 Welcome to the 14th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Apologies have been received this morning from Natalie Dawn and the police to say that Evelyn Tweed is attending as her substitute. Our first item of business today is a decision to take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much indeed, colleagues. The next agenda item is on adult disability payment, which is due to start replacing personal independence payment in Scotland next year. Changes will be made through regulations, which the committee expects to be laid soon. This morning, we will consider the differences between ADP and PIP and any potential policy issues in advance of formal consideration of the regulations next year. I am pleased to say that we will hear from two panels today. I welcome to the first panel, Ed Pibus, who is policy and parliamentary officer for the child poverty action group in Scotland, Richard Gass, wealthy rights and money advice manager from Rights Advice Scotland, and Judith Paterson, the member of the Scottish Commission on Social Security. A very warm welcome to you all to the committee. I can ask committee members and panellists to type R for request to speak in the chat box if you would like to come in. Some members have already indicated to me in advance that they would like to do so. I would also appreciate it, given that we are virtual today, if colleagues are asking questions could direct their questions to witnesses directly, please, and also make sure that you allow a wee bit of time to ensure that your microphones are turned on before speaking. The first question that I will turn to is from Pam Duncan-Glancy, followed by Jeremy Balfour. Good morning, convener, and good morning, panellists. Thanks very much for joining us this morning. We note in the regulations for adult disability payment that some of them, indeed a lot of them, do mirror pit. Where the reds differ, can the panel comment on whether or not they believe they support or help the end-user? Also, some of the changes in adult disability payment from pit, including terminol on this rule, the fact that awards do not end immediately, rules on armed forces, residence rules and so on, represent a policy divergence from the UK. What is your understanding of how the SG and Scottish Government were able to progress on those areas, given some of the constraints that we have heard around implementing different policies from the UK Government? Could I please ask Ed Pyvis and Judith Paterson to respond? Thanks, Pam. Thanks, Neil, and thanks for being invited to the committee. As Pam said, the GED rules largely follow the PIP rules. To answer the last question, I do not know the discussion that has been had between the Scottish Government and the DWP that has allowed some change to happen, but we welcome for example a change around the extension of terminol on this, for example. Hopefully, we will help more people. I guess where there has been quite a lot of change is around the process, around the way decisions, the rules around making new determinations and stuff like that. We will have to wait and see how that all beds in to see how that works. There are differences and where there might be problems is around case law. A lot of the PIP rules are built up around case law for the PIP regulations. The Scottish Government has tried to incorporate some of that in regulation, but incorporating case law into regulation is not always easy. There are a few areas where we feel that the definitions could be tightened up to make sure it is more in line with PIP. A key one of those is around pain. Case law is established that if you cannot do something without being in pain and you should not be considered to be able to do it, and under the definition of acceptable standard, that could include a reference to pain. It does not at the moment, and we would hope that the PIP case law will carry on into the ADP case law and establish that. However, to put it beyond doubt, including stuff like that in the regulations, it would be potentially helpful to clients and also to the agency and to decision makers to make it clear exactly what should be taken into account when making decisions. Thanks very much for that. Judith Paterson, please. I think on a broader point about the changes to terminal illness and residence rules. I think that there is a kind of direction of travel in the UK as well in those areas. In the UK, there is also widening eligibility for people who are terminal ill. There are widening residence rules, not in PIP, but in the DLA, which has been propelled by case law. I think that Scotland is making improvements in ADP in those areas. There was more of a sense of alignment, if not entire alignment, with the rest of the UK. In terms of whether the detail of the regulations is always where that differs, if it is always of benefit to the claimant, I think that Edd's talked about case law, which is absolutely relevant. There are various phrases in the regulations that have been changed to incorporate case law. Pretty much, yes, that is beneficial. When Scotland looked at it, that was clearly the intention that we could see, but it is a difficult job. It has to be done with some care, because if you incorporate case law, that can change things in ways that can be unexpected in itself. I think that they have taken a fairly careful approach, but that seems to be reasonable to us. The regulation changes about decision making. They are all drafted differently in Scotland, in Scottish Social Security and PIP, so they do not mirror PIP in the same way as the eligibility rules do. When you drill into the detail of those decision making changes, most of them are neutral, so that follows the policy intention. However, Scotland did report on one change that seemed to us to be detrimental. It is detailed, but it is one of our recommendations that that should be attended to. It basically meant that, in some circumstances, somebody could lose out in a few weeks' money because of the way the regulations have been drafted. We do not, of course, know that we have made that recommendation. We do not, at this point, know what the Scottish Government's response to that recommendation might be. Thank you very much indeed, Judith. I can see Pam. You are looking to come back in. Briefly, convener, thank you, if you will. Thank you. That is really, really helpful. Perhaps Richard and Ed will be able to comment on where they see the eligibility mirror PIP and the impact that that has on the people that they represent. At the end of the day, the eligibility rules are near identical. It is more the process rules that have been changed and we welcome those process rules changes. However, what we have got is PIP, as it was, just transposed into a Scottish format. In answer to the member's question, how does that affect our clients? It is the fact that those benefits were being devolved. We have been expecting them for quite some time. There was anticipation about improvement. We have not had that improvement yet. We are lifting what was a benefit entitlement that the welfare rights and claimants would criticise for having inadequacies. We will recast that and understand the idea of safe and secure transition. However, it feels like safe and secure transition has been a justification for not being sufficiently ambitious. Child disability payment is already in place and there were some tweaks to that. For example, the extension of entitlement to over 16s would require an element of reassessment for such clients. The issue of introducing something that requires some reassessment is not alien and I just feel that that opportunity has been lost. If I could labour on that particular point, in relation to the mobility component, many claimants were on disability living allowance, moved over to PIP and lost their mobility component or their higher-rate mobility component at that stage. We hoped that the new system would rectify, but it has not rectified that. There is an opportunity here for the mobility element to be reviewed. It would require some reassessment, but it would be a reassessment for the good. I see that, more recently, there is concern about making change that would tie the hands of the review next year. However, there might be some fundamental principles that, if mobility components should not