Chamber and committees

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.

Thank you, convener, for indulging me with a further question. I am keen to understand a bit about the support for women in the refugee and asylum-seeking community who are experiencing domestic violence. I note that there are concerns about the lack of clarity and the funding gaps. Could Pat Togher and Councillor Aitken set out their understanding of those issues and say what they can do to support women in those circumstances?

I put on record my thanks to Glasgow Women’s Aid and women’s aid organisations across the country for the work that they have done to support women this year and in many previous years.

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?

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?

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 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.

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.