���˿���

Thank you for your responses, which are very helpful.

I have a further question on some of the assumptions but this time in relation to unemployment figures. You have assumed—[Inaudible.]—and you have now amended that to 4.9 per cent. How much of that employment is secure work? Do the figures break down so that we can look at how specific groups—for example, women, black and minority ethnic people and disabled people—are affected? How do they fit into the forecasts?

I echo the convener’s thanks for your flexibility on this work. In your future estimates for adult disability payment, have you estimated how many people’s awards would increase, decrease or stay the same? If so what are those assumptions?

That was really helpful. The examples from the transport and Covid recovery portfolios are useful. We can look into those in more detail.

I move to an almost completely different subject, although it is still on the budget and a feminist analysis of it. I am interested in your deliberations. What is your assessment of the impact that we might be able to have on violence against women and on services that deal with violence against women, as part of addressing some of the structural inequalities that drive violence against women and make it worse?

Good morning, Sara. Thank you for the information that you sent us in advance of the meeting and for your time today.

My questions are about social care and women’s responsibilities for work, including unpaid work. The “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2022-23” identified women’s responsibilities for unpaid work as a risk with regard to their ability to find paid work. Does the budget go far enough, particularly with regard to social care? Does it contain enough support to lift women out of poverty? Does it do enough to address the increased structural inequality that was seen as a risk? The question also applies to disabled people, and disabled women in particular.

I thank the witnesses for the evidence that they submitted in advance and Dame Susan for her extremely helpful presentation.

My first questions are on a similar theme and relate to the evidence that has just been given. When the higher costs of the Scottish child payment in 2023-24 were included, how much were those costs at the time? In your written evidence, you say that some factors, such as eligibility and uptake, have been revised downwards. I am keen to understand a bit more about that downward revision and your assumptions about eligibility and uptake.

I have another couple of questions but those are on a different subject.

I want to pick up on the point in SAMH’s submission about the intention to review people on PIP under the ADP system. ADP has been delayed, as we know. Can you talk a little bit about the impact that that has had on the people you represent? Bill Scott, it would be helpful to hear if you have any further evidence on that particular issue.

Could Richard Gass and Ed Pybus comment on where they see eligibility mirroring PIP and the impact that that has on the people they represent?

Good morning, panel. Thank you very much for joining us.

We note in the regulations for adult disability payment that some of them—indeed a lot of them—mirror PIP. Where the regulations differ, can the panel comment on whether the changes support or help the end user? Some of the differences between adult disability payment and PIP, including the terminal illness rule, the fact that awards do not end immediately, rules on members of the armed forces and residence rules, represent policy divergence from the United Kingdom. What is your understanding of how the Scottish Government was able to progress on those areas, given the constraints that we have heard about in implementing policy that is different from the UK Government’s policy?

Thanks again for all your contributions. This morning’s discussion has been really interesting. I hope that there is ambition to change a lot about adult disability payments so that disabled people have the support that they need to live an ordinary life. However, we have discussed a number of issues. Do you have a view on whether there are sufficient systems in place within the current social security system in Scotland to support continuous improvement, specifically given that Social Security Scotland’s approach is to have a minimum viable product? I pose that to Judith Paterson.

I would like to thank the witnesses again for their evidence. It is incredibly powerful to hear about the impact that some of the existing eligibility criteria for disability benefits has on the people whom you represent.

I will pick up Bill Scott’s point about the safe and secure transfer of benefits. I declare an interest as someone who gets personal independence payment. I, too, would, be concerned if I thought for one minute that, in the process of transferring benefits from one Government agency to another, the benefit stopped and I lost my Motability vehicle, for example. It is no wonder that disabled people have said that the safe and secure transfer of benefits is important. However, if they were told that it might require 10 years before any fundamental change to the criteria could be made, I agree with you that they would not have put that aspect first.

Before I move to my question, I will highlight one really important point. The First Minister put the impact of the PIP criteria very well when highlighting that people who get enhanced mobility support could lose up to £3,000 a year. She said:

“Important though the money is, let us remember that, for people in those circumstances, that loss could take away more than pounds and pence—it could take away their very independence.”—[Official Report, 13 August 2014; c 33391.]

I whole-heartedly agree with that, which is why we need to move on the issue.

My initial questions are probably for Keith Park, Bill Scott and Craig Smith. Can you give a rough figure for the number of people who, in the coming weeks, months and years, will be left without their independence as a result of the criteria continuing in its current form? Is there any reason why the Scottish Government could not start to review eligibility and adequacy now, so that, when the safe and secure transfer finishes in 2023—if, indeed, it does—we can more or less switch on the new system that same day?