be removed from the previous claims, that might steer the mind of the review next year. Thank you very much indeed, Richard Edd. I just want to jump back on one of those slight changes where the rules are different. There are slight changes around residence and presence conditions for people who are offshore workers or in the armed forces. It would be good to build on those changes because they are not necessarily all beneficial and could have a wider impact. On that larger point, I guess other organisations are giving evidence on that in the next session looking at potential changes. I think that what is really important is to, in the meantime, take a look at the way the rules are being applied. We know that, often, unfortunately, in PIP decisions, people are being refused benefit and have to go to appeals to get it. For example, as I mentioned earlier, this thing about paying an acceptable standard is not being taken into account when you are looking at someone walking. Someone can only walk in pain and they should be getting their high rate of mobility. Under PIP, that does not happen because the rules are being followed correctly by decision makers. We need to make sure, in the Scottish system, that not only are the rules clear, but the guidance is absolutely clear for decision makers or case managers, as they will be called in the Scottish system. There is an audit process to ensure that they are using the guidance and following the guidance and the decisions of being made that are correct. Another key part of the system that we have been discussing for a while is making sure that the agency collects data on claims, on conditions and on outcomes of claims about people who get awards, what they may get and people who are refused awards. We are looking to see whether, hang on a minute, people are not getting the award they should be getting. Certain groups, for example, people with MS, are not getting the high rate of mobility. We need to look at that. It is gathering that evidence to make sure that changes can be made. I guess that we have totally accepted the Scottish Government's weighing up of the advantages around changes compared to disruption. They have gone with a safe and secure transition, but small changes can be made in the system. It does not have to wait until the outcome of a formal review before that happens. Thank you very much indeed, Ed. I can see Judith Paterson who is looking to come in here briefly. Thank you. Scottish is very aware that introducing adult disability payment is an opportunity to do better than the benefit it replaces. We are very aware that people want to seize that opportunity to make improvements, and Scottish shares that ambition. However, we were persuaded in the course of our scrutiny that the critical priority in the short term was to make sure that people had the confidence that their payments were without disruption. We felt, having listened to everyone that we could, listened to that doing too much too soon could destabilise delivery and put that at risk. We did in the end conclude that it was right to go ahead as planned and look to make those changes once that initial period of transition was concluded. Thanks very much, Judith. Just while you are on that point before I bring in Jeremy Balfour, you said that in the report that we are persuaded that changing eligibility criteria at this time would risk undermining the delivery of ADP with extremely detrimental consequences for people who depend on it. What did you envisage in terms of those detrimental consequences? Essentially, what was it that made you reach that conclusion? I think that it is the issue about stability of payments, as Richard and Ed have gested. If you change eligibility criteria, then, as people transfer from their existing PIP to adult disability payment, they have to be assessed. There are 300,000 people to be transferred over and everything is new. There are so many new systems to get up and running to test to make sure that they are working. If you introduce too much too soon, some of those critical paths mean that there are delays to payments or that people drop out altogether. We have seen with other transfers in the UK system that it is a difficult process. One of the things that people do not want and cause problems is to apply for the new benefit during the process of transfer. It is very clear to us that people want to be transferred. They do not have to claim their new benefit with all the uncertainty that that brings along with it. That was what was most persuasive for us. That is extremely helpful. Thank you very much. Jeremy Balfour for his set of questions. Good morning. You made a good morning panel. Thank you for coming along. I have three questions that I will maybe take separately. The first one will probably be for either Richard or Judith, but Ed, feel free to jump in if you wish. It has just gone back to the issue around case law. We have had quite a long debate about this over the last number of years, because clearly there has been a lot of case law built up over the last 15, 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? Richard Gass, please. Yes, thank you. As we have adopted the regulations, almost verbatim with some process changes, the entitlement rules remain the same. I therefore expect that the tribunals will be applying the same case law. A president would have a Scottish legal system, and it differs in part to the UK. However, by and large, that does not really impact on social security legislation. I would imagine that existing case law would, until some point where our entitlements diverge, continue to apply. Ed Piper, do you have anything to add? I guess that we do not know. The answer will be up to the tribunals, which are independent of Social Security Scotland. I agree with Richard, but because the legislation is, in many cases, drafted identically or very similar, it would follow case law. Where it gets slightly more complicated is if case law starts to diverge if there is a significant case law that happens for PIP after the transfer, how that applies. One of those causes is that there needs to be a constant review process happening to review the regs and see if case law is diverging. What needs to be done about that does not mean that we have to follow PIP, because obviously that is the point in Scotland. They can do things differently, but at least a decision has to be made about that. Jeremy Dill, do you have a further question? Yes, a couple more. I think that that is an interesting point raised by Ed, because decisions ultimately are made in the Supreme Court on these decisions. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court interprets two sets of different regulations, but that might be for more legal egos. The second question is, if I was interested in your last point that you made about the safe transfer, which we all clearly want to happen, and that is overriding your view and the commission's view that we should not have any changes. How did you come to that decision? Was that a kind of consultation with the third sector? Was that a kind of pragmatic view that the commission came to? I am just wondering if you could expand a little on how you came to that view. Judith Brown, please. We discussed having a consultation with stakeholders, and we looked at those views very carefully. There certainly are strong views, but there should be changes made more quickly. The 20-metre rule featured quite strongly in that, as did issues for people with maybe intermittent conditions. We also stressed the Scottish Government quite hard on this point. We had engagement with officials and with the minister and with the cabinet secretary at various points. We had briefings from them. We had very detailed and helpful information back on the rationale for why the approach was being taken. We felt that we were very aware that this was a critical question for the committee and for stakeholders, so we tried to take a broad view. Was it pragmatic? I think that it was practical, I suppose, to say that we were looking at risks, and we were very focused on money in people's pockets and the experience for people. In truth, we were also aware that there are a lot of features in the system that should be better and have addressed some of the main concerns that the Scottish Government