It would be fair to say that there are different positions regarding some of the different clauses that the UK Government has set out in its command paper. Some clauses either come very close to fulfilling, or do fulfil, what was expected by the Smith commission, but there are a number of instances where we do not believe that to be the case, and we have made representations to the UK Government.
I will highlight the cases where we think the commitments have been fulfilled. We think that that is the case in relation to elements of paragraph 49 of the Smith commission report, on
“Benefits for carers, disabled people and those who are ill”
and
“Benefits which currently comprise the Regulated Social Fund”.
We believe that those commitments have been properly translated into draft legislation. That is also the case in relation to paragraph 51 of the report, which is about allocating to the Parliament
“autonomy in determining the structure and value of the benefits at paragraph 49”,
to which I have just referred.
We do not believe that the Smith commission proposals have been properly translated into detailed legislation in relation to clauses 20 and 21 of the draft Scotland bill, on universal credit; nor in relation to the power to create new benefits, under draft clause 18; nor in relation to paragraph 55 of the Smith commission report, which provided for
“benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Parliament”
providing
“additional income for a recipient”.
We also have issues with the arrangements that are being put in place for the employability programmes.
That is a fairly comprehensive summary of where we think the terms of the Smith commission have been translated into the detail of the draft clauses and the areas where we need to have further dialogue to make improvements.