Chamber and committees

Good morning to the panel members, and thank you for joining us.

I have a few questions about the mechanisms that a number of organisations, including local authorities, have used during the pandemic to support people with no recourse to public funds. For example, that was done through self-isolation support. I am particularly keen to hear more about the public health legislation measures that were used and about how else we could use such mechanisms to support people who have no recourse to public funds.

I have another couple of questions, but I ask COSLA in the first instance, and then possibly Pat Togher, to talk about the examples and mechanisms. After that, I have a couple of follow-up questions.

Can you tell us a bit more about the mechanism that you used for the self-isolation support grant? Also, because you mentioned it, I will pick up on the point about housing and homelessness. Obviously, this week, we have heard about the 27 per cent increase in homelessness in Glasgow. The Government has said that that is partly due to the increased number of applications from refugees who have been granted leave to remain. Will you elaborate on why that would have had that sort of effect on the number of homeless applications?

I realise that those are two separate questions but, since you touched on the issue, I am keen to ask about it. I also have one further question in the area.

I have three short questions, and I will try to be brief. I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that Maryhill Integration Network is doing for the people it supports in Glasgow. It has highlighted that it is concerned to hear about Glasgow City Council withdrawing from the UK Government’s dispersal scheme, but I think that I have heard today that that might not be the case, so I seek clarification from Councillor Aitken before I ask my further two questions.

I did but, in the interests of time, I will save it for another day.

Yes, no problem. Thank you for that clarification.

You mentioned that some of the provision that local authorities put in place was on housing, particularly during the pandemic. The Government has said recently that the increase in homelessness applications in Glasgow was possibly because of an increase in applications from refugees who have been granted leave to remain. While you are on the subject of housing, will you elaborate on why that would have such an effect on the number of homelessness applications?

Can any of the panel members from Glasgow help with that?

Thank you for that lengthy and detailed answer. In the interests of time, there are a couple of points that I will follow up on outwith this session. I appreciate you putting that on the record.

An organisation called the Bridges Programmes contacted the committee ahead of today’s meeting and explained its concerns about a number of changes that were made during the pandemic that did not take into account minority groups in the way that they could have. We know that that is seen across minority groups. For example, it seems that consideration was not given to the experience of the people who were living in such accommodation.

How important is it that asylum seekers and refugees are included in the Covid-19 inquiry in Scotland? I direct that question to Councillor Aitken and Andrew Morrison.

Several of my questions on the Nationality and Borders Bill have been answered, but I want to say that I believe that it is a cruel and impractical bill that does not achieve what it sets out to achieve, even if we do not agree in the first place with what it is meant to achieve. It is important to put that on the record. I thank the panel for their answers.

Too many disabled people are in poverty. Thousands have spent blood, sweat and tears trying to get the support that they need to live their lives, only to be told that they do not qualify for it or that it is being cut.

The regulations in front of us could have changed that. We could have consigned to history degrading and arbitrary measures, such as the 20m and 50 per cent rules. We could have developed indicators that reflect the real experience of disabled people and the support that they need. We could have been voting on rates of payment that reflect the real costs of living for disabled people, but we are not, and I cannot mask my disappointment.

None of the regulations in front of us change who is eligible or for how much. They do not address problems with the descriptors. They replicate the PIP rules. Most disappointing of all, they miss an opportunity to recast the rules on something that could properly have addressed disabled people’s poverty.

In 2017, in response to Scottish Labour’s ask for assurances that the new system would be ambitious and would not have the same effect as the PIP rules, the then cabinet secretary replied that

“the Scottish Government does not intend to replicate the UK Government legislation in our social security … as will be clear from our actions, our approach will be very different.”

Five years later, we are asked to vote for underwhelming rules and trust that something better is coming. Disabled people have already waited for years on a promise that the regulations do not deliver. Every day they wait is a day that we all lose out on their potential, because poverty holds people back.

Despite our disappointment and because of the need to not delay this further, Scottish Labour will vote for the regulations, but I would like the record to show that we are voting for the regulations because disabled people have waited long enough, so they must proceed. We believe that the current PIP is so appalling that we will not block an attempt, however unimaginative or unambitious, to improve it and we will make sure that the promises that this Government made to disabled people in 2017 will not be broken or delayed a minute longer.

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?