���˿���

Let me finish with a positive question. It is 8 May, and we have a new Government in place. The new cabinet secretary for social security comes to you and says, “Here is my magic wand. You can have one of the things that is in the report, and I will grant it to you today.”

I know what Keith Park is going to say, but for the rest of you, what is the one thing that you would choose that would make the biggest difference to the people you are trying to help? I will go to Keith first, because it will be easy for him to answer.

Good morning. I put on record that I am in receipt of the higher rate of ADP.

I thank the four witnesses for coming. That is not only for today—you represent the third sector, and we have had people from that sector giving evidence to the committee for the past five years. As a committee, we appreciate the time and effort that has been put in over those years.

I have two questions. First, Erica Young mentioned the PIP review that is happening at UK level. We do not know how that will work out in the autumn or what the UK Government will do. I have a philosophical question. Can we have a system in which there are different criteria north and south of the border? Obviously, that would impact on other benefits and on how people do things. Can you envisage a system in which the 50 per cent rule remains in England but we get rid of it in Scotland? Can that work philosophically?

What would you go to? A bit like you, Keith, I am old enough—sorry to be rude—to remember the 100m rule. I remember that the test used to be whether someone could walk the length of a football pitch. Would you go back to that, or would you not put a figure on it?

I am happy for Alexander Stewart to carry on; I will mop up at the end.

Craig Smith, the magic wand goes over to you.

10:30

It is okay—so has Craig.

Last but not least, I put that question to Frank McKillop.

:In light of the minister’s remarks, I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 63, 120 and 121 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

:I have a couple of points that I would like to hear your thoughts on, minister. First of all, we do not want to prejudge the next election. I appreciate that you have given us a guarantee, but there could be a different Government, and a different minister, with a different view. There needs to be something in the legislation to perhaps give clarity just in case there is a change of Government, or a different colour of Government.

Secondly, the 18-month proposal is, I suppose, an opening gambit—like you, minister, I am open to negotiation. Are you willing to accept an amendment that sets out what you plan to do anyway, namely to commence the bill’s key provisions in September 2027? Would you be open to that type of amendment?

:Amendment 51 would require that the rates of any fees charged by Healthcare Improvement Scotland for registration are specified in regulations. Having those fee levels set out in secondary legislation would ensure that they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide transparency and accountability in how fees are determined. Registration fees represent a direct financial obligation on practitioners and businesses. For many in the sector, particularly sole traders and small partnerships, even a moderate cost increase will have a meaningful impact on their business.

Without clarity on how fees will be set or what level they might reach, businesses would face uncertainty, which could affect financial planning, investment decisions and workforce stability. It is therefore appropriate that the Parliament has oversight of the level of fees that are associated with the regime that it is establishing.

Amendment 51 would not prevent fees from being charged, nor would it challenge the principle of cost recovery, where appropriate. Instead, it would ensure that fees are clearly defined, transparent and open to scrutiny. Setting them out in regulations would provide predictability for businesses and allow members to assess whether the charges are proportionate to the regulated services provided.

If my amendment is agreed to, fee levels will be publicly defined and subject to parliamentary consideration. That would provide clarity, support and confidence that charges are fair and justified. That already happens in other sectors.

If the amendment is not accepted, there will be less transparency about how fees are determined and there will be a reduced opportunity for consideration by the Parliament. Businesses could face uncertainty about future costs, and the Parliament would have a more limited role in assessing the financial impact of the regime.

Ultimately, amendment 51 seeks to ensure that the financial foundations of any new regulatory system are clear and accountable, and that it is safely implemented so that businesses, whether small or large, are not indirectly affected.