 Fy offices! Mae llunaf i gyd yn gweithio i fynd i ffellyio ddiweddol i'r Thanks, Stephanie. For anyone else, has any register interest? Just for item 2 and 3 of the agenda, just to put on the record that I am the sheet of PIP. Thank you. Thanks to you, the mate. Okay. Our second item of business is the consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument, carers assistance, carers support payment, consequential and miscellaneous amendments, and transitional provision Scotland regulations 2023. That instrument is subject to negative procedure. Its purpose is to make consequential and miscellaneous amendments and transitional provision in connection with the introduction of carers support payment, which will replace carers allowance in Scotland. Do members have any comments on the instrument? I'm going to invite the committee then to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to this instrument. Are members content to note the instrument? Thank you. Before we move on, I'm going to suspend proceedings until we have the capsic with us for the next agenda item. Welcome back. Next this morning is the consideration of an affirmative statutory instrument, the disability assistance miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2023. The instrument is led under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. I also welcome her officials, all of our Wayne Policy Manager, Disability Benefits Policy, Social Security Directorate and Madeline McPhail, Solicitor Scottish Government. Thank you for joining us today. A few points to mention about the format of the meeting before we get started. There is, I believe, a member online, James Dornan. If he's coming in, please allow our broadcasting colleagues a few seconds to turn his microphone on before we start to speak. I ask everyone to keep questions and answers as concise as possible. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited in the upcoming agenda items to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate that follows. I am now going to invite the Cabinet Secretary to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much and good morning, convener. As with all our social security benefits, dignity, fairness and respect, has been embedded throughout the process of developing both child and adult disability payment. The journey between these benefits is already well established and the regulations before committee today will further improve on client experience on this journey. We have extended eligibility for child disability payment to age 18 years, and this is to ensure the continuity for young disabled people and their families. We have been told that this can be a very difficult transition period in a young person's life, and that is why we introduced this key point of difference to the DWP system. Those regulations will build on the existing improvements by protecting payment dates for young people moving to adult disability payment. That provides financial continuity, reduces the risk of gaps in payment or overpayments and eases their transition from one form of assistance to another. It is worth noting that no such protection of payment dates is currently available in the DWP system. We are also making sure that where people will get more money when they move to adult disability payment, the process is fully aligned with the policy intent while delivering consistency and fairness across different client groups. We have safely and securely transferred the disability benefit awards of well over 97,000 people living in Scotland. We continue to do so in line with our case transfer principles. No one has to reapply. People continue to be paid the right amount at the right time. Since the launch of adult disability payment, no one has been required to start a process that would subject them to a DWP-style face-to-face assessment. We are completing transfer as soon as we can while ensuring that the process remains safe and secure, and we are communicating clearly with people throughout so that they know what is happening with their benefit and when. We are taking this opportunity to clarify and improve some of the case transfer provisions that support this process. For example, where a person's award is transferred from DWP, we recognise any existing appointee pending a review by Social Security Scotland. We are clarifying that a separate review does not need to take place if the person has already been appointed by Social Security Scotland for the purposes of a different Scottish benefit. We are clarifying that Social Security Scotland can stop the transfer process if someone moves out of Scotland to another part of the United Kingdom after their case has been selected for transfer but before the transfer completes. That means that they can stay on their existing award and do not have to reapply to the DWP after they move. Finally, people whose awards transferred to child disability payment currently continue to be eligible until they are aged 19. That was meant to ensure that young people turning 18 close to the time adult disability payment launched had enough time to apply. The proposed amendments limit this extension to those turning 18 before the end of the year, which is fairer and a better prioritisation of resources. We have engaged with the Scottish Fiscal Commission who have confirmed that they anticipate no material financial implications on spending for the Scottish Government as a result of those regs. That is particularly welcome in this challenging fiscal period, given the offer further improvements for the people of Scotland at no increased cost. I am committed to continually improving public services for the people of Scotland, and those regulations allow us to provide clarity and further improve people's experiences. Taking such opportunities is a founding principle of social security in Scotland, and those regs before you today evidence my unending commitment to continuous improvement. