Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Sara—that was helpful.

On a similar tack, I was interested in the link that you make in your submission between social care and the climate crisis and green jobs—I think that, ultimately, you consider social care as an area in which to create green jobs. That is something that I believe in passionately. I have often said that social care is a key sector that could be a massive help to our economy, particularly as we move towards a green economy.

Can you say more about how you believe the Government could combine its agenda of addressing financial and recruitment issues in social care with looking at broader climate justice solutions?

Thank you for allowing me to come in again, convener. I want to explore a couple of areas a wee bit further, if that is okay.

Sara, your submission mentions the evidence that was given on the impact on equalities alongside the budget and says that the top-line information was given “across portfolio areas”, but we probably need a bit more detail on specific inequalities. How can the detail be improved so that we can continue to improve in that area?

Convener, I have another question that is on a slightly different topic, if I can come back in afterwards.

That was really helpful. The examples from the transport and Covid recovery portfolios are useful. We can look into those in more detail.

I move to an almost completely different subject, although it is still on the budget and a feminist analysis of it. I am interested in your deliberations. What is your assessment of the impact that we might be able to have on violence against women and on services that deal with violence against women, as part of addressing some of the structural inequalities that drive violence against women and make it worse?

Good morning, Sara. Thank you for the information that you sent us in advance of the meeting and for your time today.

My questions are about social care and women’s responsibilities for work, including unpaid work. The “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2022-23” identified women’s responsibilities for unpaid work as a risk with regard to their ability to find paid work. Does the budget go far enough, particularly with regard to social care? Does it contain enough support to lift women out of poverty? Does it do enough to address the increased structural inequality that was seen as a risk? The question also applies to disabled people, and disabled women in particular.

What do the forecasting and the spending that you have set out in your written evidence and this morning suggest for the affordability of the social security budget in Scotland in the longer term?

I want to pick up on the point in SAMH’s submission about the intention to review people on PIP under the ADP system. ADP has been delayed, as we know. Can you talk a little bit about the impact that that has had on the people you represent? Bill Scott, it would be helpful to hear if you have any further evidence on that particular issue.

Thanks again for all your contributions. This morning’s discussion has been really interesting. I hope that there is ambition to change a lot about adult disability payments so that disabled people have the support that they need to live an ordinary life. However, we have discussed a number of issues. Do you have a view on whether there are sufficient systems in place within the current social security system in Scotland to support continuous improvement, specifically given that Social Security Scotland’s approach is to have a minimum viable product? I pose that to Judith Paterson.

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?