process of national bargain between two sides, between the employers and the trade union, and it is the type of work that I would have expected to be undertaken and to be agreed to facilitate a process. The fact that I have now had to intervene to make that happen is a matter of regret. Finally, in relation to deadlines, John Sturrock commenced his work at my request at short notice yesterday. The work that is going on today to assemble the baseline evidence, to enable a swifter progress to be made as soon as possible, and I can assure Liz Smith that all urgency will be applied to that process. I reiterate the point that I have made. The Government has made an unwavering commitment to national bargaining, so there can be no doubt that national bargaining is here to stay. We have put in place a system that is designed to break the impasse, and I therefore think that there is every justification and reason why the industrial action should be suspended to enable those talks to take their course. Ian Gray, before by Bob Doris. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for Early Sight of a Statement. This is the 10th anniversary of the SNP Government here, and my goodness, those who work in colleges have suffered even more than most at their hands. They have seen their colleges forced to merge, workplaces displaced across cities or regions, budgets slashed, thousands of their colleagues, and 150,000 of their students disappear from the sector altogether. Indeed, the only positive thing if the staff were promised by SNP ministers was national pay and conditions, equal pay in terms for doing the same job wherever they work. That is a pretty basic fairness, but, as of this statement, they are still waiting. It is a disgrace that they have had no option but to strike with all the impact that has had on students just to get ministers' attention. For months, we have called on ministers to intervene, honour their promise and see the deal honoured. The cabinet secretary simply apologised to college lecturers and their students for taking so long to intervene and apologised to Parliament for bringing us a process instead of a resolution to that dispute. Ian Gray paid no attention whatsoever to the points that I made in my statement about the achievements of the further education sector, in which the number of full-time students has increased by more than 33 per cent. The sector is involving more full-time courses for women and we have secured the third lowest youth unemployment rate in the European Union, and young people are going through their courses. It is just part of the on-going, relentless narrative that Mr Gray wants to peddle, which can see nothing positive that is existing in Scotland. Mr Gray can say all that he wants on those things, but that detail stands the test of time. I want to directly counter Mr Gray's question and point about strike action being required to get ministers' attention. Ministers have been involved in discussion for some time, with both sides. The Higher and Further Education Minister has been undertaking that work to encourage a process of national bargaining, which is a process of dialogue between the employers and the trade unions. That is exactly what we have tried to do and we encourage the parties to resolve that. I would have thought if Mr Gray was remotely interested in the education of students in our country. He would have welcomed the fact that the Government was intervening to bring that matter to a head in the fashion that we are doing. I simply say to Mr Gray that he should focus on the outcomes that he will achieve in our colleges and not come here with a diatribe of complaints that help nobody. Bob Dorris will be followed by Adam Tomkins. Deputy First Minister, my media concern sits with students and families, not employers or unions. Many students from Glasgow-Kelvin College in my constituency have contacted me, distressed and anxious over their educational progress, as have several others. Can I have information on how that detrimental impact can be mitigated by colleges and what support can be given to individual students' constituents of mine whose onward pathways into employment or university are currently being jeopardised? I encourage colleges to take every step to ensure that there is no disruption to the education of students. As I indicated in my earlier answer to Liz Smith, measures have been taken to support young people and to ensure that they are able to secure the necessary support that is required. In relation to some of the specific examination issues, 1,541 students sat at the higher English exam in colleges last Thursday. Colleges affected and made sure that those exams were able to happen as planned, and they continue to assure students undertaking SQA qualifications at this time that they will be provided for and that no student will have their exam diet disrupted, including reallocation of work to support students. In addition, the employer's association has issued comprehensive guidance on the practical steps that colleges should take to mitigate any effect that is available to all colleges. Teaching at any level—school, college or university—is a great privilege, but would the Deputy First Minister not agree with me that the overriding professional duty on all teachers is to act at all times in the best interests of their students? Given that this industrial action is manifestly contrary to students' best