heard during its initial consultation with people about what they did not like—face-to-face reviews and so forth—and those were being addressed. Richard Gass has looked to come in, and I will bring in for another question. The safety and secure transition is not making change, unnecessarily, to allow it to land. The issue with the mobility component is bigger than that, because we have claimants who are still on disability living allowance and we have claimants who have been transferred to PIP. Those who have transferred have possibly lost, those who have not transferred have not yet lost. We are trying to bring two benefits into a new Scottish benefit, and there is a conundrum here. What are the rules about mobility for somebody who is currently on DLA who can walk no more than 50m in excess of 20m? How do they land safely and securely into the new adult disability payment? We have to measure that up against the fact that we have a child disability payment that still has the rules as old, so you could have 16 to 17-year-olds who are getting the higher-ability component on the basis of being virtually unable to walk somewhere between 20m and 50m. Will they reassess on their ADP claims? They will need to have that removed, so it is not a, well, this is where we are, how we move forward. This is an emerging problem and something I think needs to be resolved promptly. Thank you, Richard. Jeremy, sorry for cutting you off. Thank you, Richard. I think that that is really helpful comment. I mean, I think that he is disappointed. I think that you go back five years ago to when Jean Freeman was in charge and when this was starting it was very much going to be a very different system. I do think that the Government has lost its way on this, particularly around the 20m rule and particularly around those with available conditions. However, on the presumption that those regulations will be passed by the SNP Green Government, can I ask maybe Judith, Richard and Ed, with the review taking place in 2022-23, do you think that it is possible that any recommendations that will be brought forward, such as changing 20m to 50m, can be done within this Parliament or do you think that, realistically, we will be looking at another five or six years before we see any change in regard to that? Just from your experience of how long it takes, can we do that in a four-year period or is that over-optimistic? Assuming that that was your final question, Jeremy, I will look into Maireen MacMair next. I will bring Judith Paterson, followed by Richard Gass, followed by Ed Pipas, please. Judith Paterson. Oh, sorry. Can it be done within this Parliament? There is more chance of that if the Scottish Government grounds for that now. I do not think that there is any reason not to get that under way. It is an independent review that is being proposed that will start in 2023, not much more than a year's time. The more that can be done now to scope that review, the better. For example, all that stakeholder feedback, all that rich evidence that the Scottish Government has had, could be used as a starting point to identify those areas of particular concern where improvements could be made. The Scottish Government could start thinking about commissioning some research into those areas, scheduling experience panels, for example, client panels, consultation exercises, but it could also be useful to look at some of the constraints. We have talked a bit about the constraints that exist now in terms of safe and secure transfer, but there are other constraints that might not go away after transition. For example, to do with the interactions between adult disability payment and UK benefits and passporting issues. Some of that early scoping work, looking at what the constraints are and what can be moved and what cannot, would be useful for the independent. It would make it more likely that some changes could be made within this Parliament. Richard Gass, please, is followed by a pivus. I think that the timeframe is fairly ambitious. To answer the question, is it achievable within that? That depends on how much change is proposed within the review. If the review proposes a fundamental change, that will require fairly detailed new legislation and all the scrutiny that goes with that. If it is fundamentally new legislation, we will have winners and losers. How do we deliver on that? Does it need to be then transitional protection? Other possibilities that the review is fairly light touch and recognised as well. There might not be so much wrong with it, but I would not necessarily agree with that. If it is simply said that what we require is a single benefit from cradle to grave with nuances and tweaks and different age points along the way, that might be more easily delivered. That would be something like going back to how it was before PIP was introduced. The question then is, how ambitious are the changes? The more ambitious, the longer it takes, the less ambitious, the quicker it takes. I do not know if I have much more to add, but I kind of agree. It depends on the ambition. As a student said, sorting out those issues on passporting is key to understanding what changes can be made. It is certainly possible for review to look at maybe small changes that could be made that will bring some people who are currently full out with the system into the system, whilst looking at big and long-term structural changes that will take longer to implement. Some changes could be made in this Parliament, if there is a will. Good morning, panel. Thank you for your attendance at the committee. It is very much appreciated to help with the understanding of the mobility 20-metre rule in PIP. That was introduced by the Tory Government in Westminster. What was the rationale for introducing it? Was there any impact on the assessment of it? Is there any suggestion that it will move away from it now, given the co-ordination of the policy? Any particular member of the panel that he would like to direct that to, Mary? Can I put that to Ed, Pibus and Richard Gass? I am trying to think back to the introduction of PIP. I was a front-line welfare rights worker at that point. I guess that there was a lot of changes when adults moved from DLA to PIP. Under DLA, there was not a strict distance rule. It was more about being virtually unable to walk with regulations. Case law had established that around 50 metres walking was about what that would cover, whereas PIP clarified that as a 20-metre rule. I do not feel that I can accurately say exactly what the intention behind that was. I know maybe Judith and Richard have been involved for longer and may have knowledge on that. I do not think that there is any I think that Judith mentioned earlier, but some of the changes that are happening in Scotland have happened around terminal illness, etc. Are areas where the UK Government is looking at PIP. I am not aware that the UK Government is considering changes to mobility on a UK level. Certainly that was not particularly looked at, I do not think, in the green paper. I guess that another point is what happens if the rules for PIP around the UK are changed. There is a green paper on assessment for disability and work benefits. What happens if one's ADP is in place rules around PIP change? You have that same problem of passporting. Another problem that also comes up is transfer. If people move from Scotland to England or Wales, they have to reapplyn if the rules are very different. What that means for people moving as well is an issue. That is, I hope, the answer. Richard Gass, please. Yes. The change for PIP for part of the UK Government's raft of welfare reforms as we are coming out of the recession. We were advised that DLA for adults was no longer fit for purpose and needed to be recast. At that time, I have tried to find the source, but I cannot find the source, but there was a notion that those changes would bring about a 20 per cent saving. From the adviser and claimant community, it was seen as a change for the sake of saving money. It seemed to be that the areas where the act fell hardest were in relation to the mobility components. I suggest that it was one of the identified savings to be made. It is correct that, in the old legislation, it was virtually unable to walk. It was case law that first established around 100 metres and then