Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for the points that he set out as a result of that question. However, I am not sure that he set out whether it is his intention to get rid of the 20m rule. I ask him to address that point.

I also noted the minister’s point about now not being the time. I cannot help but say that we were also told that in 2018, when disabled people—and the Scottish Labour Party—were keen to put the ambition that they wanted on the face of the bill. We were told in 2018 to trust that the issue would be sorted in regulations, but here we are in 2022 and the eligibility criteria and the adequacy of the payments under the new system will not be addressed until after the review, which looks like it will not happen until at least 2025. Disabled people, 31 per cent of whom are living in poverty in this country, are being told that now is not the time. I hope that the time will be soon and I ask the minister to say when that will be.

I will move on to my other questions.

I thank the minister for his reassurance about the way in which the descriptors will be applied. I am confident that some of the work that has gone into training through Social Security Scotland means that that may well be borne out—we look forward to seeing that and to scrutinising it further. Have you considered a system that is not a functional one but which is points based? What else you could do to address that issue, and when?

Is the minister able to be more explicit around psychological distress and how that will be applied in the descriptors and the assessment process?

We have heard from many people who have given evidence to the committee that there is not enough in the regulations about the ability to make a journey safely. That can make things very difficult for people who have mental health issues to get the enhanced rate. How does the Government plan to address that?

Related to that, a number of organisations and people have told us that changing and variable conditions are not addressed to any significant extent in the regulations. Can the minister set out how those concerns will be addressed in the regulations or in future guidance?

I appreciate that I am asking a lot of questions, but I have the talking stick for only a limited period.

Can the minister also set out how he sees the relationship and possible divergence between UK and Scottish case law developing as the payments are rolled out? For example, what would happen if a change in UK case law meant that the UK system became more generous than its counterpart here?

Finally, will there be any explicit reference in guidance to how the new system will support people with mental ill health through the application process? Can the minister set out what that support would look like? Thank you.

I do, convener. I thank the minister and his officials for their answers. I am particularly reassured by the answers about the prioritisation of reviews for people whose circumstances change. It is helpful that you have put that on the record and I thank you for doing so.

I have a final question, but before I turn to that, I want to raise a point about talking down the work of the agency and the people who work in it. That is not how I characterise the problem. The issue is that the minister and his Government have promised since 2017 that there would be a significant divergence between the PIP regulations and the adult disability payment regulations. That was first promised a significant number of years ago, but we do not see a significant difference between the regulations. It is that delay that I and others take issue with. Our concern is about the Government’s direction of that, and not the delivery by the agency or the staff, who have worked hard, particularly during the pandemic, to deliver what they have delivered.

My final question is about the fact that the regulations do not contain anything about the transfer of people who are on DLA to the adult disability payment. Will the minister set out why that is not covered in the regulations? I think that SCOSS notes that it is forthcoming. Does the minister have a timescale available that he can set out today?

Congratulations on your appointment as convener of the committee. I put on record my thanks to Neil Gray, who was an excellent convener. We will miss him, and I wish him well in his new role.

I thank the minister and his officials for coming to discuss the regulations. The current system of support for disabled people is wholly inadequate. I recognise the work that the Government has done in making improvements to the system, and I congratulate it on doing that. However, it will come as no surprise to the minister, the officials or other committee members that I believe that the regulations that we are considering today are a serious missed opportunity.

In the middle of a cost of living crisis, when 31 per cent of disabled people are living in poverty, we should have been looking at addressing issues such as the eligibility and adequacy of the payments. Instead, we are looking only at the process. I recognise that some of the changes to the process will improve things, but the bar was very low. I am underwhelmed by what we see in front of us.

I will start by picking up the point about the 20m rule. The minister set out that the United Kingdom Government has not yet indicated its intent to get rid of the 20m rule. However, I note that neither has the Scottish Government nor the minister, despite the fact that I have asked direct questions several times about the intentions around the 20m rule. Will the minister set out whether it is the Scottish Government’s intention to get rid of the 20m rule?