interests, the union should code it off immediately and, indeed, apologise for the harm that their action has already caused to Scotland's college students. Perhaps slightly more bluntly than Liz Smith did at Adam Tomkins has said what he has to say on those matters. I take the view that the best thing that Parliament can do is encourage both sides to seek a resolution. What I have done and what the minister has done has put in place a process of resolving this dispute on a basis of evidence and dialogue to ensure that the education of young people is not interrupted in any way. What the proposals that I have put on the table, which I have put on the table at the weekend, are designed to do is to provide a means of taking that course that would see the industrial action suspended to enable discussions to take place in an environment in which I think that they can be successful and ensure that young people are able to secure the education that they deserve. That is the approach that the Government will take in advancing the issue. Clare Haughey, to be followed by Monica Lennon. I welcome the First Minister's statement. Can I ask him about support staff in colleges, and can he advise what progress is being made in regard to harmonising their terms and conditions, and I must refer members to my register of interests? As Clare Haughey correctly said, there is an on-going process to ensure that the support staff unions are part of the process to secure necessary harmonisation. A meeting is scheduled to take place this coming Thursday, and it will look at issues around job evaluation, workforce for the future, 2017-18 pay claims and the NJSC work plan. The minister recently met with support staff unions as part of her engagement in this whole process. I want to put on record my thanks to Unison and other support staff for their patience and willingness to engage in the national bargaining process, and we will continue our dialogue to ensure that they are fully participating in this process. Monica Lennon, to be followed by Ross Greer. Given that he has asked the EIS to call off the planned strike action, can the cabinet secretary tell me why he hasn't directly asked the employers to implement the first part of the pay deal, which was agreed to be paid on 1 April 2017 as an act of good faith so that the on-going strike action can be suspended? All public members are welcome to join power branch proceedings, but not to applaud or to intervene in any way. The issue that Monica Lennon raises goes to the heart of the March 2016 agreement, which says at clause 5 that both parties agree to jointly develop a road map towards a harmonised workforce for the future, which includes referencing the subsequent points to salary but also terms and conditions. The obligation is on both parties to agree all of it. That is the process that both parties must take part in and must resolve if national bargaining is to prevail. That is what the Government's position has been throughout the process. If we require individual parties in this dispute to agree to certain terms and conditions, we break national bargaining. I think that that would be an undesirable move because it would set back the process of national bargaining, which has been an important reform that the Government has been determined to put in place. I should declare that I have a family member on strike today due to the dispute. As has already been mentioned, a number of students have, I am sure, got in touch with every member here. Every single one of the emails that I received was from a student requesting that their lecturers get the fair pay that they deserve, not undermining their lecturers in the dispute. As Monica Lennon has already said, a fair pay deal was agreed last year. The Deputy First Minister has outlined the importance of the strike action ending. The EIS has made the offer three times now that strike action will be suspended if the pay deal is delivered. If the Government's priority is ending disruption to students, surely they should be recommending that colleges Scotland accept that agreement and then continue to negotiate on terms and conditions. I refer Ross Greer back to what I said in my answer to Monica Lennon, which is the agreement of March 2016, in which there is an obligation to develop a road map towards a harmonised workforce for the future jointly developed. That includes issues on pay and terms and conditions. Advancing on all of these questions and getting to a resolution of resolving all of these questions allows people to get their pay and it allows people to get back to work, but all of the issues have to be resolved. That is what I appeal to both parties to do, to ensure that they secure the necessary agreement to enable the pay increases to be delivered, the terms and conditions to be applied and, most importantly, of all, the students in our colleges to be able to have access to their education resources. