Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was useful. Thank you very much.

The point about the Government’s potential to introduce emergency legislation if the existing legislation is not sufficient was part of our discussion with the previous panel about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and wider public scrutiny of legislation. Those of us who were there at the time were quite proud of the process that we undertook for last year’s two bills. Emergency legislation vastly limits the opportunities for both parliamentary and public scrutiny—indeed, both your organisations had very limited opportunities to contribute to those pieces of legislation. Is it not a better process to proceed through the use of legislation that is not emergency and time-limited legislation, so that parliamentarians and organisations like yours can thoroughly scrutinise and amend it if necessary? Is that not a preferable approach to an emergency one?

Another point that you have quite rightly made is that, in legislating on a permanent basis in areas such as human rights, we need to think of not just the current Government or the current composition of the Parliament; we need to think that anyone could be in power in the future. Does that not equally apply to the other organisations that we are talking about?

We discussed with the previous panel the fact that there was very good partnership working with universities, colleges, student accommodation providers and so on last time round. We cannot guarantee that the next time round, but we can guarantee that Governments will always be held accountable by the Parliament and, ultimately, the public. However, it is much harder to hold to account a private provider of student accommodation, particularly in an emergency situation. If it is about a balance of where the power lies, is it not better to have that power with a democratically accountable Government rather than a private accommodation provider, even when we do not know who the individuals will be and what their motivations might be?

Do you think that the Government’s intention in bringing this legislation forward is to be able to make decisions wholesale at the granular level that you are talking about? My assumption about the intention here is that the partnership approach that we have pursued up to now would be the preference, but it cannot be guaranteed that every partner will be co-operative in the future. The universities themselves were a very good example of that level of co-operation with the Government, while some of the private student accommodation providers were not. Surely it would be better for the Government to have the ability to intervene at a granular level, with the intention of doing so not wholesale across the country, in every institution and every instance, but in those instances in which someone is not co-operating, whether it be with local public health teams, the local authority or the Scottish Government directly. We cannot guarantee that everyone will want to take a partnership approach next time, so surely the Government needs the ability to intervene at a granular level if and when necessary, even if it is regrettable that that is the case.

I want to go back to points that, in particular, Alastair Sim made. I understand entirely the line of argument that the partnership approach that was taken in the pandemic was successful, so why would we wish to alter it? However, there is an assumption that the people who are involved on either side next time will be as reasonable and willing to co-operate as those who were involved last time. We generally do not make laws on the basis of the individuals who are around the table at any particular time—the laws that are proposed would be here permanently. Should we be pursuing the line of argument that, because partnership worked this time, it will definitely work next time? Is not the point of the bill to have a back-up option in place if partnerships break down?

On the point about taking people to court—in this case, the Government’s ability to take an institution to court—what if, this year, we face another pandemic that forces us into making decisions hour by hour? With the best will in the world, pursuing court action cannot result in your getting a response as quickly as you might like in the face of a public health emergency. That is exactly what we are talking about here. If you are faced with having to make decisions urgently—say, within a couple of days or, indeed, on the very same day—and the partnership approach does not work, by the time you have gone to court to get that resolved, the situation might or might not have got markedly worse in an avoidable way. Is this not about reflecting the urgency of a future pandemic?

COSLA’s submission also makes some criticism of the NPF goals and the need to improve the mechanism for assessing whether we are reaching them, saying that that should be integral to the spending review instead of

“some high-level numbers which are limited in their usefulness”

being set out. Can you clarify which high-level numbers you are referring to? Again, is that a criticism of the NPF indicators?

Eileen, you have mentioned that, like every other local authority and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament itself, you have just gone through your budget-setting process. How much of a role does the NPF play at council officer level in that process? Are the NPF indicators part of your day-to-day discussions when you prepare options for councillors?

On the back of her response to the convener’s initial questions, I would like Mirren Kelly to expand on a couple of points in COSLA’s written submission.

You have been critical of the lack of data on and drivers for the key priorities in the RSR. I presume that the data and drivers are the indicators in the NPF and the data that underpins them. Is your criticism about the lack of clarity over whether that is indeed the case or about the indicators and the data that underpins them in the NPF being insufficient to fulfil that role?

Again, you mention that the framework as a whole does not reflect the reality of the past 10 to 12 years and the pressures that the public sector has faced over that period. Were you looking for a framework that better reflected that? Is COSLA looking for more about the narrative and the rhetoric to acknowledge that reality or do you think that some specific points are missing that would have better reflected that? In other words, is it that you do not feel that the Government has acknowledged that reality, and are there specific changes that you would make to better acknowledge it in the review?