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for their formal scrutiny of the draft amendments earlier this year and for their recommendations that have strengthened the detail of the regulations before us today. I welcome this opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of those regulations and, of course, I am happy to provide any additional information that is required. We will now move on to questions, and our questions will be directed to yourself, but you are, of course, welcome to invite any official to respond should you wish to do so. I am going to start off with a question myself. It is more of a general one, really, and it is how you could maybe highlight the fundamental differences between the DWP and Social Security Scotland. I know that services have been carried out in terms of the benefits that are devolved to Scotland and what the findings have been. At every avenue endeavoured to ensure that we are working with those with lived experience to provide a benefit system that is not simply fit for purpose but provides dignity, fairness and respect at every opportunity. That is a very important aspect of what we are trying to do and, again, seeing Social Security as a human right. It is important, therefore, that we not only look at how we introduce our benefits but also how they work in practice and the regulations today are an example of how we can continue to improve. Although I am pleased to see that the recent evidence through, for example, the client experience surveys that Social Security Scotland published have shown a high level of satisfaction with the process of application, with the level of support that people get to fill in that application. That is why we are determined to continue to improve. However, to take pride in the fact that those with experiences of the DWP have helped to shape a system that is markedly different from the experiences that they have had previously. I believe that Katie Clark would like to come in. Statistics have previously shown that people in Scotland are waiting longer for their adult disability payment decision from Social Security Scotland than people in England and Wales who have applied for the personal independence payment through the DWP. The average wait time for adult disability decision is around nine weeks for the personal independence payment decision. That is double. The wait time has doubled over the past year. What steps are Social Security Scotland taking to reduce these waiting times? Perhaps I urge some caution when making comparisons. I will give one example about why the situation is very different. Members of the committee will be well aware that, under DWP, when you are applying for PIP, it is the customer—it is called Down South—who is obligated to find their supporting information and present it. That is one of the areas that is one of the greatest stressors and one of the greatest areas of concern within the system that they have within DWP. Within Social Security Scotland, there is an obligation for the client to be able to have to do that. It is the agency who will take that obligation on board. That means that it will take time for the agency to get that supporting information from a profession. That could be a GP, a supporting nurse or someone out with the health sector. However, if you are looking at comparisons, it is very important to realise the amount of work that the client has to put in before applying to PIP to get that supporting information, whereas under Social Security Scotland, that is not the case. That takes time. For example, letters have to go out to a GP, and then that information has to come back in. I am very well aware that people are waiting too long for child disability payments and adult disability payments. That is why there have been a number of measures being put in place right the way through the client journey to see what can be done to improve that. I am satisfied that the improvements are making a difference. That will have to show up in the statistics as they are published, but there is a great deal of work. I believe that David Wallace has spoken to the committee about some of the detail of that. I could go on with more examples, convener, about how it is changed straight from what is in an application form to our work with stakeholders about how the support and information is gathered to our ability for our client advisers to look at that within the system and work within Social Security Scotland to try to bring things to a resolution quickly. One of the other important aspects is that the agency has given clients a number of opportunities to, for example, provide us with the details of who to get supporting information from. That gives the client a number of opportunities to be able to feed into the system. That also takes time if, for whatever reason, the client is not responding to information that is coming out and requests that are coming out from the agencies. One I would add caution about direct comparisons, but I absolutely recognise that work needs to be done and will continue to be done. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept that the wait times are unacceptably longer. There are more than double that in England and Wales, and that cannot be something that we should accept. Does she agree with that? There are not double, because you cannot compare. There is not a like for like comparison. I think that you have made that very clear about the differences in the system, but for the person waiting for their money, that is not an acceptable position. That is exactly why it is important to reassure clients that their funds will be backdated to the point of application. I point members to the work that has been done through the client surveys, which has shown that those people who are going through the process are satisfied that they are being supported through the application process. They are finding that a very different system. I hope that Ms Clark is also not suggesting that we should learn from the DWP and take part on its work examples of making sure that the client has that responsibility and therefore the stress. If that is what she wants, a like for like system, you can have like for like comparisons. However, I very much did say in my original remark that the waiting times are unacceptable, and that is exactly why there is a lot of work going on. We also know that Social Security Scotland's own figures for May 2023 show that 40 per cent of all applications for adult disability payment were rejected. Although that is slightly lower than the average 47 rejection rate for personal independence payment across the UK, it is also an extremely high rejection rate. Has the Government identified the factors that need to be addressed to reduce that rejection rate? Has she got an explanation as to why rejection rates are so high? It is very important to support people through the system, and that is why we have, for example, local delivery within there, to be able to support people through the application. It then needs to go through a decision making process to analyse it against eligibility criteria and to make a decision. The other important aspect of that is to point to