Seòmar agus comataidhean

My understanding of the child disability payment is that the qualifying period is not a simple three months but three months with an expectation that the condition will endure for a further nine months. Does that cast a bit more doubt on the Scottish Government’s cost assumptions of £21 million?

Those were really helpful comments from both witnesses. Thank you.

That is helpful. Adam Stachura?

One of the differences appears to be that, with child disability payment, the opportunity was taken to be a bit more consistent in relation to whether renal dialysis is deemed to qualify a person for the higher rate or the lower rate. If renal dialysis is required both day and night, a person could qualify for the higher rate. The Scottish Government has not taken that opportunity with the regulations that we are considering, but it has said that it could rely on guidance that would clarify that, which might improve outcomes, if I have understood the matter correctly. Marilyn Howard, I suspect, has a considered view from SCOSS on that. Will relying on guidance be sufficient?

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?