Chamber and committees

I do not doubt that. That the current DWP system is poor, particularly in the move from DLA to PIP, is well documented, so the Scottish Government’s different approach, which includes protecting people for that bit longer, is hugely welcome.

You said earlier that people will not have to reapply as they have to do in the move from DLA to PIP. Ultimately, however, they will have to reapply; it will just happen later, and then they will have to make an application for ADP, which is what—

I know that both aspects will be welcome, minister. Just in case I forget to do this—as I have in the past, so please allow me to do it just now—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as someone who receives PIP and who, I assume, will at some point transfer to ADP.

The aspects that you have just set out are really helpful, but I am still not clear whether you think that some people will be worse off. Can you specifically commit to the no-worse-off principle in this regard?

But what about the long term?

Thank you.

You have touched on this already, but my final question is on the support that people will get through the transitional arrangements. Do you have any understanding of the number of people who will need that kind of independent support through the advocacy service or third sector organisations, and have you looked at the capacity that those organisations will require to meet that demand?

This is a follow-up question on youth participation. It probably goes back to the less helpful wording of my earlier question. What other understandings do you have of inequalities in workforce participation, such as you have described for low level youth participation?

That is helpful. Have you at any point considered—

Good morning, minister and other members of the panel. I want to say up front that, as with other areas of ADP, there are aspects of these regulations that we welcome, such as the terminal illness rules and the different approach that is being taken. My questions, therefore, are put on the basis that we will support these regulations today.

However, I have a few questions about some of the decisions that have been taken up to now. The move from DLA to ADP is not necessarily happening just because someone’s circumstances have changed; it is an administrative change. Can you guarantee that the no-worse-off principle set out by the Scottish Commission on Social Security will be applied in the case of those moving from DLA to ADP, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and if so, how?

I have seen the figures—there are also the 40,000 on DLA. I was just keen to know whether any thinking had been done on that.

Some of SCOSS’s recommendations hinge on the review process, which brings us back to the eligibility issue. Can you give us an update on that process?

Thank you. I have no further questions on this subject, convener.

The point that the convener made earlier about the iterative process is important with regard to how we consider the progress that is made.

I have a follow-up question—forgive me if the answer was in the detail that you have given and I have missed it. What assumptions are you making about the uptake of benefits? Are you applying a particular percentage uptake assumption?