Seòmar agus comataidhean

Although I echo some of the sentiments that the minister has shared with us about the changes to the process, excitement is not the emotion that I feel about the adult disability payment regulations that are in front of us, and I am not sure that other disabled people will feel that, either.

Safe and secure transition is, of course, incredibly important. As someone who uses the personal independence payment, I understand the importance of that payment still coming in order to pay for things such as Motability vehicles. However, had we asked disabled people in 2018 whether they wanted to wait until at least 2025 for fundamental changes to who was eligible, or whether the payment was adequate, we might have had a different answer. Bill Scott agreed with that in his evidence. I again urge the Government to pick up the pace on this.

I have a couple of questions on the transfer of claimants from disability living allowance and PIP to the adult disability payment. Looking back to the earlier years of the discussions about social security, I note that the adult disability payment was due to be opened earlier, but it was delayed as a result of the pandemic from summer 2021 to 2022. Organisations such as the Scottish Association for Mental Health and others have said that they understand that the coronavirus pandemic impacted on the original timescale, and to a degree I can see that, too. However, it is now getting on a bit.

We believe that there should be mitigations for those who are affected by the delay. The Government made a welcome commitment that, once the adult disability payment was opened to new applications, no one with an existing award would be reassessed under the UK system. SAMH has identified that the delay of the regulations by a year could mean that at least 141,000 people in Scotland will still be on PIP or will have entered the PIP system who would otherwise, perhaps, have been assessed for the adult disability payment. About 55,000 of those people may have a mental health problem and a large proportion are likely to have gone through a very difficult face-to-face assessment for PIP, as we have highlighted.

To mitigate that, will the Government prioritise the transfer from PIP of people who successfully made a PIP claim during the delay period? Will you introduce a rapid review of failed PIP applications that were made during the delay period and a publicity campaign to encourage people to reapply?

Congratulations on your appointment as convener of the committee. I put on record my thanks to Neil Gray, who was an excellent convener. We will miss him, and I wish him well in his new role.

I thank the minister and his officials for coming to discuss the regulations. The current system of support for disabled people is wholly inadequate. I recognise the work that the Government has done in making improvements to the system, and I congratulate it on doing that. However, it will come as no surprise to the minister, the officials or other committee members that I believe that the regulations that we are considering today are a serious missed opportunity.

In the middle of a cost of living crisis, when 31 per cent of disabled people are living in poverty, we should have been looking at addressing issues such as the eligibility and adequacy of the payments. Instead, we are looking only at the process. I recognise that some of the changes to the process will improve things, but the bar was very low. I am underwhelmed by what we see in front of us.

I will start by picking up the point about the 20m rule. The minister set out that the United Kingdom Government has not yet indicated its intent to get rid of the 20m rule. However, I note that neither has the Scottish Government nor the minister, despite the fact that I have asked direct questions several times about the intentions around the 20m rule. Will the minister set out whether it is the Scottish Government’s intention to get rid of the 20m rule?

I thank the minister for the points that he set out as a result of that question. However, I am not sure that he set out whether it is his intention to get rid of the 20m rule. I ask him to address that point.

I also noted the minister’s point about now not being the time. I cannot help but say that we were also told that in 2018, when disabled people—and the Scottish Labour Party—were keen to put the ambition that they wanted on the face of the bill. We were told in 2018 to trust that the issue would be sorted in regulations, but here we are in 2022 and the eligibility criteria and the adequacy of the payments under the new system will not be addressed until after the review, which looks like it will not happen until at least 2025. Disabled people, 31 per cent of whom are living in poverty in this country, are being told that now is not the time. I hope that the time will be soon and I ask the minister to say when that will be.

I will move on to my other questions.

I thank the minister for his reassurance about the way in which the descriptors will be applied. I am confident that some of the work that has gone into training through Social Security Scotland means that that may well be borne out—we look forward to seeing that and to scrutinising it further. Have you considered a system that is not a functional one but which is points based? What else you could do to address that issue, and when?

Is the minister able to be more explicit around psychological distress and how that will be applied in the descriptors and the assessment process?

