Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to thank the witnesses again for their evidence. It is incredibly powerful to hear about the impact that some of the existing eligibility criteria for disability benefits has on the people whom you represent.

I will pick up Bill Scott’s point about the safe and secure transfer of benefits. I declare an interest as someone who gets personal independence payment. I, too, would, be concerned if I thought for one minute that, in the process of transferring benefits from one Government agency to another, the benefit stopped and I lost my Motability vehicle, for example. It is no wonder that disabled people have said that the safe and secure transfer of benefits is important. However, if they were told that it might require 10 years before any fundamental change to the criteria could be made, I agree with you that they would not have put that aspect first.

Before I move to my question, I will highlight one really important point. The First Minister put the impact of the PIP criteria very well when highlighting that people who get enhanced mobility support could lose up to £3,000 a year. She said:

“Important though the money is, let us remember that, for people in those circumstances, that loss could take away more than pounds and pence—it could take away their very independence.”—[Official Report, 13 August 2014; c 33391.]

I whole-heartedly agree with that, which is why we need to move on the issue.

My initial questions are probably for Keith Park, Bill Scott and Craig Smith. Can you give a rough figure for the number of people who, in the coming weeks, months and years, will be left without their independence as a result of the criteria continuing in its current form? Is there any reason why the Scottish Government could not start to review eligibility and adequacy now, so that, when the safe and secure transfer finishes in 2023—if, indeed, it does—we can more or less switch on the new system that same day?

Could Richard Gass and Ed Pybus comment on where they see eligibility mirroring PIP and the impact that that has on the people they represent?

Good morning, panel. Thank you very much for joining us.

We note in the regulations for adult disability payment that some of them—indeed a lot of them—mirror PIP. Where the regulations differ, can the panel comment on whether the changes support or help the end user? Some of the differences between adult disability payment and PIP, including the terminal illness rule, the fact that awards do not end immediately, rules on members of the armed forces and residence rules, represent policy divergence from the United Kingdom. What is your understanding of how the Scottish Government was able to progress on those areas, given the constraints that we have heard about in implementing policy that is different from the UK Government’s policy?

I note that no children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessment was done on SSI 2021/420. I am keen to hear the reason for that. Perhaps the Government will address that at a future date.

In addition, given that the minimum age of criminal responsibility that will come into force this month is 12, it is interesting that the United Nations has said that 14 should be the minimum. I am keen to know why the Government has chosen a lower age.

My question is for Susie Fitton and for Satwat Rehman. How might the increase in unpaid work impact on Government plans for the no one left behind approach to employment, and on the aim of reducing by half the employment gap for disabled people?

I thank the witnesses for joining us, and for the written evidence that they submitted in advance, which was incredibly helpful.

I have a couple of questions, initially for Susie Fitton and Catriona Melville. I am keen to understand a bit about the impact on disabled people of having to rely more on, as well as having to give, unpaid care. What is your assessment of last week’s budget? Does it go far enough to support unpaid carers and social care, given the additional pressures that are still present as a result of the pandemic?

I could have listened to you all day. Catriona, do you have any comments on the impact of unpaid care not only on the older people who rely on it but on those who provide it?

I am pleased to hear that the things that were put in place were positive and I hope that they will continue, because it shows that we can do things differently and be very fleet of foot when we need to be. It is encouraging to hear that.

The question that I have is specifically on the resilience fund, the local authorities that were initially able to access it and the additional 10 local authorities that were able to access it subsequently. Kaja Czuchnicka, are you aware of how they were chosen? Did the funding go to the areas where it was needed the most? When the additional 10 local authorities were added, did that come with additional funding or was it a case of spreading the initial funding slightly differently?

Sorry. I mean the communities recovery fund.

Does anyone else on the panel want to comment?