the number of appeals, which are very small, and the number of reconsiderations, which again are very small, which points to the fact that there is, again, a great difference between what happens in the DWP and what happens within Social Security Scotland about the agency getting the decision right first time. If anyone who has had a refusal has concerns about that and wishes to seek redetermination and appeal, they are given that information directly when they get the letter through. Of course, we have to have a system that supports. We then have to have a system that makes a strong eligibility-based decision, and then we support people to go through processes of appeals if that is required. I think that the committee can take heart in the fact that the number of redeterminations and appeals is exceptionally low compared to the figures within the DWP, which once again demonstrates that we are getting the decision right first time in so many more cases than was the case within the DWP. Of course, because it is a new system, there will inevitably be monitoring and evaluation, which goes on to ensure that we have a system that is fair and that the decisions are being made. Of course, that is part of the monitoring and evaluation process that the committee would go through. I understand that the committee has had an outstanding invitation to go up to headquarters for some time for Social Security Scotland. I am sure that the agency would be delighted to take you through that in greater detail when the committee finds time to do so. Thanks, cabinet secretary. We are still looking at dates in terms of heading up to Dundee for that visit. I believe that Katie, do you want to come back? Just very briefly. As I understand it, young people continue to get child disability payment for a short period after they turn 19. If their adult disability payment is decided within four weeks of their 19th birthday, however, the wait times are currently longer than that, it is longer than four weeks. Can you just give reassurances in terms of what happens to those individuals that are transferring from the child disability payment to adult disability payment? We are very confident that we have systems in place to be able to ensure that there is no gap in payment. I can give some examples, convener, of how that can happen. Of course, an individual can apply very close to the deadline of 18th birthday, but the agency ensures that there are a number of letters, including the details of how that young person can be supported, that go through. That happens to ensure that we provide support to people way before that cut-off. If we are getting to the stage where they are in any danger of reaching a deadline of support, that is why the operational systems will kick in within the agency to recognise that and ensure that decisions can be made before that deadline happens. It is not just the fact that we spend a great deal of time trying to encourage and support people through, but once we feel that there is a hard stop potentially coming that might impact on an individual, the system can spot that, the client-advisors can step in and then work can be done to make sure that that is sped up and allocated the urgency that it would absolutely require at that stage. Thank you very much. I believe that Jeremy would like to come in. I do think that there is a slight put in your head in the sand here, so I appreciate that we can all quote cases, but I have a constitution in one moment that applied in June. It wasn't looked at until September, and at that point they were asked to go and get the evidence, not the Social Security Scotland. I appreciate that Twitter is not the place for everything, but if you look at the number of comments that have been put on Twitter about people's personal experience, it is not how you are recording it today. I do think that there is a real issue in regard to the length of time. I appreciate that it is a different way of doing it, but I think that for us simply to say that we are perfect DWP or rubbish is actually doing a disservice both to DWP but actually is not the experience of many people that I am coming to contact. My question is, what conversations are you having with Social Security Scotland, not just to get the story that they want to tell you, but to get what real individual's experience is? I think that we are all getting now case work of people who are saying that I am getting a very negative experience from Social Security Scotland. We want it to work, but it won't work if people are getting that negative experience. Very gently, I push back Mr Balfour a little, but I did absolutely in no way say that everything is perfect and that people should back off from scrutiny. I recognise on a number of occasions that the waiting times are unacceptable for processing, and that's why a number of pieces have been worked. If you forgive me, I'll push back a wee bit on that part. I'm happy to look at the individual case, should Mr Balfour wish to pass that on, and we are very keen to do so to make sure that we are learning from particular cases. Again, I would urge the committee to be able to take up the opportunity to go to Dundee to look at this in great detail, because there is an extraordinary amount of work that has been done and is continuing to be done to improve the systems, the processes and the handling that is in place. That has been on-going for many months now, and we are seeing the benefits of that. I am confident of that, but of course that will take time to find its way through, because we still have cases that have been waiting too long at this exact time that are still needing a decision to be taken. Of course it will take time sometimes for processes to change, but there have been a number of changes made already, for example to application forms and for example to the way that cases are being dealt with within the agency. Another improvement that we have also seen is call waiting times, which I know that the committee was very concerned about. I will give two examples why, and I think that Mr Balfour has loaned me for long enough now that I don't take anybody's word for it at face value, and I will look into things very seriously. Of course I meet very regularly with senior leaders within the agency and within programme to go through that, but I am also very conscious of ensuring that we look at the client surveys that are coming through which are statistically sound about what people's experiences are, and also very importantly to stakeholders and individuals themselves. I have met individuals