Chamber and committees

I suppose that that is the issue that I am trying to work out, Dr Robertson. Personally, I probably fall into income group 5, but if you increase adult disability payment, I will benefit as much as somebody in income group 1. I do not have the answer, but I am trying to work out how we increase the income of groups 1, 2 and 3, maybe, but not necessarily of groups 4 and 5, because those people, although they will have extra costs, can probably meet those costs. I am looking for a way to identify those individuals. Maybe the data is not yet available, and we need to get that, but I am concerned that, if we universally increase incomes, although everyone benefits, it will not benefit enough those who need it more—if that makes sense.

I think that you have probably covered this issue, but I will give you one final opportunity to talk about the client experience. You have caveated your view of the bill with what you just said, but, outwith that, is there anything that you are still concerned about relating to the client experience? Are there things that need to be in the bill, or things that need to come out of it, to make the client experience easier? You have covered a lot of that already, but this is a final sweep up of any other comments that you might want to make.

We are still in the early days, so there will not have been many First-tier Tribunal hearings yet, but my understanding is that almost all of them now take place either online or by telephone. Is that a disadvantage for the people whom you work for? Would a face-to-face meeting be easier on some occasions? Should that be the norm rather than the exception?

It is helpful to read this report in the light of the other report that the Fraser of Allander Institute did recently on disability and employment. The reports go quite well together, and I will raise questions about that. I would like to ask a number of questions, but, given the time, I will ask one long question.

The deputy convener will always tell me that we have political choices to make about how we spend our money, and he is absolutely right. However, may I put that to you and ask whether, if you had another £20 million to spend, you would create a universal benefit for disabled people? Would you increase the disability payment, or would you target that money in some way?

I think that Dr Robertson said that there is not one need—disabled people have different needs—so, if we had that money, how would we target it? Would you create a universal benefit or is there a more nuanced way to do that?

Do you think that the bill aligns with the social security principles? That would be a good exam question.

The Fraser of Allander Institute. [Laughter.]

Not too late a date.

There is a political argument that you could hold the consultation before the bill is introduced and still have the flexibility. Like my colleague Mr Mundell, I think that, purely on a philosophical level, there is a tension; I do not think that it is a political one. I have the same concerns about what sometimes happens at Westminster. You could hold the consultation before the bill comes to Parliament, so that Parliament still gets the final say.

Thank you.

Moving on, has the Scottish Government reflected on some of the concerns that have been raised in relation to delegated powers? You have heard—from not just this committee but others—that bills are moving quite far with a lot of delegated powers. Is that a concern to you? Is it discussed in the Scottish Government?

Let us move on to something that I am sure we can all agree on. The committee was contacted by the Lord President during its consideration of the delegated powers in the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. He had misgivings about some of its proposals to delegate powers to his office. What procedures are followed when a bill is being drafted and a decision is made to delegate power, particularly when a power is being delegated to a body that is not within the Scottish Government?