Chamber and committees

I have made it clear that the changes that will be seen around the levels of expenditure on ADP are mostly the same as those that are being seen across the UK and are therefore related to what is happening across the UK.

I will give one example of the areas that explain why we are seeing an increase in ADP. Professor Linda Bauld undertook work that looked at the reasons behind that, and she found that the main reason was that the pension age is increasing, meaning that more people are remaining on ADP later on in life because they are not of pensionable age and are therefore not receiving the pension age disability payment. That is an example of why we have to be very careful when exploring why there are increases to expenditure.

I point out that the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland has noted that the evidence refutes the proposition that is often heard in political discourse that the higher the social spending, the worse it inevitably is for growth. It is important that we understand that we can provide support for people, as the Government intends to do, while ensuring that we deliver strong economic growth at the same time.

I am not a clinician, nor am I disabled, but I am sure that if you have disabled people’s organisations in front of your committee, they will be able to tell you the impact that anxiety or ADHD can have on people’s lives, on whether a person can use public transport, on how they can interact with the rest of society and on the difficulties that they face.

One really sad thing about the discussions that have taken place is that we seem to once again be separating physical disabilities from mental health issues and other challenges as if some conditions were somehow more deserving of attention than others.

09:30

You made an important point in your question, which is that how a person’s life is impacted by their disability or long-term condition is what is analysed. Supporting information from external professionals then helps benefit applicants to demonstrate that.

Again, I am not a clinician, so I am not going to go into the reasons for that, but I am sure that the many organisations that represent disabled people and mental health charities would love to have the opportunity to tell the committee exactly how anxiety, ADHD or neurodiversity can impact on a person’s life.

It is deeply disappointing that we are getting into a discourse that somehow differentiates between those that have a physical disability and those who have a mental health condition or a neurodivergence.

I know that Stephen Flynn is certainly cognisant of that other side of the coin. When we look at the cost of bus fares, we must ensure that there are buses to provide local communities with the services that they require. I am sure that the Transport Committee is looking at that issue, which is an important part of the work that will be undertaken to look at the impact of the £2 bus fare. I know that the cabinet secretary is cognisant of the need to look at bus services in general.

The cost of policies will be determined by what those policies are. I will use childcare as an example, given that we have discussed it. There are myriad ways in which childcare could be developed and the costs will differ depending on the policy. That is why it is exceptionally important to look at the impact that a policy will have on child poverty. We will look at how we are developing policies to ensure that they are fiscally responsible as we move forward with our budgets. It is clearly challenging to look at the cost of policies as we move forward, but that is exactly why those costs will be looked at as different policies are developed.

We need to recognise that the asylum process in the UK is delivering significant challenges for a number of areas across the UK. Clearly, in Scotland, that is most felt in Glasgow, but similar challenges are felt by cities elsewhere in the UK. Part of the challenge is that, in the current asylum process, there is a drive for decisions to be taken and people to be moved out of the accommodation that they are in while they are part of the asylum system, which is controlled by the Home Office and has nothing to do with local authorities in Scotland. That drive is putting further pressure on local authorities, and that is felt by some local authorities more than others. As I said, in Scotland, it is most keenly felt in Glasgow.

That is why we are working closely with Glasgow City Council on the support that it requires. In the past, we have focused on funding for the local authorities with the most pressure on temporary accommodation numbers. At the time, that was a controversial decision for the Government to take, because those aspects are usually decided by formulas across Scotland. However, the Government decided to focus some of our housing and homelessness funding on the authorities that felt the biggest pressures. We have done that in the past.

In the conversations that I am undertaking with Glasgow City Council, and which my officials are undertaking with it on my behalf, we are considering what more can be done in those areas. We are considering what can be supported in terms of the policies that the councils have and the role that RSLs play, so that we all work together. Recognising the pressures that exist, the Government is working with the council to see what more can be done to support it.

As you point out, it is not appropriate for ministers to comment on planning applications, as there might be a role for the Scottish ministers later in that process. Clearly, the Government is in regular contact with the council and with organisations that provide front-line services in Glasgow, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on something that might go through other parts of the planning process in due course.

I can give a commitment about what we will do and what I will deliver to Parliament as part of the review process. Obviously, each policy is at a different point: the price cap policy is at consultation at the moment, and work that is being undertaken on childcare is still being developed. We can make sure that the committee is aware of policies as they develop and of impact assessments as they are made. In order to assist the committee, we will bring that information together, and we will also bring it together for Parliament in the usual manner within my review by the end of March.

That is exactly why the Government has also committed to look at the costs of disability and long-term conditions. We made that commitment in our manifesto, and that work will be undertaken.

We have to take a person-centred approach, and the ways in which a condition or a disability impacts on an individual is determined by the person’s application. David Wallace will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the application for ADP is 92 pages long, and supporting information is also required. A rigorous test has to be gone through, and a person has to be able to demonstrate the impact on their life, but, as you said, we have already made a commitment to doing work on the cost of disability payments.

Well, Mr McKee is not breathing down anybody’s neck, because this is a shared Government priority. I appreciate that it is quite fun to paint it as Mr McKee against everybody else, but if we genuinely want to discuss how public service reform will deliver better public services for those people who we are all here to represent, there is no difference between Mr McKee and me on that point. Surely, that is what we are all about. I appreciate that there was a little smile on your face as you asked my official that, but I am responding to it, because it is pivotal that we understand that PSR is the right thing to do across the Government. We have given some examples of how people will benefit. That is surely what we are all about.

I have had a number of discussions with Stephen Timms, and I also recently took part in a discussion with members of the panel that is doing the PIP review.

I welcome some of the initial points that have come from that work related to the fact that we need to support disabled people and the fact that some people find the current PIP process difficult. We have already realised that and made changes here in Scotland.

One of the points I made during my most recent meeting with Stephen Timms, the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability, was about the importance of close working between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. We have had issues in the past with situations where we had very limited knowledge, including about timeframes, in relation to changes in social security benefits. I have sought reassurances from UK Government ministers that, if they seek to do anything to change the ways that the reserved and devolved benefit systems work together, or on the passporting of benefits, there will be close working on that and the Scottish Government will be informed at an earlier point in the process. We will then make decisions for our future budgets as we go through the budget process, as we always do.

I hope the convener will understand why I am not going to get into hypotheticals about what might come out of a review that we have had only an interim report from. However, we are in very close contact to ensure that the implications that changes to a UK reserved benefit might have in Scotland are considered.