who have had a poor experience with the agency and we are very keen to learn from that, right from ministers, all the way through to everyone who works in social security Scotland and who is determined to provide the type of service that we have spoken about in some times. I hope that I can provide them with reassurance that I take that very seriously. I do not just take the word off with great respect to my officials, to my officials on that. The work that we are doing with stakeholders is very, very important. There are a number of changes that have already been put in place and we are seeing changes, so I will never be complacent about that. I know that there is a great deal of work that still needs to be done, and if committee, under further investigation after visits to Dundee and discussions with agency staff feel there is more that could be done on this, we will happily take further advice. The examples today, although technical for those regulations, are demonstrations of how we are committed to looking at continuous improvement. Those aspects around today are technical reg amendments, but we are also looking at continuous improvement within our systems, within the way that we as individuals handle this, both in Government and in the agency. That is helpful. I wonder if I can just take one clarification. Myself, in my previous term, I had a very helpful visit down to Victoria Key, where we saw how the whole system would be designed before it was up and running, and I think both myself and Dr Greene have been to Dundee previously. In regard to the changes that are being made, in regard to application form, has that been made by officials in Scottish Government or has it been made by the agency itself? Where does that responsibility lie for changes that are being made now? It is working, as I hope that committee would expect, as part of a cohesive team, because you are quite right, Mr Ball, for some of those responsibilities will be with Scottish Government, some will be with an agency, which is why we are not sitting in two different meetings, having two different discussions, but we are together collegiately looking at where things need to be done. For example, in programme, which technically sits within Scottish Government, and that will be changes to the systems that are actually happening, or changes, for example, to the guidance that is used by staff, and that would be something that would be delivered within the agency. That is why we are all working together as one team on this, rather than being an agency issue or a Government issue. Of course, within that, each action point has lead officials that are looking at it, but it will vary depending on what action that is. I find those exchanges very helpful. The focus has been on what supports are available for applicants, where there are issues, how those issues are addressed and improved, and quite rightly how that compares to the DWP and the rest of the Gwki. All the really important things that we should do consistently on this committee is drawing that comparison between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so that our system to be as modern, progressive, dignified and effective as possible. I think that it is absolutely right to do that kind of scrutiny. With that in mind, can I ask how young people who get child disability payment are being supported with their applications for adult disability payment? Also, can you contrast that with the young person's experience here in Scotland under this system, compared to what it would be if they lived elsewhere in the UK? I have perhaps mentioned some of that in previous answers, so I will try not to repeat myself for the sake of time, because I know that I have talked for probably too long already. One of the aspects that were on the key differences is, of course, that ability to have CDP up until late teen. That is a hugely important change that we brought in, as I said in my opening remarks, because it recognises a key stressful time for individuals. That in some ways complicates the system, because there is not a hard cut-off point and people can make a decision to move, but that is important because it is the right decision for them rather than the right decision for the system. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of pieces of correspondence, for example, which will go out to an individual, letting them know about that transition phase, and also, very importantly, having the details of where they can seek support. Another key difference is the local delivery staff that we have within Social Security Scotland that provide support in filling out application forms. That is not available within the DWP system. That is an important support mechanism for it. We also have independent advocacy services that are available for people as well, not just from CDP ADP—that is, of course, available wider than that, too—to make sure that we can not just provide support within the system but that advocacy, which is clearly very different to support to filling out applications, is provided. We also have the signposting to independent welfare rights and advice services that again will give reassurance that an individual is not alone, what can be a very difficult time for them, and they are also transitioning into adult services in a number of different ways at that point. I hope that that gives examples of how it is different, but also how we can provide that different support at different points within an individual's journey from CDP to ADP. Can I just check, convener, that the supported filling out application forms are not currently available within the UK system? Is there an advocacy service within the UK system? Does that signposting mechanism happen within the UK system? The reason for asking that question is to draw out the comparisons and the contrast, but also, if it does exist, how do we make sure that the quality of our service is as it should be? Where are the benchmarks that we can compare that with? I am not aware of there being an advocacy system, although I am happy to clarify that in writing if it does exist. I will be happy to clarify that later on if there is an independent advocacy service that is advised to clients for them to use. The way that we ensure that that is working is, again, I go back to the fact that we need to make sure that we are asking people who are going through the system itself how they are experiencing it and did it work for them. That is a key part of the way that we developed the system initially, but now that we have our own system, what do