Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will put this question to Graham O’Neill. The Scottish Refugee Council has referred to the Nationality and Borders Bill as an “anti-refugee bill” and argues that it is

“the biggest threat to refugee rights in decades”.

You have provided us with significant written evidence about the bill and the legislative consent memorandum. To ensure that there is also oral evidence on record, would you mind giving us a summary of your main concerns about the Nationality and Borders Bill?

Most of my questions on this theme have been covered. You highlighted the problems with accessing data, but do you have any indication of the level of unmet need? I will pose that to Pat Togher and Andrew Morrison and anybody else who wants to come in.

That is absolutely fine. You have highlighted that some funding has been available in Scotland to assist. Within the devolved powers that we have, what other ways are there to provide financial support to people with no recourse to public funds?

The Scottish Refugee Council has referred to the Nationality and Borders Bill as the “anti-refugee bill” and argues that it is the biggest threat to refugees’ rights in decades. Does the panel share that view? What are the biggest concerns about the impact that it will have on migrants, refugees and asylum seekers? I will throw that out to the whole panel and anyone who wants to can answer it.

Siobhán Mullally, the United Nations special rapporteur, said that

“The bill fails to acknowledge the Government’s obligation to ensure protection for migrant and asylum-seeking children, and greatly increases risks of statelessness, in violation of international law.”

COSLA suggests that the bill might affect devolved safeguarding and protection duties. Andrew Morrison, can you explain further?

Do you have any indication of the level of unmet need? I know that you have already highlighted the problems with accessing data.

I will be quick.

Minister, you have set out clear timescales for the transfer of PIP to ADP. The history of DWP transfers suggests that such timescales are frequently missed. For example, that was the case with the transfers of DLA to PIP and of legacy benefits to universal credit. How confident are you that the timescales that you have set out will be met?

Yes, I have two further questions, convener.

Minister, you are clear, and so is SCOSS, that safe and secure transfer must be the priority before any major change to the approach is considered and that any further change will be guided by the independent review. You also indicated that the first stage of the review will focus on mobility criteria. What is the rationale for that and can you say more about the wider remit of the review?

I do not agree with Jeremy Balfour’s comments. The regulations are the key point in the biggest transfer of social security powers in our nation’s history. They are key to giving disabled people the dignity and respect that they are denied by the Westminster system.

The approach set out makes a safe and secure transfer a priority, which is how it should be, and that is what the consultation has asked for. It allows us to make changes and take a more compassionate, generous approach to claimants with terminal illness through the short-term assistance that is not provided in any other part of the UK. It recognises the financial hardship that is experienced in real life by many of our constituents, giving them more time to challenge decisions, assistance to get the best possible information to aid the decisions, and an ending of the use of the private sector assessments that cause great misery to disabled people claiming what they are due.

Those are just a few examples of what we have achieved in a short time and an independent review will help to guide us to further important change. We should therefore just agree the regulations because they take a massive step towards providing a social security system that has been long overdue.

Thank you, convener, and congratulations on your appointment.

Good morning, minister. Is it the case that if the Westminster Government got rid of the 20m rule for PIP, that would create the space for a similar change to take place in Scotland for ADP?