Seòmar agus comataidhean

One of the differences appears to be that, with child disability payment, the opportunity was taken to be a bit more consistent in relation to whether renal dialysis is deemed to qualify a person for the higher rate or the lower rate. If renal dialysis is required both day and night, a person could qualify for the higher rate. The Scottish Government has not taken that opportunity with the regulations that we are considering, but it has said that it could rely on guidance that would clarify that, which might improve outcomes, if I have understood the matter correctly. Marilyn Howard, I suspect, has a considered view from SCOSS on that. Will relying on guidance be sufficient?

Can I check my understanding? If someone is currently on renal dialysis, they automatically get the lower rate for pension age disability payment, and the devil will be in the detail of the guidance in relation to whether night-time dialysis will mean that they get the higher rate. Have I understood that correctly? Is SCOSS content with that approach?

I point out that I do not have £20 million, Mr Stachura.

I have put words into your mouth, so I apologise.

I do not know whether Marilyn Howard has anything to add, but I have no further questions. Marilyn, do you have any observations on that?

That is helpful: the issue is covered by guidance for the moment and may be part of a review in the longer term. If no other witness wants to add anything, I will move to another question.

The Scottish Government will not shorten the six-month qualifying period for pension age disability payment as, according to it, to do so

“would lead to people with very short-term conditions becoming eligible”.

The Scottish Government also refers to the cost, which is coincidentally roughly £20 million—I promise that that is not a deliberate link to my previous question—and the risk to passported benefits being compromised. What are the witnesses’ views of those justifications?

That is helpful. I wanted that on the record. It is about the art of the achievable rather than the aspirations. We are very well intentioned. I totally get why you want the mobility component, Ms Horne.

Mr Stachura, what would your priority be?

That is a helpful intervention from Monica Lennon, which explains to anyone watching the proceedings why we have a three-stage parliamentary process to iron out all these things. It is an essential part of passing good legislation.

On the role of workers and unions, the latter are at the heart and core of the Just Transition Partnership that I spoke to ahead of lodging amendments 208 and 209 and I pay tribute to them, because they were keen to see not just the workforce but employers and communities be part of that just transition.

The minister referred previously to amendment 137, which mentions just transition. I have to say that it is quite concise about that. However, what I am trying to achieve is perhaps around the delivery of a just transition across the various sectors of the Scottish economy rather than around the strategy itself. Something in the bill must give specific reference to the policy intent, which my amendment would do. I am open minded about the wording of the amendment and whether it would best sit in the strategy section or elsewhere, but I think that we must return to that point.

I will hold my position for the moment and listen with interest to what the minister says when she speaks to her amendments.

The member says that we do not need a circular economy strategy bill in order to get on with a circular economy strategy, but does he accept that the Parliament is moulding in statute what a circular economy strategy should look like—how it should be monitored and reported on—and that the bill structures such a strategy according to the will of the Parliament rather than the will of the Government? Putting it on a statutory footing empowers the Parliament. Does Mr Golden support putting the strategy on a statutory footing?

I thank the deputy convener for giving way. Ben Macpherson is right to identify the demands that there will be on construction and how it manages waste, as well as all the evidence that we took during our stage 1 evidence sessions. For balance, does Ben Macpherson agree that construction is also a key contributor to net zero? With better construction and energy standards, and better quality new-build homes in this country—not just in terms of where we stay, but in office buildings—and in retrofitting, construction is a key sector for managing us towards net zero and tackling our climate challenges. It is a key partner.

I meant to say this at the start of the session. There are huge time constraints on us and, lots of times, members will withdraw or not press amendments on the basis that we will engage with the minister ahead of stage 3. However, rather than members saying that every single time, it can be inferred that that is a set process for many amendments during the passage of the bill. I get it that amendments are in the gift of the Presiding Officer at stage 3, but I want to put that on the record.