they think of that system and is it working for them and do further improvements that need to be made? Thank you, convener. Like the deputy convener, I think that helpful exchange is there and covered a lot of ground in terms of my interests. However, as a further point of information and clarity on transitions for young people, particularly young people with a learning disability, at 18, that is a crucial point in young people's lives in terms of their transitions more generally, so what interaction Social Security Scotland has had with third sector support organisations who are helping young people at that point in their life with all of their transitions to really focus specifically on their application to move to ADP? That is a very key point that we need to ensure that we are working with stakeholders. Yes, it is great. We have a local delivery system. There are aspects in place. We are also very conscious that there are trusted organisations, people that folk will be working with in their family setting and they may wish to go to them for support and guidance. That is why, as with all of the work that we undertake within the Government and the agency, there is a great deal of stakeholder work that goes on that explains the differences that regulations will make and the impact that that can have and the support that is available for them. We are now getting to the point where I think that there is a process from CDP to ADP that has been in for some time now, a reasonable amount of time. We are seeing a good level of feedback from the third sector about the support that is provided, but again there is no complacency in that because it is very difficult. One of the key points that we will be picking up, for example, when a committee passes those regulations through Parliament, is to again make sure that we are going back out to stakeholders to explain any changes, any differences and reassure around some of those areas as well. Thank you. Do you think that there is more that we could do in terms of streamline the process and I suppose making it more passported or automated or in terms of just knowing who those people are, knowing when their birthday is going to occur and just trying to make that a far more automatic process given that often conditions at that stage in life haven't changed, the evidence perhaps hasn't changed considerably but also I think just in terms of that wider piece and we know that there's legislation before Parliament in a private member's bill about transitions, you know whether we can do everything possible to make transitions more broadly easier. Again, it's a really important point about what we can automate and what we can make easier, not necessarily the same thing there. The challenge with CDP to ADP in making that a fully automated process, of course, is the eligibility criteria completely different. It is exceptionally, well, it is impossible to just make an assumption from what is there, from a CDP case and immediately transfer that and make assumptions to ADP in saying that. So you can't automate, but in saying that what then can we do to make that transition easier for that individual to ensure that we're making it as simple as possible. So the change will still have to be there from one to the other and that's been embedded since we agreed the regs for CDP and ADP, that they did have a different eligibility. But there are a number of ways where I think we are making it easier, but again, I'm very, very keen to make sure that we're doing everything we can if there's anything that's coming through in lived experience now that the systems are in place, whether it's in the regs or whether it's in the way that we work, to make that easier for people. And I think that that's maybe at the stage that we're at rather than full automation. Thanks very much. I'm now going to invite Jeremy Balfour in. Thank you, convener. Just in regard to the monitor inside, will Social Security Scotland monitor a number of individuals who get a different level of award on ADP than we receive when we want CDP? So if you forgive me, Mr Balfour, I'm not quite understanding the question because of one of the points I've just made to Mr O'Kane, that there's different eligibility. So you can't exactly compare because there's different eligibility. In saying that, though, and I hope I can reassure them still, even though I'm saying there's different eligibility, so there are differences perhaps to awards. There is work that will be, is in place within Social Security Scotland that does monitor and evaluate the individuals that move from CDP to ADP, so those individuals can be spotted within the system, they can be tracked within the system, and any differences that do happen in terms of awards, money that's going forward, can actually be monitored. So, while there will be differences because of eligibility, we are still doing absolutely everything we can to monitor that, evaluate it and look at the awards that somebody got within CDP, the award that they're getting within ADP, to see whether there's any fluctuations, any changes, anything that's concerning within the numbers that are coming through. I totally understand that, but I suppose what I'm looking for from a committee perspective is will we be able to, in two years' time, say there were x number of children who got CDP, and then I'd be able to transferred x number of people who now get ADP. Now, I understand that it's a different venue, but will there be that monitoring that will be open to scrutiny to say either they went higher or lower? I suppose my concern is that there seems to be a lack of data collection going on within Social Security Scotland, so it's very difficult to monitor some of that. What I'm speaking to know is that I appreciate the different criteria, but will we be able to see the numbers clearly in black and white? I don't think that there is an issue with a collection of data on here because management information will be able to link people that have moved from CDP to ADP. We will be able to see, for example, differences in awards levels, any gaps in payment changes that have happened, which have meant that we haven't quite got this system right. I think that there is the data collection, the monitoring evaluation that is in place that will be able to flag up to point to exactly the concerns that you've raised there and for us then to be able to see what needs to be done to rectify that, so I'm confident that that data collection is already in place. Will that be publicly published? I am unsure whether that's in the official