Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have met campaigners on the issue for many years now, since we first began discussing social security disability benefits, and I have always said to them that the Government is keen to look at what changes can be made. There are two areas in particular that we need to look at as we go through the process. One is the cost factor. I am happy to go into that in further detail when we talk about Motability, or we can come on to it later, but it is important that we have that on the record.

The other aspect is the ability for those who have a devolved benefit to continue to receive passported reserved benefits. Those are two areas—although not the only two areas—that we are exceptionally keen to keep in mind. We want to be open with stakeholders about the financial context that the Government is in, and we want to ensure that what might seem like a good idea has no unintended consequences, given that there may be a disbenefit if something impacts on passported benefits.

I would not consider it to be the single biggest factor, but it undeniably needs to be looked at. I consider the principles in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018—Mr Balfour was a member of the Social Security Committee when the Parliament passed that act—as our touchstone when looking at potential changes. I consider whether any changes will ensure that we still have a system that has dignity, fairness and respect, or how we can build more of that into the system.

I can, however, give examples of why cost needs to be looked at. The Scottish Fiscal Commission provided a full costing for pension age disability payment in its December 2023 publication, in which it estimated the 2024-25 expenditure to be £754.9 million, rising to £918.4 million by 2028-29. Costings for that financial year include a projected £87.1 million additional investment in Scotland when compared to the funding that is received from the block grant.

In some of our exchanges of a more combative nature in the chamber, Mr Balfour tells me that nothing has changed. I point out to him that the Scottish Fiscal Commission clearly thinks that something has changed, given that it thinks that PADP will cost us an extra £87.1 million because of the changes that we have made, such as the new terminal illness definition, the introduction of short-term assistance and the improved supported application process. Therefore, even making the changes that we have, which are in essence to do with not eligibility but how we run the system, has already built in an additional cost of £87.1 million.

We need to get past the case transfer process first. At this point, more of the conversations that we are having with the DWP are because of the changes that it is about to make to reserved benefits. For example, if the DWP, following recent pronouncements from the United Kingdom Government, reduces the ability for people with mental illness to qualify for personal independence payment, but we still have the same ability within ADP—which we are absolutely committed to—what does that mean? Does it mean that the UK Government would make changes to the way that it treats people who qualify? There is a real and present danger, given some of the recent pronouncements from the DWP on changes to PIP and to work capability assessments, so that is what the conversations have been on at the moment.

The member raises an interesting point, and I am grateful to stakeholders for discussing this area with me. We did not just discuss social security; we discussed other ways to support older people. Some of that is done through the transport system, and some of it can potentially be done in other ways. Mr Doris is quite right to point out that social security is but one way to support people and that there may be other ways to do that that do not come with the same eye-watering figure.

It is a challenging situation, given the financial constraints, but stakeholders have taken the approach of asking the Government to consider the matter in the round, and I have committed to doing that. I think that Mr Doris is also asking me to do that.

We would be delighted to take up that suggestion. Anything that we can do with any stakeholder or interested party to assist in uptake would be greatly welcome, so I am happy to follow that up with Ms McNair after the meeting.

As I think I said earlier, I have had a number of meetings to talk about the issue, including one pretty recently with Age Scotland, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and others, and I very much respect their opinions on it. I would say to them that this is one of the areas where we absolutely need to think about the cost.

During the early development of PADP, we undertook significant work to explore the feasibility of introducing a mobility component. The analysis that was done at that time found that it would cost an additional £580 million a year. That was based on figures from 2020-21. With the ageing population uprating during a period of high inflation, we think that, with the mobility rates included, the cost is now in excess of £700 million a year. That figure does not make allowances for the case load being any higher than was projected at the time of the analysis; it is not a full new estimate, but it takes account of inflation. That highlights the cost of where we are.

I appreciate where stakeholders are coming from on the issue. However, there are a number of ways in which we provide additional support around mobility needs for older disabled people, including free bus travel that is universally available to anyone over the age of 60, the companion bus pass and free personal care, which is available in Scotland and can support a number of needs, including immobility problems. Although receipt of the pension age disability payment will not provide automatic entitlement to the blue badge scheme, eligible disabled people can apply for that vital support through their local authority.

There are different circumstances for this age cohort compared with people of working age, which presents a different case. Although I respect where the stakeholders are coming from on the cost issue, given the different circumstances of this age cohort and the other areas of support that are available to them, the Government does not intend to move forward with a change at this point or after the case transfer has been completed.

I absolutely take Mr Mason’s point. That is why I said that there is not just free bus travel but other aspects of support, including free personal care, which can include support for immobility problems.

I appreciate that this might not have been of use to Mr Mason’s mother, but there is also an entitlement to the blue badge scheme, although it is not an automatic entitlement with PADP. There are different circumstances for this cohort compared with working-age people, and that is why the decision has been taken at this time.

I am not able to say that at the moment, because the form is still going through the design process. However, I give an absolute assurance that every page will have been tested with folk who have co-designed it with us, and they will have assisted us in working out how best to set out the form. I am hopeful that, given what we have done in relation to the previous benefits, people will know that we design the forms with various people, including stakeholders, and that they are designed in a certain way because that is the way that the individuals think they work best. I am happy to keep the committee updated on that as we go through the process and the forms are finalised.

Briefly, no—it is not. I have raised those concerns with the UK Government. I am greatly concerned that that does exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do, which is to actively encourage people who have a long-term condition or disability to apply for what they are entitled to. We should support people in that process. That goes back to the fundamental principle that social security is a human right and an investment in our people, and the Scottish Government has absolutely no intention of deviating from that course.

We expect to complete our case transfer process for pension age disability payment by the end of 2025, and we are on track for the case transfer of all our benefits by then.

We are always keen to look at continuous improvement in social security. I appreciate that the Government often says a lot about how we are very proud of what has happened in the social security system and that it is performing well, but, as I have said, I am also cognisant of the fact that it is a new system and that we will learn from the processes. That means that we have to be open to continuous improvement and to change.

Once we have completed the case transfer process and we have had a period of stabilisation, as part of our continuous improvement process we will, of course, consider how the payment can be developed over time. We will look to see whether there are opportunities to make improvements, as I hope the committee would wish us to do. Those will be evidence-led and based on the client experience of pension age disability payment. As we move through the case transfer process, we will see what needs to be done to change things.