We have heard from many people who have given evidence to the committee that there is not enough in the regulations about the ability to make a journey safely. That can make things very difficult for people who have mental health issues to get the enhanced rate. How does the Government plan to address that?

Related to that, a number of organisations and people have told us that changing and variable conditions are not addressed to any significant extent in the regulations. Can the minister set out how those concerns will be addressed in the regulations or in future guidance?

I appreciate that I am asking a lot of questions, but I have the talking stick for only a limited period.

Can the minister also set out how he sees the relationship and possible divergence between UK and Scottish case law developing as the payments are rolled out? For example, what would happen if a change in UK case law meant that the UK system became more generous than its counterpart here?

Finally, will there be any explicit reference in guidance to how the new system will support people with mental ill health through the application process? Can the minister set out what that support would look like? Thank you.

Thank you for joining us and for the evidence that you have given. I have been struck by a lot of what you have said. In particular, the comments about the immune system response of the economy really struck a chord. Thank you, too, for your written submissions.

I hope that the convener and the panel will indulge me, as I have a few questions to ask. First, I want to touch on the area of care that Emma Congreve has just highlighted. The Scottish women’s budget group has described action on care in the budget as “an opportunity missed”, and I agree. Will Dr O’Hagan tell us her views with regard to paid care—and, in that respect, her expectations of and views on the wage floor of £10.50 per hour and its impact on women’s inequality—and also unpaid carers, who have faced a significant increase in the number of hours for which they provide care. We know that that is having an impact on their ability to work in the workplace, and not least on their personal circumstances.

As you will know, the Government introduced a bill last year to double the carers allowance supplement in December. That uplift was brought in during the pandemic to recognise the additional responsibility. The Government said at the time that it had included in the bill provision for the supplement to be doubled again this year through regulations, but that has not been included in the draft budget. I am keen to know whether the panel have any concerns in that respect and what they expect the impact will be on carers’ ability to realise and enjoy their rights if the supplement is not doubled.

I would like to go back to a couple of other areas, convener, but that is probably enough to be going on with.

Thank you for that and for further—[Inaudible.]—immune system. [Inaudible.]—a really strong one.

My other question is about social security. Some 170,000 children receive the Scottish child payment through the bridging payment, but my understanding is that it has not yet been doubled. Will Chris Birt comment on the impact that not doubling the payment for that group might have?

I want to ask Emma Congreve about the report that the Fraser of Allander Institute published yesterday. You noted that the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s outlook is disappointing, with the tax take revised downwards. What is your analysis of the reason for the downward revision? What are the implications for the equalities budget? You described the effect of using social security versus—I know that it is not as simple as that—longer-term economic policy, and you talked about the impact that some employment policies have on equalities groups and the ability of people with protected characteristics to work. Will you say a bit more about your analysis, to help us to understand the impact of tax take on equalities and how much money we will have to address inequalities?

That is helpful. The point about it being a minimum period is useful. I know that people will appreciate that, so thank you for setting that out.

My next question is around the fact that there is no advocacy provision at the point of suspension. Judith Robertson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission said in her evidence that people with mental ill health might find it difficult to engage in the suspension process or during the review of their entitlement. Can you set out what the Government will do specifically to ensure that the system of suspension does not negatively impact on some groups? Can you also set out your thinking around advocacy and why a legal right to advocacy does not extend to suspension?

Thank you both for your answers. I am still not 100 per cent clear—forgive me—whether a person would be able to access advocacy at that point. I take the point that advocacy can be about entitlement, but suspension is also very much about entitlement. I understand that the rules on suspension will not be in play if the award is to be increased, but only when the decision is on whether an award is to be stopped or continued. Advocacy will be crucial at that point, so I urge the Government to make it clear that advocacy would be available to people at that point.

That is helpful. I have no further questions on that.

I take the point that the adult disability payment regulations will be coming to us next week. I raised the matter on the basis that, to try to prevent people pre-emptively stopping their claim and making a new claim within the Scottish system, as well as promoting it in the way that my colleague Emma Roddick pointed out, we could reassure people that there will be a system of prioritisation for those people who would otherwise have a guaranteed review. That is why I asked the question today in relation to these regulations.

Finally, how long do you expect case transfer to take?