Seòmar agus comataidhean

Perhaps I can play devil’s advocate for a moment. What we are doing is looking at how this will happen. As Rachel Wood has said, the Government could do this through primary legislation but, as a result, the safeguard of the Lord President would not apply—the matter would simply be for the Parliament to decide. I understand the principle that you do not want this to happen, but from a delegated powers perspective, is it the case that, if it were to happen, you would want it to happen through primary legislation rather than through delegated legislation, because of the scrutiny issue? Is that right?

Can I come back on that briefly, convener?

Again, just to push you on this, the ministers have that power only if the Parliament approves the regulations and the Lord President signs them off. Is that not two safeguards? It is not that the Government is saying that it is going to do something and there is no backstop; we have two backstops, because the Parliament and the Lord President have to approve the proposal and, if either of them does not do that, it will not happen. Does that backstop of the judiciary and the Parliament having a role in the process not represent a safeguard?

I put the same question to Morag Ross, if that is okay.

I will start with Gordon MacRae, because he has already had a go at this issue, although it is probably an impossible question. How should the Scottish Government involve the public more in setting the overall spending priorities? What scope is there for genuine and meaningful public engagement on that, given that, as you said, it is difficult for people to know the different lines in the budget?

I am conscious of the time, but perhaps I can have one line from either Bill Scott or Graham O’Neill. It will have to be just one line.

That has been helpful. Would you extend the winter heating payment to anyone on any form of adult or child disability payment? Might that target people who may be at home more? Do you have a view on that?

It is a quick supplementary, convener.

Here in Edinburgh, we have had issues with breakfast care and after-school care not having the appropriate support for disabled people. Presumably, therefore, the provision that you are talking about is not just for the under-fives—we have to look at provision where parents require appropriate support for disabled children who go to mainstream schools. That will need to be financed properly as well.

Good morning, panel. I will first aim my question at Bill Scott, as it relates to his submission, and then the other two witnesses can jump in if they want to.

Your submission highlighted areas for increased spend such as social care, an additional £32 million for the independent living fund, increases in the winter heating payment and increased social security spending for disabled people. Given the tight fiscal framework, how should the Scottish Government fund that proposed additional spend, and which of those areas would you put at the top of a priority list? Are there other programmes that you would cut so that money could be diverted?

For the record, convener, I remind members that I receive personal independence payment.