statistics. I'll get back to the committee on that, but it's information that we will be able to provide, I'm sure. I'm now going to invite Ross McClellan. How can Social Security Scotland help young people and their families understand how other benefits and payments might change as they move from CDP to ADP? That points to one of the transition challenges that people will have. The difficulty, of course, is the complexity of any benefits system—this isn't a dig at the DWP, but any benefits system is complex—to ensure that people are at least cognisant of the fact that a change from CDP to ADP may mean changes in other benefits and entitlements, and so on. That varies so much from individual to individual. There's a role for the agency, as I said, as the letters are going out to signposts to independent services to be able to allow those independent services to advise an individual on that. You may, for example, get someone who would receive a higher award on CDP than they would on ADP, and that could be completely vice versa for somebody different. Each has to be person-centred. That has to be done, as I hope the committee would understand, outwith the agency, because once you apply for a benefit that you have applied in that process has begun. Once the agency makes a decision on somebody's application, then that decision is made. That's why it's important that, before we get to the point of them making that application, they know what supports out there, they know the advice services that are out there, and they can work with that advice services so that they are guided through the challenges and the implications and the complexities that people may not be aware of, particularly if it's the first time they're going through that process of moving on to adult benefit system. I appreciate that. I'm now going to invite Stephanie Callahanan. I'm interested in the transfer from disability living allowance to personal independent payment or ADP. Some people have had a change of circumstance that occurs during the transfer process. They've told DWP about it, but it hasn't been taken into account in their DLA or their PIP award. We have heard from stakeholders that the process hasn't always worked as intended, and it mentioned trusted organisations earlier on. The disabled, for example, said that they've got a small number of cases that have been passed between DWP and Social Security Scotland for the claimants on clear who it is that should be taking responsibility for it. I'd be really interested in what Social Security Scotland is doing to ensure that clients and the staff are clear about how changes of circumstances are reported during that transfer process. Information for the case transfer process, including where to report changes of circumstances, is set out clearly in the letters to clients during that process, including the initial welcome letter. It's also been discussed at stakeholder events as well. It is very much there on the case transfer sheets that the agency staff use. It is a very important aspect that we have in our transfer process. If clients are in receipt of DLA and PIP and they report a change of circumstance, they are then moved to adult disability payments, so they don't have to go through a DWP face-to-face assessment. I recognise that some people have had the difficulties that Ms Callaghan mentioned. Some of that will hopefully be assisted through the regulations that are going through today, but there is clearly an amount of work that is already going on within the agency and the DWP to ensure that every single staff member in both agencies is absolutely cognisant of what should happen during the case transfer process and how anything should be dealt with. Over 97,000 people have had their awards transferred, so the case transfer process is overall successful. I recognise that there are issues around the management of some cases, the examples of which you have given, which demonstrate that it is not working for everybody. On that reason, that is why some of the regs are here today. That is why there is work going on, not just within the agency but also within the DWP, because it is important that, in effect, regardless of where you phone up, you are getting the same information about how your change of circumstance is dealt with. There is a great deal of good work that goes on between the agency and the DWP to ensure that the same information is being given to clients regardless of where they phone up. As I said, that is not to take away from the fact that there have been individual cases where that has not worked, as it should have done, but that is why there is a lot of work in the regs and in the work with staff to make sure that that is something that happens, regardless of where you phone up and you get the same information. Just to be really clear on it, I apologise for getting that first bit up when I was talking about moving to adult disability payment. Just to be really clear, it is clearly being monitored. Are you feeling confident now that that is actually improving when we can progress on it? Yes, I do. I think that we have made progress on that. The case transfer process was always going to be one of the most challenging aspects, but it needs to work for every single person as we go through that process. That is why there is a great deal of work going on, not just within the agency, but very closely and very collegially with the DWP on that issue, because it might be either within the agency or within the DWP that has not been handled correctly, and they need to work together and are working together to ensure that those situations do not happen. That concludes our questions. We are moving on to agenda item 4. Agenda item 4 is the formal consideration of motion S6M-10409 that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the disability assistance, miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2023 draft be approved. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and move this motion. I now invite contributions from any of the members. I now invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to this instrument. Are members content to know the instrument? I now invite the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate. The question is that motion S6M-10409, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be approved, or are we all agreed? That concludes agenda item 4. I thank the cabinet secretary and our officials as well. That concludes our public business today. We will now move into private to consider the remaining items on the agenda.