Chamber and committees

Can I check my understanding? If someone is currently on renal dialysis, they automatically get the lower rate for pension age disability payment, and the devil will be in the detail of the guidance in relation to whether night-time dialysis will mean that they get the higher rate. Have I understood that correctly? Is SCOSS content with that approach?

I point out that I do not have £20 million, Mr Stachura.

That is helpful, but I wonder whether, in order to get the safe and secure transition and transfer of cases that we keep talking about, the issue needs to be looked at afresh, which Marilyn Howard was talking about. Is this one of the things that you would like the Government to look at afresh once that transfer has happened?

I do not want to put words into your mouth, Mr Stachura, but would it be self-evident that some conditions will endure for a longer period of time than the two or six months to qualify?

I was struck by Debbie Horne’s comments about human rights-based budgeting. I get the point that she makes. I am the convener of the cross-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions and the CPG on palliative and end-of-life care. Demands on budgets are such that the people who are affected by those issues would also demand human rights-based budgeting to fulfil their expectation that their human rights will be met. I appreciate what Ms Horne says, but it can be quite simplistic to look at it in that way.

From a budgeting point of view, £580 million is clearly eye-watering and simply not affordable, even though it would be positive to introduce a mobility component. If £20 million was available to improve the lives of older people, how would Ms Horne or Mr Stachura spend it? That would bring to life how we prioritise budgets in the Parliament.

I have put words into your mouth, so I apologise.

I do not know whether Marilyn Howard has anything to add, but I have no further questions. Marilyn, do you have any observations on that?

That is helpful: the issue is covered by guidance for the moment and may be part of a review in the longer term. If no other witness wants to add anything, I will move to another question.

The Scottish Government will not shorten the six-month qualifying period for pension age disability payment as, according to it, to do so

“would lead to people with very short-term conditions becoming eligible”.

The Scottish Government also refers to the cost, which is coincidentally roughly £20 million—I promise that that is not a deliberate link to my previous question—and the risk to passported benefits being compromised. What are the witnesses’ views of those justifications?

That is helpful. I wanted that on the record. It is about the art of the achievable rather than the aspirations. We are very well intentioned. I totally get why you want the mobility component, Ms Horne.

Mr Stachura, what would your priority be?

The point that I was seeking to make is that it has to be more than just a phrase that people drop into conversation to say that they are doing something. It should not become a buzzword; it must be a reality. That is the point of the amendments that I have lodged.

I acknowledge that the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund has suggested as a starting point the partner countries in the global south with which Scotland already has relationships.

I also acknowledge that amendment 187 is broadly drawn. That was quite deliberate; it is, in fact, a probing amendment to flush out concerns ahead of revision at stage 3. I will take your sage advice on board in this instance, convener.