Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for that helpful explanation, minister.

I do not want to hold back the committee’s considerations for too long—I understand that this is quite technical stuff—but I am slightly unclear about a certain point. I know that there are different criteria for deciding whether someone gets DLA or PIP, but my understanding—perhaps you can help me by providing more information later—was that the criteria with regard to CDP and ADP would be the same. I did not appreciate that the criteria for the awards will be different, so I wonder whether you can explain the issue a bit further in a letter to me. As I said, I do not want to delay the committee’s considerations—obviously, we are going to agree to the motion today—but I wonder whether it would be possible to provide an explanation, just for my information.

My next question—you will be glad to hear that it will be my final one—relates to the use of the phrase “throughout the night” with regard to awards. I remember raising this issue when the proposals were originally brought forward, and I note that you have changed things back to what they were. I welcome that, but I have to wonder why it all happened in the first place. Did you make the change because of consultation, because it had been a simple drafting error or because of some great intervention by back-bench MSPs?

A yes/no answer might suffice for my next question. I am conscious that we now have the Scottish Government providing some benefits and the UK Government providing other benefits. That could mean that people have to go to two different websites, or perhaps a lot more than that. Would it be helpful for the people who you are working with to have one website that had all the benefits that they could apply for, so that they did not have to go through lots of different websites or fill in lots of different forms? If all the information was in one place, would that make benefit uptake more likely?

I have two quick supplementary questions.

First, I think that what we are trying to do with the transfer comes under the terminology of “safe and secure”, which is used a lot. Everybody who is on PIP will just transfer straight across. Are you then forecasting that, once people are transferred across, they will look to have their decision reviewed, and thus we will see people moving to a higher rate?

Secondly, is it your expectation that there are a substantial number of people out there who are not applying for PIP but who will apply for this different benefit? If so, why is that the case? Is it because they are holding off, because they think they have more chance with the new agency? Will it be a result of advertising and awareness-raising campaigns? How did you come to that conclusion—if, indeed, that was your conclusion?

Thank you for your answers so far. I want to discuss income maximisation, particularly in relation to the situation that we will have in Scotland with more benefits being run from Scotland and benefits also being run from Westminster. Even before the pandemic there were lots of figures out there about how much money was not being taken up because people were not applying for it. I am surprised by how many people still do not know that they are entitled to benefits or to different types of benefits. How do we maximise the benefit take-up by people who you are dealing with? I ask Jon Sparkes to respond first, and others on the panel can jump in if they want.

It is nice to see you back. I would like to pursue the differential that you foresee with the Scottish Government’s move from PIP to ADP. The regulations are similar for both benefits, so there will be no differential in that regard. Could you give me a bit more on why you think that it will cost more?

My second question might be outside your remit—if it is, I apologise. If take-up is higher, will the cost have to be met by the Scottish Government or can it go back to the UK Government and say, “Another 5,000 people have applied for this benefit. Can you give us the money for it?” How do the Governments work that out, whether it is a result of natural take-up or a deliberate policy decision?

I am slightly confused by the minister’s response. On the one hand, we are told that the Government is trying to evaluate and do all the work to produce reports, but on the other hand we are told that producing a report for Parliament would take resources away from other work. It slightly feels to me that the Government is trying not to be open to scrutiny from Parliament and is deciding on the scrutiny on its own terms. For that reason, I believe that amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are important. I press amendment 4.

I must push you on this, minister, because there is a difference between having a presence in a health board and having a presence on the day of a tribunal. Is there an absolute guarantee that if I need someone to advocate for me in Stornoway on a Tuesday morning, there will be enough people to cover that and provide that service?

I am talking about the Scottish Government funding.

I am sorry, convener. We have heard a member say that an ad hoc approach is not the way forward, because it means that carers cannot plan. Do you not agree that, for carers, it is much better to have certainty instead of ad hoc decisions made at the whim of a minister? Moreover, all benefits have to be paid and administered, which means that in every budget process we will have to work out a social security budget that will have to be paid for.

Will the member give way?