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?

No—they will not have to make an application. The cases with regard to ADP will be reviewed under the light-touch review process that we have set out.

Of course, it all depends on an individual’s circumstances, too—I cannot speak generically. I am sorry to interrupt you.

Certainly. It is important that we prioritise the case transfer of any individual who would otherwise be required to apply for a PIP under the DWP business-as-usual rules. I know that colleagues will appreciate that. We have already made significant improvements to the assessment process for ADP and will apply the eligibility criteria fairly and consistently to all those entitled to ADP to ensure that the impact of a disability or health condition on an individual, including the impact on mental health conditions, learning disabilities and fluctuating conditions, are taken fully into account.

As Pam Duncan-Glancy has rightly emphasised, we have given a firm commitment to a wide-ranging independent review of ADP commencing one year after the national launch of ADP. In recent days, I have been in active discussions on that matter with officials, but in light of the extensive feedback that we received, we have made a further commitment to a two-stage review, with work beginning later this year, to identify what improvements can be made on the mobility criteria and what should be included in the scope of the stage 2 independent review. We will provide details on both as soon as we are in a position to do so. I appreciate that members, stakeholders and people more broadly are interested to get an update on the first stage, and I certainly give an undertaking to do that as soon as I can.