Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am in my second parliamentary session. Your point about 1991 valuations reminds me that that tax system is based on valuations from a time before I was born. I hope that that illustrates how tragically out of date the system is, because I am not nearly as young as I once was.

In essence, you are saying that it would be useful to have that discussion about tax, but my take on the first part of your answer is that it should not necessarily be part of, or simultaneous with, the spending review.

Does Emma Congreve have any thoughts on how we could take forward a discussion on taxation? I ask that in the context of the significant challenges that we will have to grapple with in the spending review. I find it very hard to imagine how we can close the gap, as such, purely through savings—purely through cuts—so it is essential to have a discussion around taxation, either simultaneously with or perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the spending review. Therefore, it is just a question of the scope of that discussion. I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

Thanks. I have just one final brief question. Professor, there is a line in your written submission that jumped out at me, which is that the resource spending review should be

“a planning ... not a bidding document.”

I understand that to essentially mean that—correct me if I am wrong—you are saying that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy should ensure that all her Cabinet colleagues do not come back with a dozen different papers saying, “Here’s why my portfolio can’t be cut and needs more money”. If you were giving advice to the finance secretary on how to ensure that that does not happen, what would you say to her?

Thank you. That is all from me.

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?

I am conscious that I was asking a supplementary question, convener, but can I just ask one more follow-up question?

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?