Chamber and committees

Words matter and definitions matter. I am interested in your comment that you will recommend a level of payment that local authorities should make. Does “recommend” mean that they have to do it, or is it a suggestion? How far does the word go?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay—that is helpful. It is interesting to think about whether there could be timed tapering.

My final question is on the fiscal framework, which is a mystery to most of us. Obviously, negotiations are going on around the framework between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. How important is social security in the negotiations? If you were advising the Scottish Government, what would you tell it to ask for?

I have two questions, the first of which is aimed at David Phillips. I was interested in the issue of tapering with regard to some benefits. Can you point us to any evidence of tapering in other parts of the world with regard to things like personal independence payments and the disability living allowance that we could consider with regard to new benefits in Scotland? There has been quite a lot of research that shows that people ask why they should get better if they are going to lose their benefits. For example, if regaining the ability to walk 20m or 25m means that a person could lose their car, they might ask what would be the benefit of them getting any better? Is there any evidence of tapering across the world with regard to things like PIP, which we could look at in Scotland?

Good morning. We will look at the relaid regulations on 31 March, which is fine. In order that we can look ahead and do the appropriate planning, however, I have a question about the increase to the benefits. I presume that the cost will be met from the Scottish Government budget, rather than from what has already been planned. Where is the money coming from? Will it come from the social security budget that has been approved by Parliament or from a different department’s budget? When we passed the budget, Kate Forbes told us that every penny had been accounted for and all the money would be spent. This is obviously extra money that was not in the budget. Where is it coming from?

I am happy for Emma Congreve to start, if she wants to.

Will there be any knock-on effect on other things that you might have been thinking about doing in the financial year? You might have been thinking, “We could be a bit more generous here” or “We could think about that benefit.” Have such things been put on the back shelf because you are bringing forward the money fairly early in the financial year?

Thank you, minister.

I am conscious of time, and I understand that this is a big issue, so I ask David Phillips to put some of his answer to us in writing. My specific question for him is whether any future divergence in benefit criteria can be reflected in the negotiations. If, in a year or 18 months, the Scottish Government or Parliament decides to change the mobility requirement to, say, 50m rather than 20m, with the result that many more people would be entitled, should that be reflected in the fiscal framework now, or is it simply impossible to do that?