I want to ask Emma Congreve about the report that the Fraser of Allander Institute published yesterday. You noted that the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s outlook is disappointing, with the tax take revised downwards. What is your analysis of the reason for the downward revision? What are the implications for the equalities budget? You described the effect of using social security versus—I know that it is not as simple as that—longer-term economic policy, and you talked about the impact that some employment policies have on equalities groups and the ability of people with protected characteristics to work. Will you say a bit more about your analysis, to help us to understand the impact of tax take on equalities and how much money we will have to address inequalities?

Thank you for joining us and for the evidence that you have given. I have been struck by a lot of what you have said. In particular, the comments about the immune system response of the economy really struck a chord. Thank you, too, for your written submissions.

I hope that the convener and the panel will indulge me, as I have a few questions to ask. First, I want to touch on the area of care that Emma Congreve has just highlighted. The Scottish women’s budget group has described action on care in the budget as “an opportunity missed”, and I agree. Will Dr O’Hagan tell us her views with regard to paid care—and, in that respect, her expectations of and views on the wage floor of £10.50 per hour and its impact on women’s inequality—and also unpaid carers, who have faced a significant increase in the number of hours for which they provide care. We know that that is having an impact on their ability to work in the workplace, and not least on their personal circumstances.

As you will know, the Government introduced a bill last year to double the carers allowance supplement in December. That uplift was brought in during the pandemic to recognise the additional responsibility. The Government said at the time that it had included in the bill provision for the supplement to be doubled again this year through regulations, but that has not been included in the draft budget. I am keen to know whether the panel have any concerns in that respect and what they expect the impact will be on carers’ ability to realise and enjoy their rights if the supplement is not doubled.

I would like to go back to a couple of other areas, convener, but that is probably enough to be going on with.

Thank you for that and for further—[Inaudible.]—immune system. [Inaudible.]—a really strong one.

My other question is about social security. Some 170,000 children receive the Scottish child payment through the bridging payment, but my understanding is that it has not yet been doubled. Will Chris Birt comment on the impact that not doubling the payment for that group might have?

I thank the minister and other panel members for joining us. I have a few questions on benefit suspension. My first question is slightly less to do with the specifics of that and more about the time that SCOSS has available to it for scrutiny. You will be aware that SCOSS has raised concern about the timescales in the regulations. Before I move on to my other questions, will the minister briefly update the committee on current plans for additional resources for SCOSS?

Thank you, minister and convener. I have no further questions.

My question is an extension of my colleague Emma Roddick’s questions on the process for people applying.

We heard last month from SAMH—the Scottish Association for Mental Health—that about 141,000 people in Scotland are still on PIP or will enter the PIP system who would otherwise have been eligible for adult disability payment, and the number will be higher if we include child disability payment. Around 55,000 of them will possibly have a mental health problem, which means they will have a bit more difficulty in the PIP face-to-face system than they would with child disability payment or adult disability payment. I can fully understand why people might want to stop their existing claim and try to get on to a system that we are promoting in Scotland that should be kinder in that respect.

SAMH asked us whether the Government would commit to the rapid transfer of people to child disability payment and adult disability payment from PIP who successfully made a claim during the year in which the full roll-out was delayed as a result of the coronavirus. Is that something that the Government would consider? It is my view that that might mitigate some of the concerns that you have highlighted well about the risks of stopping a current award in order to claim child disability payment or adult disability payment. Would you consider prioritising those people, particularly given that the Government also said that no one would have to go through a review process once the roll-out started and that people would be reviewed under ADP or CDP, not PIP?

I would very much appreciate follow-up information, including on what the resource will be, when it is expected to be in place and how many more additional staff or how much time will be bought by the resource. It would be excellent if the minister were able to provide that sooner rather than later.

Like other members, I welcome the provisions in the regulations on suspending payments, and I welcome that they will not be punitive. There is no doubt that that approach will be significantly better for people in Scotland than what has gone before. It will be much more beneficial.

I have a couple of specific questions. The longer time of 28 days for people to provide information, which my colleague Natalie Don spoke about a moment ago, is welcome. However, CPAG said in its evidence last week or the week before—I am losing track of time—that, in some cases, people would probably need eight weeks. Notwithstanding the impact that that would have on their finances, as highlighted by Natalie, what has the Government taken into consideration for the timescale within which people will be asked to provide information? How did it come to the conclusion that 28 days was the time period to choose, as opposed to eight weeks as suggested by CPAG?