Chamber and committees

To clarify, you have not had any direct discussions with the UK Government in the past 10 months about changing the criteria and how that would affect passporting. That all happened in the previous session of Parliament. You have not discussed that at all with any UK minister in the past nine or 10 months.

This is my last question on this theme. Minister, you were with me on the Social Security Committee as we chewed through the relevant legislation, and if you go back and look at the comments, particularly those of Jeane Freeman when she was cabinet secretary, you see that there was an expectation that the eligibility criteria would be very different by the time that we got to this stage. The only significant change has been around terminal illness and that, interestingly, was because of amendments lodged by me, Labour and the Greens.

What would you say to someone with MS or epilepsy or another variable condition, who might have a nice experience of the system but will still be turned down because they do not meet the eligibility criteria? We have waited six years for significant change around eligibility. Do you not feel that we, as the Scottish Parliament, have let those vulnerable disabled people down?

Minister, you said previously that there will be a review of ADP and that the first stage of that, on mobility criteria, will start later this year. When would you expect that first stage to report to the Scottish Government? Will you set a timetable and, if so, can you outline it for us today?

As someone who has walked this journey for five years, I will vote for the amendments, but with a heavy heart. Unlike Evelyn Tweed, I see no excitement in the regulations. Both members of this committee who are actually on PIP and who have disabilities are voting for them with a heavy heart, and that says a lot about where we are today. The disability community is accepting this because nothing else is on offer. That is not what the Scottish Government offered us five years ago.

I and Ben Macpherson sat on this committee. We heard from cabinet secretaries. We heard from civil servants. We heard from stakeholders that they wanted a system that was radically different from what we have today. We are not addressing fundamental issues, such as mobility. We are not addressing people who have variable conditions, such as MS and epilepsy, who will still not get an award. They may be told no in a nicer way, but they will still be told no.

This is a lost opportunity for the Parliament and the country. We started five years ago with a blank piece of paper, and an opportunity to design something that would have helped those with disability to get the benefits that we need and deserve. In fact, that is what we were promised by the Scottish Government, and all that we have done today is paste over what we have had for many years. I hope that the cabinet secretary and the minister, Mr Macpherson, will hear what disabled people are saying about the regulations, perhaps not in public at committees but in private. It has taken five years to get to this point. I do not particularly blame the new agency. I do think that the Scottish Government has dragged the process out and has taken far too long.

I will vote for the regulations because there is nothing else on offer and we do not want to delay anything, but I do so with no excitement and with a heavy heart. I hope that any review will be speedy and will implement the changes that people in Scotland with disability deserve.

Yes.

I am grateful to the minister for that. I will be interested because our understanding is that there is not something set up, so it will be helpful to get more information.

I have a final question on suspension. Obviously, if, in the end, the agency takes away a person’s benefit, there is a right of appeal. Appeal can take a number of weeks, if not months. Can the minister reassure me that, if a person is successful in appeal, all the payments will be backdated? Is there a mechanism to fast track appeals so that people are not left in financial crisis?

Good morning, minister, to you and your team.

I will ask more—I suspect that you might want to write to us, rather than answer us today—about the medical reports that you will get from consultants, GPs and other medical professionals. We received a letter from Social Security Scotland a few weeks ago, from which it is unclear to me whether there is a legal obligation or a contract for medical professionals for when people write to get medical evidence. How much will that cost either the individual or Social Security Scotland and is there a set fee? My experience is that it has sometimes been very difficult to get medical evidence because of the pressure that medical professionals are under. Could you give us a wee bit more information—either today or in writing—on whether a legal obligation has been set up for doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to provide information, and on what happens if a GP says that they will not provide that information, for whatever reason?

No, thank you, convener. I am done.

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and happy new year. I have two or three questions on the adult disciplinary payment. First, there seems to be a funding gap of around £750 million that will build up in the social security budget over this session of Parliament. What future proofing work are you doing, and how do you think the Scottish Government will make repayments?

In light of that helpful answer, we can presume that the Scottish Government will pay the extra £10 in December this year.

My final question on this section is about those who are on DLA and who have not been moved across to PIP. Evidence that we took from a number of groups showed that, because of different criteria, there may be people on DLA who move across to PIP and who will lose their benefit, or part of it. Will the Scottish Government mitigate that in any way? What work is the Scottish Government doing to make those who are in that situation aware that there may be a change in the amount of money that they will receive because of the new adult disability payment?