Seòmar agus comataidhean

But this is something that the Parliament makes a decision on each year—that is, how much of the whole budget we think that it is appropriate to spend in an area.

That brings me to the question of how you got the figure of £770 million, because it is important that we understand the working behind that. When we set up Social Security Scotland in this Parliament, we did so with a different ethos, and everyone in the Parliament was clear that we wanted these benefits to be paid to everyone who was entitled to them. If that figure is £141 million more than the money that is coming through Barnett consequentials, it is because this Parliament decided that it should be.

The question is this: what assumptions have you made on the £770 million in relation to what is happening in the rest of the UK? Is the assumption that the rest of the UK will continue with a system that does not give these benefits to everyone who is entitled to them and does not aim to give all disabled people who are entitled to the personal independence payment—as it is elsewhere—their benefit? Is your assumption that that will continue?

I represent the great city of Dundee; lots of my constituents work for Social Security Scotland, and lots of them used to work for DWP. I am not quoting anybody, but I hear that the difference between the two approaches is night and day. Before, success was cutting somebody’s benefits; now, success is making sure that people get the benefit that they are entitled to. Therefore, what assumptions did you make about the UK benefits system in order to get to the figure of £770 million?

That is helpful. My view is that getting people the benefits to which they are entitled is almost like preventative spending if we do it right. However, we need to collect the right data so that we can show that, whatever the figures are, and whatever the difference is between what is being spent in England and what is being spent in Scotland, savings are being made elsewhere in the system. We can then show that, as well as treating people better, the system is working better for the whole of society. I guess that we need to collect the data. Are there any particular bits of data that you think we need to start collecting that currently we are not collecting?

Has the Government given any thought to considering the benefit in a fresh way, or do you think that it should do that? It is in effect replicating PIP now, although it does not need to do that in future. It does not need to be just for that; it could have a wider application. Do you think that the Government should be considering that?

I am keen to ask about waiting times. We have had some evidence about people’s experiences, but can the panel give us their thoughts on the impact of waiting for a diagnosis on individuals and on their families? Can you say a little bit about whether there is good practice, particularly if there is a waiting time? Can things be done during that period, and do some areas do that well in spite of having waiting times?

Thank you. Dani Cosgrove, do you want to add anything?

Good morning. You almost came on to the area that I want to talk about, because I am interested in training and understanding in a wider context. We know that GPs are the gatekeepers, but everyone interacts with a lot more folk in public life and across society. Is there something that we or the Scottish Government could do to address some of the misinformation that is out there, and the stigma and discriminatory attitudes that neurodivergent people experience?

Let us get the elephant sorted. If we have made a mistake, the committee has not done that deliberately and it would be good to hear what the preferred terminology is.

That is really helpful for us. It sounds like just a few letters and a word, but it is deeper than that. You expressed the difference between saying “a person with autism” and an “autistic person”, and you explained it really clearly. That is helpful for the committee and it is something for us to consider. This session is clearly a bit of training for us, in the wider sense.

The whole morning has been really good and the evidence has been helpful to us. How can we get that discussion going in wider society and particularly in public services? Everyone who works in public services will come across autistic people daily. How do we make sure that more people understand the right words to use and what will make a difference to ensure that someone who is autistic has a more positive experience? It will then be a more positive experience for the people on both sides of the conversation or transaction.

I do not know whether Matthew Day or Kabie Brook want to add anything, but I am conscious that we are running short of time, convener.

Thanks for that, Mark. Your point about communication and keeping people aware of what the pathway is and what they can expect right across the country could be taken on pretty quickly and pretty easily. Your example of NHS Tayside shows exactly the opposite and how people can get it wrong. Thanks for flagging that up. Everyone can learn from that experience—I believe that NHS Tayside has, or I certainly hope that it has.

It is useful to hear folks’ thoughts on the impact of waiting times. Does anybody have any thoughts on how we can get those times down so that people get a diagnosis without such a long wait? Can we do something across the system that will make a difference to reduce waiting times?