³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is helpful, because—

I think that we have been speaking about that for the past few minutes, so I invite people to make any additional comments. We have heard about how Scotland might need an alternative system and about the relationship with the DWP if the Scottish system diverges from the UK one, so that we have an alternative assessment process. I think that we have covered all that. I can raise one or two other matters if you think that that would be helpful, convener. If the witnesses have any other comments about abolishing the work capability assessment, they should raise those, but I think that we have covered most of it.

There is a thought in my head about those who get the health element of universal credit. It is not clear who will or will not be pressurised into seeking employment once the work capability assessment is abolished and it is also not clear when conditionality will kick in. Are there additional concerns about that? It would be helpful to hear about those.

PIP is an entitlement for those with disabilities and is not related to being in work. I hate to make the matter sound worse, but do the witnesses think that there has been a deliberate blurring of that? If there is, might we be looking at a future situation where there are questions about whether people should be getting both PIP and the health element of UC? That is not something that I would ever suggest, but might that be the UK Government’s wider direction of travel? That could cause further serious damage to those living with disabilities.

I know that the question theme was supposed to be work capability assessments, but I think that we have fleshed most of that out with Jeremy Balfour’s line of questioning. Does anyone want to take up the cudgels based on my wider thoughts?

Other members will ask about those other aspects, so I do not want to step on their toes, but that is very helpful—thank you.

Good morning. Erica Young mentioned financial planning to leave an abusive relationship. Earlier, we heard that, in order for discretion to be used to give someone an exemption from sanctions or conditionality, the victim/survivor must not be living in the same household as their former partner. Where a work coach identifies or suspects that abuse is going on, is there any mechanism in the universal credit system to make an application in private in advance and for decisions to be made in principle, so that a victim/survivor can see what their financial situation would look like if they decided to leave?

The system does not seem fit for purpose for someone who has to leave in a chaotic situation without any planning, because they then have to deal with all the inbuilt delays that come with universal credit in the first place. Has any consideration been given to that or has the DWP done any work on it? Whether it is Social Security Scotland or the DWP, should we start to do that?

We need both.

There is a theme coming out of all this about a victim/survivor needing certainty in advance of taking the massive decision to get out of an abusive relationship. For some, it will be a crisis moment—very specific circumstances—that will mean that they have to flee. For many, from what the committee has heard, the decision is made over time as they reach certainty and clarity. What has come up, however, is that there is a lack of support and a lack of a pathway for everyone.

I want to explore whether there is enough money in the system already. If the DWP provided certainty up front and with privacy to the victim/survivor so that they knew the amount of cash that they would get if they left and knew that that would not be an advance, and if discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund did the same, would we start to get to a quantum of cash in a system—money that the victim/survivor might eventually get anyway but in a fragmented way over time and with great uncertainty—that would mean that they could do something meaningful and in a more dignified way in order to get out of an abusive relationship?

I will be very brief.

I am sorry if I have this wrong, but I think that Cindy Morrice suggested that discretion was applied for and granted on only five occasions in the past year. I am sorry if I have that number wrong—it would be helpful if she could restate the number.

What work has been done to estimate how many times discretion could have been applied for and might have been granted, when that has not happened? I know that there is no exact science to this, but I would like to hear an estimate or a ballpark figure or to get a feeling for how far there is a lack of applications, even though those could be successful. Is there any more data that you could put on the record so that we can see the extent of the challenge under the current criteria?

The committee will, of course, reach out to the Government on when that part might eventually come into force. Does any witness have any insight into when implementation might happen? Since no one does, I will say thank you.

Thank you. What I really want to ask about is also for you, Sophie, because I think that it was mentioned in the Govan Law Centre’s written evidence. Does part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, with its key role for the police in enforcement, represent a viable alternative to the old system of civil protection orders? Part 1 of that act has not yet been enacted. The Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is looking at why that is the case, but my understanding is that the key aspect is that it is not the victim/survivor who would apply for such an order and that they would not bear the cost but that Police Scotland could take that forward. Could you say more about the importance of that and about the barriers to fully implementing part 1 of the 2021 act?

For clarity, I will go back to my verbatim notes. I was trying to set the context. My notes on what we have established from the committee’s call for evidence say that, when a victim has to apply for a civil protection order, drawbacks include the potential cost to the victim of doing so and the limitations of the legal aid system in alleviating those costs. I want to ensure that all the witnesses agree with that as a matter of fact and to check whether you want to add to that before I move to my final question.