laterally it came down to 50 metres as being the true definition of being virtually unable to walk, given other factors as well. However, when PIP came in, it went down to 20 metres and effectively 20 metres. What is that? Ten times the full stretch of your arm. If someone is only able to walk that particular distance, it is becoming meaningless in terms of actual walking ability. Although there are already some welcome apology changes from PIP, the Scottish Government's stated party is a safe and secure transfer from the DWP to Social Security. I want to explore the risk-aligned transfer. Given your experience of the benefit system, can you comment on past experiences of transfer between the DWP benefits and their stated timescales? Pop that back to Edwin Richards again, please. I think that we all know that the transfer from the DLA to PIP has taken far, far longer than was planned. That meant that we have the situation, as I think Richard mentioned earlier, that we have adults in Scotland who are still getting disability living allowance, who are going to have to be transferred, who have not been transferred to PIP, who are going to have to move straight to adult disability payment. That brings difficulties around that. The decision in Scotland to not get claimants to make a new claim for the Scottish benefit and end their PIP by just transferring them, hopefully makes that process far more straightforward and hopefully will happen far more quickly. However, it does be a difficulty, but you cannot make changes to the eligibility criteria, or it is much harder to make changes to the eligibility criteria when you do that transfer. There are a couple of things that we picked up in our submission to the commission around the transfer. For example, there is a transfer of people over pension age who are on PIP who might have to be transferred. There are a few difficult cases. I am particularly the people around DLA who are being transferred, but that is what we were talking about earlier, and the decision to keep the eligibility criteria makes it possible to transfer people, rather than that people will not actually transfer to PIP. They have to claim PIP and then stop their DLA claim. It is a different process in Scotland. We will wait and see. Thanks, Richard Gass, presumably also transferring on to universal credit as well as PIP. Yes. Over my lifetime in welfare rights, which goes back to 1986, there have been a number of changes. Some of them have come about more promptly. In 1986, they moved from supplementary benefit over to income support. That seemed to—my recollection was that it happened in a far narrower window than the move to universal credit. In fact, universal credit was supposed to be done in this many years ago, but we still know we are near there. The reason is that the more ambitious the change, the more difficult it is to deliver it, because it throws up a whole load of issues along the way. Simple changes bring them out easily. Complex changes are far longer, so they are aspirations for the disability benefits. If we want to have something fundamentally different, then we are talking about it quite some time. If we are looking at tinkering at the edges and trying to remove some of the inequalities that have crept in, that is probably something that could be happening far faster. Richard Brown is looking to bring in Faisal Chowdry, who has indicated that he would like to ask a question as well. I have a question for Judith Brown. We accept no change until after safe and secure. Do you think that the review of adequacy and illegibility needs to wait until after that to or could the Government be starting to review those things now so that the new system could switch on straight after safe and secure transition? Judith Brown. I think that you are quite right. I think that there are things that can be done now. What other witnesses have said, what Richard Brown has said about the scale of change is really important. Scoping out for the review now, what kind of change could be done in the medium term and what kind of change is really very much a long term ambition, because it would take, for example, primary legislation. I think that that groundwork can be done now. There is no reason why not. I think that there are some areas that could be changed more easily, but I think that a word of caution on that as well. I think that it is going to be important to be able to test any changes to eligibility rules to make sure that it is fully understood what the consequences would be for people. Something might look on the face of it, like a very sensible improvement, but there can be unforeseen consequences. It will be easier for the Scottish Government to test that when they have their own live case load of people on benefit so that they can do a behind-the-scenes check on what that would mean if they moved things around. Thank you, Judith. I can see how this is looking to come back in on that point. It has been done in the Scottish system as big changes to process, and those are things that can be changed and reviewed as it goes along. For example, the agency collecting medical evidence or other form of evidence from people. Let's see how that works. If we immediately start to see that it causes a backlog of evidence requests to third sector organisations, for example, those processes can be changed. The processes that are in place for a new need to be very much dynamic and changeable as feedback comes from the system as it works. Jeremy Balfour, please. I want to move on briefly to the issue around terminal illness, which was perhaps the biggest change that we had in the primary legislation. My understanding was that, sadly, there are a number of children who died with terminal illness, and the Government was going to do a kind of deep dive to see how the system works. I wonder if anyone knows how that is working factors. Has it made a difference for children who were introduced first of all? Secondly, in regard to adults, it is the indication that the medical profession, particularly consultants, GP's and nurses, are aware of those changes and signposting patients towards them. Perhaps we should start with Richard for that one, if that is okay. I am not aware of the deep dive that has been done. However, I would like to think that, if there were children who were very seriously terminal ill, the old regulations prior to the introduction of child disability payment would have allowed them to succeed under the terminal illness rules for child DLA. We certainly welcome the expansion of the definition of terminal illness, and what that will do is allow more people in to the benefit. Those who are indeed terminal ill might be a reluctance on a consultant or a specialist to limit that to a six-month frame, but I would hope, as I said, that those who were very seriously ill, the old rules would have been sufficient for them. I have no evidence to back that up. That is more a gut reaction. In relation to confusion with GP's, I am aware that there was a GP practice in Perth who mistakenly believed that, when Perth went live for the pilot of the child disability payment, the terminal illness rules changed for all claimants. I know that that particular practice has been sending in the BASRAS, the benefits assistance under specials in Scotland, forms to DWP in England. I have not heard of anybody not getting their benefits as a consequence, but nor have we had any indication that DWP are seeking to get a DS1500 filled in. However, there is still a scope for confusion. I do not know if anyone else is eager to get a DS1500 if they want to add to that. I welcome the Scottish Government approach to terminal illness. It takes a more compassionate approach, but, as far as I understand, it is a more generous approach by awarding the enhanced rates of mobility component and the daily living component for PIP. Is there any concern that that difference could create confusion? How do we minimise that? Is there any indication that the Westminster Government intends to learn from the Scottish approach to terminal illness policy? Any particular panel member that would be addressed to— Is there anyone? Sorry, convener. If any colleague who is wishing to come in at that stage could type R on the track function, that would be helpful so that we can have an indication