Seòmar agus comataidhean

My second question is about the longer term. The Scottish Government has announced a review of the criteria for people getting the adult disability payment. That review may or may not be implemented in the current parliamentary session, depending on time and what the independent commission is asked for. How much notice do you require to be able to forecast whether there will be a differential? For example, if the mobility criteria distance was increased from 20m to 50m, more people would be able to get the benefit. Would you be able to forecast the effect? What information would you require from the Department for Work and Pensions and Social Security Scotland in order to do that work?

I want to move on to the issue of terminal illness, and perhaps the biggest change in the primary legislation. Sadly, a number of children die as a result of terminal illness. My understanding is that the Government was going to do a deep dive to see how the system worked. Does anyone know how that has worked in practice? Has it made a difference for the children for whom it was introduced? Are there indications that the medical profession—particularly consultants, general practitioners and nurses—are aware of the changes and are signposting patients towards them?

With the first panel, we discussed the issue of people who are presently on DLA and who will come off it when they transfer across. That may affect not only mobility; with regard to those with variable conditions, it might mean that they lose the benefit. Do you know from talking to your members how many people that would affect? Is it a concern? I do not know whether Bill Scott, Keith Park or others have any information on that.

That is a helpful comment. It is a disappointing situation. Five years ago, when Jeane Freeman was in charge and this work started, there was going to be a very different system. I think that the Government has lost its way, particularly on the 20m rule and those with variable conditions.

However, if we presume that the regulations will be passed by the Scottish National Party and Green Government with a review taking place in 2022-23, will it be possible for any recommendations that are made—for example, to change 20m to 50m—to be implemented in the current session of Parliament, or will it realistically be another five or six years before we see any change? Given your experience of how long things take, do you believe that we could do it in a four-year period, or is that overoptimistic?

I have three questions to ask. The first one is for Richard Gass or Judith Paterson, but feel free to jump in if you wish. It goes back to the issue of case law. We have had quite a lot of debate about this over the past number of years because, clearly, a lot of case law has built up over the past 15 or 20 years. Is it your understanding that the new agency and the new tribunals will be following that case law, or is the situation still unclear?

Is it possible that we could transfer safely and make changes at the same time? If that is not possible, will it be possible to make any changes that will come out of the independent review in the current session of Parliament, or are we realistically looking to the next session? I will start with Bill Scott on that.

I will start with an open question. Many of you have been on the journey of watching the regulations and the primary legislation going through over the past five years. One concern that I have is that we have not seen enough changes, particularly in relation to variable conditions and the higher rate of the mobility component. If we could make changes in relation to variability and mobility, what difference would that make to the people who you represent? I will start with Keith Park.

Ed Pybus raises an interesting point. Ultimately, decisions on these matters are made in the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how it interprets two different sets of regulations, but that may be a matter for the legal eagles.

I am interested in Judith Paterson’s point about the safe transfer, which we all want to happen. That has overridden the commission’s view that we should not have any changes. Will you expand on how you came to that decision? Was it a result of consultation with the third sector or was it a pragmatic view that the commission came to?

Suzie Burt, how has the relationship been for you, as somebody who has recently started a charity?

I add my thanks for all the work that our witnesses have done. As someone who has worked in the third sector, I acknowledge the pressure that a lot of them are under.

Paul Bradley, going back to last year and the funding that came from the Scottish and UK Governments, I got quite a lot of feedback over the last summer that a lot of the money went to the big charities—the headline charities, which I will not name—while a lot of smaller charities that do more work on the ground struggled to get that money. Is that just whingeing on the part of the small charities or is there any truth behind that? Going forward, how we can get the money to the people who are doing the work, rather than those who might shout loudest?