���˿���

Honestly, if I thought that we needed more information to help us to take forward the bill, I would seek to gather it. Between now and when the bill goes through the various stages in Parliament, I want to continue to engage, consult and talk to people. That is just how I do things, and it is also how I think Parliament should work. It is not that we draw a line in the sand today and never again shall we hear another piece of evidence about the proposed legislation. Actually, there will be numerous opportunities to hear from people, and that is important.

If I thought that we had not heard the same things from largely the same groups of people for an awful long time, I would say that we needed more consultation, but I do not believe that we need to do more. This might sound twee but, honestly, the bill means too much to me to not get it right. If I thought that we needed to ask more and do that through a formal consultation, I would suggest that, but I do not think that we do.

I take a lot of comfort from the fact that the bill was drafted with the support of the user-led organisations Inclusion Scotland and Camphill Scotland, which literally put pen to paper. I am confident that the views of the people who we listened to during the consultation are reflected in the bill. In developing the bill in the first place, those organisations, along with my colleague Johann Lamont and now me, have benefited from years and years, and sometimes decades, of experience of what would make a real difference to people’s lives. Therefore, I am confident about that.

I reiterate that, if there are any ways in which we can strengthen the bill, the parliamentary process allows us to do that—that is why it is the way that it is. However, I am confident at this stage that the bill takes account of not just the responses that we heard in the previous session of Parliament but the long-held views of organisations that were involved in helping to draft it.

Thank you.

I am reassured in relation to the work around SCOSS, but not so much in relation to planning for future regulations and ensuring that there is enough scrutiny and time for scrutiny, so that we do not have to continually rush. As I said, we have had control of the benefits since 2018, but it feels as if we keep getting a set of regulations or a piece of primary legislation that we are told has to be done quickly. I want to do as much as possible, as fast as possible, because we need to get money in people’s pockets, but can you reassure us that the Government has a plan to ensure that everything is on schedule and that we know at what point things will come to the committee so that we are not continually rushing?

Good morning, minister and others. Thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for setting that out; it was helpful.

I start on the point that you have just discussed: the role of SCOSS. I, too, put on record my thanks for the helpful work that it does in getting through what is quite complex material. However, what worries me slightly is that we are again in a circumstance where SCOSS has felt that it has not had the time that it needed to properly scrutinise the regulations. In fact, it has said that that has meant that there has not been significant stakeholder engagement, which I think is of concern.

In the past, I have written to the Government asking for details of the timetable for delivery because, since I came to the Parliament in May, on everything that we have looked at in this committee in particular, we have been told that there is not much time. I seek reassurance that you are going to plan for that delivery, that you know at what stages things are going to be done and that you will try to give the appropriate time for scrutiny rather than rush things through. We have had control of these benefits since 2018, and it is unhelpful if we are always being told that there is not much time to scrutinise things. Will you confirm that there is a plan for the further roll-out and that there will be time for scrutiny?

Yes, that would be helpful.

On human rights and on short-term assistance, I think that the inclusion of that assistance is really welcome, and I am pleased to say that it will make a material difference to people’s lives.

I understand that the criteria are different for the two payments, but offering someone short-term assistance at a really difficult time in their life, during a transition period, would not be giving them a guarantee to the next benefit, which has different eligibility criteria; it would merely be easing that process, in what would be a relatively sensible way, as the two benefits might not be called the same, but they are the same type of benefit. Might you reconsider the matter on that basis?

On Jeremy Balfour’s question about the deadline, I take your point that people might prefer to receive payment in January or February. It would be good to see the research on that. Maybe that means that you could just move the deadline to those dates. I feel that a deadline gives people certainty. It is also consistent with what you require people who are applying for benefits to do, as they have a number of stringent deadlines. It would be much more congruent to say, “We have deadlines, just as you have deadlines,” instead of, “You have deadlines but we have none.” I think that that would be a proper way forward.

My question is on eligibility. As we know, over half of people who are living in poverty have a disabled person in their household, and that can be a person with a disability of any severity. If we are looking to reduce levels of poverty—and levels of child poverty, as 34 per cent of children in poverty live in a household with a disabled person in it—it is really important that we look at those criteria.

There are significant levels of fuel poverty in Scotland, and we know that, regardless of age or severity of impairment, disabled people have higher costs of living and are more likely to live in poverty. This is an opportunity for us to do something to significantly address that by making the winter payment. I guess that I am making a policy point. I am asking whether you recognise that that is one way in which you could begin to reduce the poverty that all disabled people, not just those with the most severe conditions, face.

To follow on from the point that you made earlier about being able to do a supplementary forecast, does that mean that, if there was a decision or a policy change between budgets, the information would be available to the Government to be able to adjust its spending appropriately?

Thank you for your responses to my questions and those of other members.

Your paper notes the significant challenges around the predictions on the adult disability payment. We have heard a lot about the volatility around that. Can you tell us a bit about what you have done to get the information that you have and what further information you think could help you? I note what Claire Murdoch said about data collection from Social Security Scotland. It would be helpful for the committee to get a better understanding of the sort of data that you feel that you will need in order to be able to predict future costs.