of anyone who would wish to respond to that point. I think that we have got in first, but that is fine. As we have discussed, there is potential for confusion, particularly around people who are getting both DWP and Scottish benefits. That has to be monitored and made sure that it is clear understanding with the DWP and their staff about what should be happening. I understand that there is some kind of review happening around terminal illness at UK level, but it is colleagues in London who will be dealing with that, so I can certainly get back to you, Marie, if I find out a bit more from them. As I previously made a point about process, this is a new approach in Scotland to terminal illness. It needs to be collected on the process as it goes along, and it needs to be reviewed to see how well it is working. Are medical professionals able to fill in the two separate forms? I have the two different definitions of terminal illness. I am sure that chief medical officer will be keeping a close eye on how the guidance is being implemented in practice. That is important to make sure that the system works as intended. Richard Gass, please, before I bring Marie back in, if she has another question. Yes, I was going to say that what is required here is an element of dialogue between Social Security Scotland and DWP to ensure that there is wear-potable dovetailing of the systems. Judas alluded earlier that there is a review for the UK Government in terms of how they are going to redefine terminal illness, but regardless of what they do, we could still have two things that are slightly different. For a claimant who has moved over to a Scottish disability benefit, they will not require a DS1500 for the UK disability benefit, because that has changed. However, where there could be overlap would be if they were also claiming universal credit on the grounds of being unfit for work. That is where the dialogue would come in. We need assurances from DWP that they will be content to accept a basis form as evidence of someone's terminal illness in relation to the way that they will process universal credit, and it will not be the case that they will then say that they need to establish if the contents of the basis can be narrowed down to a six-month window. Mark McNeill, do you have a further question before I bring in Miles Briggs? No, that is just me for now, for screen 3. We all welcome the new approach to tackling fast-tracking claims around terminal illness. I wanted to specifically ask that Scoss has recommended that the Scottish Government set out how it will create a sustainable and seamless system for terminally ill people. It is a question for Judith, specifically, on how that work is going and has that been achieved? Judith Paterson, please. Yes, we did make that recommendation. It was about thinking about Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government and DWP departments working together. However, we wanted to know for the Scottish end of that what that would look like. We have made that recommendation. We are still waiting to hear what the Scottish Government responds to that. I am afraid that I do not have anything to add on that. What departments are working together? Any delay in introducing it to the system for terminally ill people has to be avoided at all costs. Everyone knows that. There are obvious sources of confusion that Richard Spott has already identified. Both systems need to learn lessons really quickly and to make improvements to the system really quickly. Thanks, Judith. Miles Briggs. That is helpful. We have heard evidence from a number of organisations that work with people in their families who are being cared for and who have a terminal illness. To what extent do you feel that they have been included in designing the system? For example, Mary Curie, who is on the front line running hospices, for example. Do you have any information about how they have been included? Is that for anyone on the panel? Any colleagues looking to come in on that question from Mr Briggs, looking for an art in the chat box, if that is offered? Thanks, Miles. Have you any further questions, Miles? That is me for now. Are you moving on to your first up on the next theme, if that is possible, Miles, around moving between the LA, PIP and ADP? Happy to. Thank you, convener. Witnesses have spoken about engagement around the Scottish Government and the transfer from PIP in DLA and to ADP. Can I ask the panel what their understanding is of the policy, particularly for those over the pension age? I will bring Richard on that. Richard Gass, please. Yes, thank you. The group that I participate in, which is a regular question that I raise, is about the folk on DLA and what is good to happen to them. We have not had anything concrete. The words that come back are that people are not expecting the current DLA receipt, which is the answer that I like to hear, but I prefer to see that in some sort of policy format or better still in some legislative format. Miles. Is there anyone else who is coming on that point now? One of the concerns that the committee has had put to us is about people moving around the UK and having that seamless system in place for roles that will be different from the different parts of the United Kingdom. I just wondered if members of the panel feel that the systems are adequate enough to capture that so that people do not fall through the net when they are moving around different systems and structures. Again, I will bring Richard on that. If the other panel members have anything that they want to add, they can put an hour in the chat. Thanks, Miles. Richard Gass. Thank you. I cannot say that I know the answer to that one. I know that the ambition is that it would be seamless, but that will rely on engagement with DWP and for folk to need to notify changes of circumstances. Sometimes there is a slowness in that process, so there is so Screw Scotland, there is DWP, there is the climate themselves. Sometimes moves may happen, which are not anticipated to be permanent, but they become permanent. For example, someone comes up to care for another relative who is disabled, but does not expect to stay. If they end up staying, then at what point does someone physically at an address not mean that you have moved? There needs to be a consideration. This is now my new address, but I think that it is a complicated area and I am probably waffling now, so I will just stop. Not at all. Ed Pibus, please. Yes, so I think that it does have to be seamless. I think that I was just trying to check on the rules, but there are rules about if you move from Scotland to the UK what happens to your adult, your Scottish adult disability payment payments. The converse rules for when you move to Scotland and how long your PIP continues before you have to claim will be matter for DWP, but it needs to be seamless. I guess that there are a couple of little technical points. One, for example, it does not seem to be clear what happens if you claim PIP and then move to Scotland, so that is something that could potentially be sorted out. The border thing is that we would like an approach where there is no wrong door, as it is called. However, if anyone in any part applies for a disability benefit, it is between social security Scotland and DWP to work out who should be paying it and what. It should not be the case, but someone gets told, oh, sorry, you should have applied for a benefit in Scotland or you should have applied for a benefit in England or Wales. Some kind of agreement, the departmental level agreement, would be useful around that. I think that it is right to identify the confusion in the future. It is brand new, not had to deal with it before. There are no clear lines for people or for decision makers to follow when people are moving from one part of the country to another. For example, there is no rule that says if you are out of the country for a certain length of time, then after that you will be deemed to have moved to a matter of judgment. Then, of course, there is the extra complexity of a handover of agencies. All of that means that things will go wrong, so it will. I think that the important thing is to be alert to that and make sure that that is not under the radar, so that both agencies are monitoring, seeing where things are going wrong and