Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government has always seen the two crises as of equal importance. Along with other considerations in the new deal discussions, it is absolutely, along with the net zero agenda, an important part of the wider Government agenda. Of course, that includes our engagement with local government around the new deal.

I think that that is a question for all of Government. I will bring in Ian Storrie on the point of ring fencing and the percentages to provide a bit more detail on that. The funding that is allocated and the considerations around ring fencing are all based on decisions, many of which this Parliament takes, on shared outcomes that we agree as a democracy that we want to see. The different spheres of government then work collaboratively to deliver those outcomes.

Local authorities have argued and engaged constructively in a process of how we get to a position where local authorities have the flexibility that they feel would be beneficial for them to meet those shared national outcomes and aspirations and targets that we want to see realised. How we consider the balance into the next financial year and going forward is at the heart of the discussions on the fiscal framework and the considerations around the new deal more widely.

There has been good constructive discussion on ring fencing—I will allude to that in a moment—but where the funding that is allocated to local government is ring fenced, so to speak, is around how we meet aspirations and policy targets and commitments that both spheres of government want to achieve. The discussions on the fiscal framework and the new deal are around where there is contention between local and central Government on what the optimal position would be. That is why we are engaged in this very constructive process of how we move forward. Ian Storrie may want to add something.

The cabinet secretary may want to add something afterwards. Local government and central Government work collaboratively on the delivery of the targets that the Parliament sets. In fact, local government told the committee last week that it wants, quite understandably, to be in a co-design relationship for how policy is developed and it obviously contributed to this Parliament’s target setting on climate change. In terms of how those targets are delivered, if you are just thinking about resourcing, and I think that you are, resourcing must be properly structured to deliver the targets. As part of the considerations around the fiscal framework and the new deal, as I have said and as the cabinet secretary has alluded to as well, considering how we give local authorities the flexibility that they need to do what is right in their communities is part of how we are developing the new deal. Of course, I cannot say more on the new deal because it is still in development, but it will be there for you to see as we go into the next financial year.

I do not have a huge amount to add to what the cabinet secretary said, except to say that, of course, local authorities and the Scottish Government work collaboratively around the national performance framework, which has place making and well-being encapsulated in the outcomes that we are seeking to achieve together. That is a key part of how we work collaboratively across Government with local authorities.

To pick up on the previous conversation related to this, building on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, in the previous parliamentary session there was a very good piece of work undertaken in the local governance review. Part of the work in the new deal will be to think and to act collaboratively between local government and central Government on how we progress the local governance review. That will involve considerations around engagement with communities and progress on the wellbeing agenda.

Do you mean a review of the council tax specifically or local government funding in the round?

Mr Kelly, if there is anything that you want to add from an agency perspective, feel free to do so, but members will be aware that our determination is to get more decisions right first time. The process that I have set out regarding how people have moved from DLA to PIP is background information, but we are at the beginning of the process when it comes to Social Security Scotland.

First, I reiterate my comment about encouraging people to get independent advice and to utilise the resources that the Scottish Government is making available in that respect. What Social Security Scotland can do is advise on individual entitlement by describing to people what, given their circumstances, will be the situation for them; as I have emphasised, everyone’s circumstances will be different. However, we strongly advise people to take independent advice from the advocacy service and through the welfare provision that I outlined in my answer to the deputy convener.

We had hoped to be able to tell the committee about this today. We are working closely with Motability to ensure that those who move on to the accessible vehicle scheme can access the transitional protection scheme provided for individuals who lose their enhanced mobility award when transferring from DLA. As Mr Balfour will be aware, there are different rules, depending on when the individual joined the Motability scheme. In most cases, however, the client will be allowed to keep the vehicle for eight weeks after the end of entitlement and will receive a £2,000 payment.

We are nearing formal agreement of this approach with Motability, and we just need to continue our discussions with it, but I will be happy to write to the committee when it is confirmed. We are seeking to do that as soon as possible.

In my opening statement, I talked about the three circumstances in which people would be part of the cohort transferring under these regulations, or what we call natural case transfer. There is still managed case transfer for those transferring from working age disability living allowance to ADP, and we have considerations to undertake in that respect, but the position is clear: clients to whom any of the three different situations apply will be selected as part of this process.

Of course, we have worked to ensure that people do not have to undergo the sort of DWP-style assessment that they have when they are asked to apply for PIP. A lot of the motivation for putting the natural case transfer process in place was to prevent people from having to go through that PIP assessment process. Instead, they will simply be transferred on to ADP, after which their situation will be reviewed in due course.

We have thought about many different options, and I will bring in Kate Thomson-McDermott in a moment to talk about the considerable amount of work that has been done. Of course, the big challenge for us was that we obtained these powers over disability benefits when the UK system was still in transition between DLA and PIP, but we have tried to make sensitive and effective decisions not only to improve our system but to ensure that case transfer is undertaken in a safe and secure way. Do you want to add anything, Kate?