³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is an important point, and it is why we have the safeguards in place to ensure that they are not directional powers but regulations—regulations that will be reviewed and that will receive parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to have safeguards within those measures, but I think that it is right that the Government and the Parliament are able to pass those measures to allow us to get ready for the worst-case scenarios that may happen.

Absolutely. If the bill is passed, any regulations that we made would apply for a specified period. Regardless of that, they would also be subject to review every 21 days for as long as they were in force. Again, that is one of the important safeguarding measures in the bill. I do not think that any Government wants to keep anything on the statute book longer than is necessary. I appreciate that there are differences of opinion about the speed at which things were considered during the coronavirus, and the ability of Parliament to have a say on the matter during a review period is an important safeguard in that respect.

That provision is in the bill to show that we have learned lessons from the start of the pandemic. I will ask Craig Robertson to comment, because he was in post at that time—I was in another portfolio.

At that time, there was a requirement to assist students in a way that universities, the sector in general and, indeed, we were not quite ready for, and we must ensure that we are much more able to provide that assistance. Of course, there might be times when we require to prevent people from accessing student accommodation, but we take very seriously the fact that we are talking about people’s homes, that they might not have alternative accommodation, and so on. None of the regulations and changes would be made without ensuring that safeguards for students were absolutely integral to our thinking on the matter. We therefore need to think about how we protect students. Some of that will focus on what happens in halls, while some of it might involve ensuring that halls are used in the correct way at the correct time.

However, I will bring in Craig Robertson, who, as I have said, has experience of what happened at the start of the pandemic. It is important that we learn lessons about how the powers in question might be used.

I absolutely value the great partnership working that we had with the college and university sector during the pandemic. We did not find it necessary, during the pandemic—even at its height—to use the existing emergency powers to require universities, for example, to take action, and I think that that reflected our successful partnership. I very much hope that we would repeat that set of circumstances in the next pandemic or public health emergency.

However, I pose one question to the committee. If one institution decided that it felt differently from the public health advice that was coming out and that it would take a different tack from what its own sector wanted—the institutions are all independent—and we did not have any powers to ensure that we could make regulations in that regard, what would the Government do at that point?

Partnership working is great. I will always work with every sector and every institution to ensure that we work in partnership, and we will do that with the bill. However, if we got to a point at which an institution took a different tack from the public health advice that was coming out, how would we react? Institutions may be independent, but they are not independent of their communities, and they are staffed by people we need to protect. With the greatest respect for those who have appeared before the committee and said that they did not see the point in the legislation, that is the worst-case scenario for which I need to plan.

We did not get anywhere near that during this pandemic, but, if the committee can say, hand on heart, looking way into the future, that there will be no instance in which that will happen—fine; we do not need these measures. However, I do not have the benefit of looking into the future and knowing that that will never happen. Therefore, I think that the Government must have the ability to take action if we need to.

I am glad that, from outside Parliament, it seemed to be working well. Perhaps Graeme Dey, who was the Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time, can at some point allude to the genuine difficulties of working through a public health emergency when we could not all sit in one room and pass legislation.

Unfortunately, the legislation that we need when we are in an emergency is needed in a very short time, which does not allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny. When you face a public health emergency, every single day counts. It takes days for legislation to go through Parliament, and we then go through the process—

The bill allows the power to make regulations, which would then go through Parliament. In how the bill is framed at this point, we are ensuring that, instead of directional powers being taken, the powers to make regulations would go through Parliament. That would ensure the ability to have far greater scrutiny over ministerial decisions than we have been able to have under the directional powers that we had previously under the coronavirus legislation.

I think that we have all learned, as we have gone through the pandemic, the importance of quick decision making but also that parliamentary scrutiny must absolutely be included in that process. That is why the safeguards in the bill that require parliamentary approval for regulations are very important.

The key strength of providing specific funding for specific purposes is that that ensures that all the money that is provided for a certain purpose goes to that purpose. I point to the example of the expansion to 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare. Such projects have very much been a shared priority of the Scottish Government and local government. Such funding has allowed the Scottish Government to move forward with the commitment to provide that early learning and childcare via local authorities.

I appreciate that ring fencing funding reduces local authority discretion in some areas, but it is worth noting that, although ring-fenced funding is for increased investment in services such as schools and nurseries, 93 per cent of the funding that we will provide is not formally ring fenced. We recognise that local authorities have called for less ring-fenced funding, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has committed to reviewing all ring-fenced funding as part of the resource spending review. We will continue our constructive engagement with local government on education areas that are ring fenced.

There is no specific allocation within the overall Scottish Government budget for teacher pay. As Mr Greer rightly points out, the budget for teacher recruitment is, in effect, for teachers’ pay. That is what it is spent on. The committee will be aware that we are still going through the process of seeking an agreement on teachers’ pay for this financial year. The committee will also be aware that an offer was made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is currently with the trade union members for discussion and decision.

With the committee’s forbearance, I will not say too much about the current teacher’s pay situation, because we are clearly in the middle of the process. That process has gone on for an exceptionally long time, and I appreciate that teachers are very frustrated about how long it is taking. We need to come to agreement on teachers’ pay, but it needs to work its way through the SNCT, as per the usual process.

The Scottish Government stands by to make any changes that it can to allow that process to move forward, but the Government has already put in additional funding to the overall local government settlement, which assisted with the wider local government workforce planning and is a demonstration of how we have played our part in moving things forward. The process must now run its course through the SNCT.

Yes.

The overall settlement that has been provided will deliver real-terms growth. It protects core budgets in cash terms, it will allow additional funding to be provided for teachers and support staff, and it contains funding for the 100 days commitments, some of which I mentioned in my introductory remarks. It also contains funding for the free school meals settlements.

If Mr Rennie wishes more money to go into local government or elsewhere, I am sure that he will tell me—or perhaps Ms Forbes later in the budget process—where money should be cut from to allow that to happen.