trying to improve their systems. It is more likely to be a system improvement, rather than a regulation improvement, though, I would say. Thanks, Judith. Before I bring in Emma Roddick, I would like to check with Miles if you have a further question. One of the areas that the committee has received substantial evidence of people receiving PIP with mental health issues. I wonder specifically whether the system has captured that as we look towards moving from PIP to ADP and whether there are any examples of that work being captured. It is a question to put to Judith, as I know that you have been looking at a lot of this specifically. Thank you, Miles, and Judith. You are quite right. People with mental health issues form a very large proportion of people who hear claiming PIP, so it is vital that the system works for them. In a sense, every aspect of the system has to be considered in terms of mental health. It is not just the regulations. One of the things that Scoss did see in the regulations—this is drilling in to a smaller point at the beginning—was about terminology. The regulations were rather ambiguous and unclear about whether they were referring to somebody with a mental health condition, for example a psychiatric condition, or whether it was learning disabilities or a cognitive disorder. We did recommend that there was further consultation to get that terminology right, not just in the regulations, but in how it is communicating with people. The medical professionals who are taken on for decision makers to get specialist advice must have relevant experience, so that is an improvement that people wanted to see. Scoss was pleased about that as well. Other issues to do with suspensions, for example, the committee will know that, during a review of people's entitlement, if people do not respond to requests for information, there is a potential for an award to be suspended. Of course, that very engagement is something that people with mental health might find more difficult. We would be looking to see what safeguarding measures are put in place to ensure that people do not fall out of the system just on the grounds of their disability. Hello everyone. I notice that there are concerns raised around those who are above pension age and how they might be affected in moving to ADP. There is a theme emerging there around different age benefits and the issues that come with transferring. I ask Edd and Judith, do you believe that differently aged disabled people should have different eligibility criteria or different benefits? Should that be something that is looked at at a UK level? We do not have a view on the correct way of doing that, whether it should be a single benefit for all ages or different benefits of different ages. As you have discussed, this is the model that we have, the transfer. We need to make sure that the rules cover all of those possibilities. Most people on PIP will be working age. Most people of pension age will be getting attendance allowance, but we know that, for example, there are some people who are getting DLA who are working age or DLA who are pension age, or there are people who will have PIP and moved to pension age. We need to make sure that the rules around those transfers are absolutely robust. Again, no one falls through the cracks. The majority of people, that will be fine, but there will be quite a huge number of people who do not fit the standard model. We need to make sure that both the regulations support that and the processes support it. It is worth reiterating the point, Judith, that people do not fall through the cracks, but that people are supported. If someone does not respond to a request for information or some information about a transfer, they are supported to do that, as opposed to the claim of just falling away. Judith Paterson, please. Scots has not taken a view on whether there should be a lifelong benefit. I cannot say that neither did we have in scope for scrutiny the case transfer regulations, so we literally have not seen those. We do not know how people over pension age would be transferred on to adult disability payment. Quite right, there are issues as children and young people transfer into adult benefits, and there are differences between working age and pension age benefits. Helpfully, if you are already on benefits before pension age, then you stay on the same benefits, and you are not obliged to make a fresh claim. That is a better feature of the system. Thank you, Judith. In the final section around future proofing, we are looking for Pamdan Cenglancy, followed by Evelyn Tweed. Thank you, convener, and thanks again for all your contributions. It has been really interesting this morning. Given the number of issues that we have discussed and that, hopefully, there is ambition to change a lot about adult disability payments so that disabled people have the support that they need to lead an ordinary life, do the panel 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. Maybe I could pose that to Judith, if that is okay. Scots has begun engagement with Social Security Scotland to begin to understand those issues. I think that it is absolutely right to look at continuous improvement in the statutory role of the charter. One of the first things that we might well look at is the issue of continuous improvement and whether the systems are in place to be able to monitor all the most important things that need to be monitored. I am not sure that I have more to say at this point on that, although there were some areas in terms of process that Scots identified that should be an early focus for those kinds of things. It is critical that it is right to make sure that people get the right decision, that they are right early on and do not have to go to appeal. It is new things to the system, like how applications are made, how people are supported and how supporting information is gathered that we thought should be an early focus for monitoring a continual improvement, because that is critical to people getting money in their pocket at the right time. Thanks very much for that, Judith. Do you have another question there, Pam? Before I bring in Evelyn? Thank you very much, Evelyn. Tweed, please. Thank you for all your information so far. It has been really helpful. To what extent might options for the independent review be constrained because of the way in which devolved and reserved benefits interact? How should that problem be addressed? Could I pose that to Judith, please? One of the main constraints is the issue of passporting. For example, Northern Ireland has its own social security powers, but they have chosen to be complete lock set with the UK. Scotland does not have that lock set process. As soon as the UK diverges and Scotland does not, or as soon as Scotland begins to make changes and the UK does not, a real issue that needs to be resolved. Of course, I understand that the Scottish Government has been discussing with DWP the entire time to make sure that the changes that were proposed would still be regarded as like for like and would not impact on passporting entitlements, but I do not think that anything can be taken for granted for the future. In terms of how that can be resolved, I think that there could be all kinds of options on the table about resolving it. I suppose that the most radical option would be making sure that all the passporting benefits were within the control of the Scottish Government, but we are nowhere near that at the moment, so that is not a medium-term solution. Thanks, Judith Eveline. Do you have a further question? No, that is me for now, convener. