���˿���

They are two slightly different numbers. The £1.7 billion is, in essence, the erosion of the value of our expenditure. The £700 million is hard money; it is money that has to be found.

On Pam Duncan-Glancy’s first observation, I take a very different view about the constitutional arguments, because I think that they are central to the dilemmas that I face. The analysis that Emma Roddick put to me about the ability of the Scottish Parliament to exercise the full range of powers is absolutely correct—for example, yesterday the Irish Government set out a diametrically different budget—

I was not talking about those organisations; I was talking about members of the Scottish Parliament. Members of the Scottish Parliament have hard choices to make, and it is, frankly, not much use for members to complain about the choices that I have made without giving me alternatives.

I have been completely transparent with Parliament. There was, for example, no obligation on me to come to Parliament on 7 September with a statement about the financial position and setting out the range of changes: I could have just done it all in the background, in an autumn budget revision. There is very little public commentary about autumn budget revisions, so I could have just done that, but I did not. I came to Parliament openly and transparently and shared the problem and my view of the solution. It is then incumbent on members, if they do not like the solutions that I have come up with, to tell me how I should do it differently.

In the process, I will engage with all manner of groups, and I am very happy to listen to them, but, with respect, I have not seen a scintilla of an alternative in terms of what I should be doing.

On a point of order, convener. For the sake of clarity, Mr Fraser’s amendment 7, which was disagreed to by the committee, sought to leave out section 1. I assume that, because of the result of that vote, you are not putting section 1 to the committee.

In the context of the judgment that you are talking about, what role do you envisage for public health advice of the nature that the Government and all public authorities received? You did not address Mr Mason’s point about the interface between the decision making of local authorities, as the bodies that are responsible for running education at local level in Scotland, and public health advice. Public health advice might lead to a conclusion with which a local authority was not comfortable, albeit that there was real danger to the public health of the local population.

However, it then says that we must have regard to it.

Amendment 29 exempts the non-educational functions of further and higher education institutions from the regulation-making powers in section 8. The effect of the amendment is that the power of ministers, under section 8, to make regulations in relation to the continuing operation of an educational establishment will continue to apply in relation to further education and higher education institutions but with the express limitation that any regulations that are made under section 8

“may not make provision relating to”

an institution’s

“non-educational functions”.

That will prevent any regulations having an effect on functions of further and higher education institutions that are not connected to the continuing operation of education.

In my response to the committee at stage 1, I committed to

“considering the scope of the regulation making powers”

for further and higher education institutions and to continuing our dialogue with stakeholders. I am grateful to Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland for their engagement with ministers and officials on the bill, which has allowed us to make progress in that regard.

Throughout the Covid pandemic, we worked in partnership with the sectors and with student accommodation providers, trade unions and student representatives to ensure that appropriate guidance was in place to enable the safe operation of colleges, universities and student accommodation. I can confirm to the committee that, in the event of a future public health emergency, the Government’s preferred approach will be to continue that partnership approach, working with the college and university sectors and other stakeholders, as appropriate, to ensure that effective guidance is in place. We expect that the regulation-making powers in part 2, in so far as they relate to further and higher education institutions and student accommodation providers, would be used only should that partnership approach identify a need for regulatory certainty.

I hope that the amendment reassures members, and the college and university sectors, of our commitment to working in partnership with both sectors in the event of a future public health emergency. On that basis, I encourage the committee to support it.

I move amendment 29.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Amendment 118 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Government does not need any legislative encouragement to do that—we are getting on with doing it, and we have already accomplished a significant amount, as I have indicated.

I have slightly more sympathy for the proposal in amendment 142 regarding reporting on readiness for remote learning. However, it assumes that responsibility for implementing remote learning lies with the Scottish ministers. Education authorities have the relevant statutory functions in relation to provision of education, including on contingency planning. I am also concerned that an annual information-gathering exercise would create an additional bureaucratic burden on the education system, distracting operators from their core responsibilities.

As part of the continued recovery from the Covid pandemic, I would be happy to consider an approach that would review the education system’s readiness for future remote learning should that be required. If members are willing to reject amendment 142 today, I will look into that further and return with more detail ahead of stage 3. I would be happy to engage with Mr Mundell on that point.

Amendment 120 would effectively give local authorities a veto over closure of the wide range of educational establishments that are located in their area, including universities, colleges and independent schools. Whether that is the intended effect, the proposal is undesirable in terms of managing a future public health emergency that may require a co-ordinated, national response to protect those in educational establishments or the wider public.

The principle that I would put in place is that any approach in relation to dialogue cannot undermine the clarity of decision making that we require in a pandemic. I am happy to explore the matter, but that is the principle that I would bring to the conversation.

Amendment 143 would place another unacceptable delay on ministers’ ability effectively to respond to an emergency with regulations by placing on ministers a duty to explore alternatives and mitigations and then to report on their consideration through a statement to the Parliament that would accompany the regulations.

Therefore, I cannot support amendments 141 and 143.

I invite the committee to support amendments 36 to 39. I invite Oliver Mundell not to press amendment 112 and I invite him and other members not to press the other amendments in the group.

I have no closing comments, convener.

Amendment 40 agreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Section 16—Bankruptcy: meaning of “qualified creditor” and “qualified creditors”

Amendments 42 and 43 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

After section 17