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the Deputy First Minister for the statement and the advance copy of it. Mr Swinney would have to accept, would he not, that there is nothing positive about a strike affecting students and lecturers across Scotland now, and it is on his watch since after 10 years of his government. Therefore, why, when he said that he had no responsibility for the baseline data, is that the position, given this started in his own statement, in March of last year, 14 months ago, and therefore why not an intervention earlier? For the very simple reason that we have been encouraging the process of national bargaining between both parties, that is what national bargaining is about. It is about the employers and the trade unions working collaboratively and together to resolve those issues and putting in place the necessary information that enables that to be the case. We have encouraged, on a regular basis, progress on the question of national bargaining and the resolution of those issues, but fundamentally national bargaining ceases to exist the minute the Government starts specifying what are the terms of agreements to be reached. What we are doing is facilitating the process of that agreement, and that is what I am setting out and encouraging both parties to follow as part of my statement today. Stuart McMillan will be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Deputy First Minister has indicated that agreement and pay was reached last year with an average of 9 per cent increase in that pay. Can the Deputy First Minister provide some further detail on what that agreement actually means for lecturing staff? As I indicated in my statement, it will be possible under the pay agreement that all unpromoted lecturing staff will now earn up to £40,000 in £26 per year at the top of their salary scale. It is useful to note that the 9 per cent increase in pay is the average. No lecturing staff member will lose pay as a result of harmonisation. Admittedly some will stay the same and have no increase, but, for many, the actual increase in pay will be substantially more than 9 per cent. There will be an application of that to individual circumstances as part of the process. Jeremy Balfour will be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Unlike Mr Geyer, the students who have contacted me are deeply concerned about what is going to happen to their futures. I welcome the cabinet secretary's remarks. He has made about intervening in that. The number of students who have contacted me are particularly concerned about assessments that should have already taken place but have not taken place because of the previous strike action that has already occurred. What assurances can he give to my constituents and to people across Scotland that any assessment that has not been taken place will not then mean that a lower mark will occur in my final grade? Obviously, there are discussions that will be had within colleges and with notification in certain circumstances to the SQA in relation to those questions to ensure that, where there has been the issue of industrial action, that that is not detrimental to the educational opportunities and possibilities of young people in our colleges. Three members here, if they are concise and the minister is also concise, will try and squeeze them all in. Gordon MacDonald is followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my understanding that a harmonisation process through national bargaining needs to involve both sides willingly moving towards each other's positions. By its very nature, harmonisation is also involved and compromised by both sides. Can the Deputy First Minister provide more detail of the respective positions and how those have shifted during the negotiations in order to help to reach a compromise? I indicated in my statement that there has been movement and compromise by both sides and that some progress has been made, but it is not progress that has allowed us to get to a resolution, which is why I have taken the action that I have taken to try to close the remaining gaps and to resolve the dispute. I agree in principle with Mr MacDonald's point that there is an important emphasis on the whole question of dialogue and compromise to ensure that this process of national bargaining can be successful. Daniel Johnson is followed by Jenny Gilruth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What will John Sturrock be able to achieve that ACAS was not, and how much will he cost the public purse? I am prepared to spend the money to try to resolve the issue rather than doing nothing. I am always mindful of the importance of the public purse to ensure that... Mr Sarwar is accusing us of doing nothing for months, and when we do something, Mr Johnson accused us of spending public money. This lot is just a disgrace of the interventions that they come up with, so we will get involved in the process to try to resolve what Mr Johnson said. Any nice gestures of support from the Labour Party would be quite helpful in the process, but we are not holding our breath for them. Our final question is from Jenny Gilruth. Deputy First Minister, can you advise how the proposed terms and conditions and, in particular, the changes to annual leave that are sought by EIS Fela compared to other roles in the public sector? Clearly, there will be comparisons of the different arrangements that will vary from sector to sector. What is important is that we focus on the evidence in this sector to find the common base and then are able to resolve those questions to ensure that the strike can be drawn to a conclusion and the dispute resolved, and we can implement national bargaining, which is the Government's objective. I thank all members for their participation. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on fairer Scotland for disabled people. We will just take a few moments to change seats.