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. That is very helpful. I wanted, just before we wrap up, to ask a couple of final questions. First of all, touching on the theme that Eveline just raised around passporting and around interchangeability of the devolved and reserved systems, I note that Scoss highlighted her concern around the UK Government's green paper on health and disability, and that it could have significant implications for the devolved system. Judith, could you please elaborate where your concerns lie in terms of the green paper and the potential white paper coming in early next year? It is obviously at very early stages, so it is hard to talk in specific terms, but the green paper refers to consulting on changing PIP descriptors. Subject to the timing of any changes to descriptors in PIP, there are obvious implications for the Scottish system. The committee has explored today the safe and secure transition and the consequences of making early changes to descriptors. That could happen at the UK level and be taken out of the hands of the Scottish Government, so that is something that needs to be kept under both scrutiny. In the longer term, there are really radical changes suggested, so exploring the scope of combining work-age benefits, such as universal credit, and PIP, into one benefit. That would be combining what is a UK benefit with what is a devolved benefit. It is very hard to see how that could work in Scotland where one benefit is in control of one Government and one in control of another. There have been numerous policy challenges and delivery challenges with all of that, and all of which could raise questions about the passporting arrangements as well. That is a significant restructure in the green paper. Although the green paper says where it refers to PIP, it is not to assume that it would not apply in Scotland. That might be true directly, but there could be all kinds of indirect consequences that would apply in Scotland. Just one other more immediate issue that potentially comes up is combining assessments for out-of-work benefits such as universal credit or ESA and PIP. If a claimant in the rest of the UK is having one assessment for both benefits, what does that mean for the Scottish system? Would someone have to have two assessments, one for their ADP and one for their ESA, or universal credit, or would they be aware of sharing that information? There are easy ways to get around that. There can be solutions and sharing of information, but there needs to be agreements between DWP and PIP Scotland. Judith Paterson, please. Thanks yet. There was just one really significant consequence that I meant to mention, which is the cost implications of divergence as well. The green paper throughout talks about POS, and that is the context for those changes. If there is a reduced cost of delivering PIP in the UK, there could be, through the fiscal framework, less money for the Scottish Government to deliver adult disability payment, so that is a major implication for Scotland. Thank you very much indeed. Conscious as I am of time, my final question is an area that we haven't covered as yet. First of all, for Richard Gass and its around the issue about short-term assistance, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made an assumption, with many caveats, as we said, that around as many as 90 per cent of people in receipt of ADP could be accessing short-term assistance. Is that assuming that the changed assessment process in Scotland will continue to make the same award mistakes as the DWP makes with PIP? Richard, do you share those concerns? It comes from... I can talk about my understanding of the claimant's attitude to benefit. I might break it down into three scenarios here. Someone who is today receiving a benefit and then tomorrow there is an assessment to say that they are no longer entitled to that. Most folk do not like that, so they will appeal that decision if they feel comforted to do so, if they get short-term assistance over the process, good and well. There will then be some people, and I would say very few folk, who are quite content with the decision to reduce their benefit. I do not imagine that there will be too many of them that would then say that they will engage in appeals processes so that I can artificially get some short-term assistance prior to the appeal. I do not think that they are of significance. What is that significance? There will be some people who today get turned down for a benefit but do not have confidence or trust that the process of challenge will achieve anything. They will feel that they are on trial for their disability, and they do not want to engage with that. However, if short-term assistance is available pending the appeal process, that might persuade them that there is value in pursuing an appeal certainly in the short term and perhaps in the longer term. I do not think that encouraging folk to take up their rights is a bad thing, but I cannot comment on where 90 per cent is or if it is realistic. That is what Rachael Y Llywydd covered in nothing to add. Lovely. Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate all of your time this morning to Ed Pibus, Richard Gass and Judith Paterson. Your input has been invaluable as we go through the process of scrutinising the implementation of ADP. I really greatly appreciate it. No doubt that we will be back in touch again, but in the meantime I wish you all a merry Christmas and I would like now to suspend briefly in order to change over our panel of witnesses. Thank you very much indeed for bearing with us while we switch over. I am very pleased for us to be joined now by our second panel of witnesses. Joining us this morning are Craig Smith, Senior Policy and Research Officer for the Scottish Association for Mental Health, Frank McKillock, Head of Policy and Research at Enable Scotland, Keith Park, Policy, Public Affairs and Campaigns Manager at MSSI Scotland, Trisha Hatt, Macmillan Strategic Partnership Manager and Bill Scott, Senior Policy Advisor at Inclusion Scotland. Welcome to your all. Your presence is very grateful for your presence this morning. I turn immediately to questions and the first question this morning is from Jeremy Balfour, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Thank you for coming to join us. I suppose that I would like to open with an open question. Many of you have been on this journey watching these regulations and watching my primary registry going through over the last five years. I suppose that one of the concerns that I have is that we haven't seen enough changes around this, particularly around the available conditions and the higher rate of mobility. I just wonder whether you could comment on—if we could make changes around availability and mobility, what difference would that make to the people that you or she can represent? Maybe we could start with Keith for that one. Keith Park, followed by Bill Scott, please. Keith. Sorry to the committee for inviting us to speak today. We very much welcome the opportunity. When DLA changed to PIP, a third of the people with MS lost out on their enhanced rate of mobility component. That is approximately 3,000 people across the UK lost out on that higher rate of mobility payment, which has a huge impact on people's abilities to live their lives. That has a huge impact, because it affects the availability of mobility vehicles, et cetera. As part of that process, people with MS have had to give up their work and not be able to stay in employment, which, as we all know, is a human right. It affects their position in life, their position in society and how much they are contributing. By maintaining the 20-metre rule, it is having a huge impact on people's lives. How far does 20 metres actually get you? In most cases, it does not allow people to leave their house in their garden. It does not get them to their nearest bus stop. It has a huge impact on people and has a huge detrimental effect on how people are able to live their lives. For people with MS, it has been the biggest aspect of the regulations that they have wanted to change. We have been pushing for that since PIP was proposed by the DWP and Westminster Government, because it is very much the issue that is at the heart of the people with MS and impacts them the most. Thanks, Keith. Bill Scott, please. Yeah, I would just repeat what Keith has said. The evidence from cases across the EU is that when people transfer from DLA to PIP, who are on higher-rate mobility on DLA, approximately 50 per cent of them lose entitlement to the enhanced rate of mobility component of PIP. 50 per cent, half the people who are previously on the higher-rate, have lost it. That has a devastating impact on their lives. As Keith said, it could impact on their ability to be in employment, but it also impacts on the ability to see friends and family, to take part in aspects of community life and to access essential services such as health and education. That should not be underestimated. It increases the isolation