Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Martin has just indicated that he wants to come in, with a wee wave.

I wish a good morning to you and your team, cabinet secretary. We welcome the transfer, as it seems to be the final piece in the jigsaw.

I have a couple of questions. In your statement, you said that you said that if there is a change in a claimant’s circumstances, the DWP makes them apply for PIP. For clarification, if someone is on DLA at the moment, and their circumstances change and they give notification of the change, will they be reviewed under the DLA regulations, as before? How will that work in practice?

To go back to the project that you have been talking about, Peter, and to what we heard about in Argyll and Bute, I am interested to know whether we can point to evidence that the 2017 act is making a real difference to real families. I have heard people using lots of buzzwords and saying, “We’ll try and measure this—it is new,” but what evidence is being taken, or what data do we have, to say that the 2017 act is making a real difference to people in Glasgow, Argyll and Bute, Falkirk or wherever? Do we have that evidence? Is it being collected by the local authorities as we go along?

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests and note that I am in receipt of personal independence payment—PIP. However, I am pleased to say that I am hoping to transfer to the new Scottish adult payment in January. I am looking forward to that.

You mentioned that you had picked up most of the points that were recommended by SCOSS. One of the areas on which you did not seem to be so keen was the recommendation to provide flexibility in the 12-month deadline to reinstate an award. The Scottish Government decided against doing so. Why did you come to that decision?

I do not know whether anyone else wants to come in.

Good morning. I intend to speak only to amendment 54, in my name, which relates to the access to elected office fund. As most colleagues will be aware, the purpose of the fund is to support and encourage people with a disability to take part in elections in a way that is similar to the way in which people who do not have a disability can do. I am pleased to say that the idea of such a fund has been pioneered outwith Scotland and that, interestingly, it has now been picked up in other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth.

My reason for lodging amendment 54 is that, disappointingly, the Westminster Government got rid of the access to elected office fund for the Westminster election that took place earlier this year. I appreciate that the Scottish Government has committed to support the fund for the Scottish Parliament election that is coming up in 14 months’ time, but we do not know how future Governments will look at the matter. Putting the fund in statute will protect local council elections and Scottish Parliament elections and will allow people with a disability to be able to take part in such elections in a fair way.

I have never used the fund, but I have received evidence from Inclusion Scotland that at least six or seven people were elected at the most recent local council elections because of the fund who would not otherwise have stood. I think that putting the fund in statute is a positive way forward, which will mean that we can use and maintain it on a cross-party basis in future.

I thank the minister and his team for their help with the wording of amendment 54, and I hope that the committee will agree to it.

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and to your team. Could you give us an update on the expected opening date of the safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow? It was due to open last month, so where are we with the timescales?

Thank you.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?