that disabled people face and increases it quite massively. Scotland is a much more rural country than England. In the central belt, yes, there are good accessible transport systems in certain cities. Out with the central belt, there are large areas of Scotland that are very rural where there are large distances to access retail, shops and services. If you have not got a car, if you have not got a mobility vehicle and you lose that when you lose your higher-rate mobility, you cannot get there any longer. We have seen that people are really struggling to access hospital services in the high-ons and the borders in Dumfries and Galloway. It is one of the aspects of PIP that we really wanted to see tackled when we had a devolved benefit system. The other thing that I meant to add was the fact that there is no evidence-based to 20 metres being the measurement of what some of the mobility needs are. Indeed, that was acknowledged by the Scottish Government in terms of its consultation on the regulations when it said that changing the 20-metre rule with 50 per cent of isolation could further embed unfairness in the system. If the starting point is acknowledging that that is an unfair measurement of somebody's mobility, to not have changed that and not to have moved on from that does not seem as if it fits with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. In the first panel, the issue came up of those who are present on DLA, and when we transfer across, we will come off DLA and come on to PIP. That may affect not only mobility but those with available conditions, which may mean that they lose the benefit. Do you know from any talking to your members how many people wish would affect and is that a concern that you have? I have one more question after that. I do not know whether Bill Keith has information on that or others. Any colleagues in the virtual room with any information or input that they would like to make regarding that question? Keith Park? We do not have exact figures in terms of how many people that will affect in Scotland. I have just compared to what I said in my previous answer, that a third of people with MS have had that level of support reduced. If one in 10 people with MS move from DLA to PIP, they are lost out completely on mobility. To give an answer for what impact that will have going forward, I cannot answer that, other than to refer to where we are at just now. Across the UK, we estimated that between 2020 and 2022, there would be 611 people with MS that would leave work and employment as a result of those changes. Again, we think that that will be something that will be the same in the mirror that we are moving forward. Bill Scott? The Scottish Government did an estimate of how many people would lose out because of the move from the 50-metre rule to the 20-metre rule. Its estimate was that between 15,000 and 16,000 Scots, disabled people, would lose entitlement to the higher rate, enhanced rate of PIP on transfer from DLA. The same number of people affected overall with the transfer, either between DLA to ADP or from PIP, where they have already lost out to ADP. They are not going to get it back, in other words, at the moment. Approximately between 15,000 and 16,000. People with variable conditions, such as MS, were also energy-limiting impairments, such as ME, who have difficulty walking some days, but no others. People with mental health issues and learning difficulties have all lost out in terms of the higher rate. Because of the descriptors used, it is not just the 50-metre rule. There are issues around the descriptors about being able to make a journey safely that make things more difficult for people with mental health issues in getting the enhancement of mobility on PIP. Just a quick point on the variability. I do not have any numbers about the change from DLA to PIP and how many people have been affected, but I follow on from Bill's point and go back to the 50-metre rule, but not the 50-metre rule, but the 50-metre rule overall for PIP and getting awards against the activities and descriptors. That has been a real challenge for one of our longest running issues with PIP. We recognise why it has been maintained the 50-metre rule. In ADP, we hope to see in the longer term that it is being explored further and hopefully changed. However, that has been really difficult for people with fluctuating conditions, particularly people with mental health problems, who, under the legislation, have to demonstrate that their conditions are impacting them 50 per cent of a month. That can be very difficult if you have bipolar, schizophrenia or any other mental health problem, which might fluctuate rapidly over long periods of time or short periods of real distress, followed by long periods of stability. People can fall out of the system due to that, both in terms of the daily living component, but particularly the mobility component, too. We have some on-going concerns around the mobility descriptors, and it is very difficult if you have a mental health problem to get points under the mobility activities and descriptors under PIP. We recognise the rationale for broadening the current PIP descriptors under ADP. It is a real challenge going forward. We hope to see in the process issues around how consultations are carried out and the burden of proof against descriptors may improve that situation, but we really need to see in the longer term fundamental changes to the structure of the benefits that are included in the descriptors and the 50 per cent rule, which makes it very difficult for people with fluctuating conditions to be confident that they will get the support that they deserve under the system. In your opinion, do you think that it is possible that we could transfer safely and make changes at the same time? If that is not possible, do you think that it is possible to make any changes that will come forward out of the independent review with a mis-parlament, or are we realistically looking to the next parlament? I might be still with beer on that one. I think that it could be difficult to make the changes after the independent review in the lifetime of this parlament, simply because it will have to be consulted on, the regulations will then have to be redrafted, go through the consultation process with scores and then come back to Parliament to be voted on, and then it will have to be implemented by the new agency and your guidance will have to be drawn up, etc. That is all quite a lentry process. As we have already seen in arriving at where we are today, it has taken, essentially, five years since the legislation was devolved to Scotland to get to the stage where we are considering the regulations for the new benefit. New systems had to be established, staff had to be recruited, new computer systems had to be set up. I am not having a goal at the lentry time that it has taken, but it has to be acknowledged that those things do not happen overnight. That is a real worry, because I think that when we first consulted with disabled people back in 2016 and 2017 on the devolved benefits, the emphasis was on a safe and secure transfer, but I think that if we had known how long it was going to take to look at the entitlement criteria, I am not so sure that our members would have been so supportive of that, sorry for taking up a wee bit time. Thanks Bill, I will take Frank McKillop, followed by Chris Smith and Keith Park. Thanks, convener. From our view to Nable Scotland, I thank you again for inviting us to give evidence today. We feel that there are some minor tweaks that can be made to the eligibility criteria, and I think that the view in that is widening access to it. I understand the point that the cabinet secretary made in the letter last month to Pamdank and Glancy that the objective behind safe and secure transfers is to ensure effectively no detriments to claimants. Our view is that if you are implementing minor tweaks that would potentially broaden access to those benefits and ensure that no one is unfairly denied a benefit that is reflective of their circumstances, there should be no detriments to anyone who is currently accessing that benefit. That sort of minor adjustment at this time, we feel, is possible within the safe and secure transfer. I agree with Bill's point that the prospect that if we do not make changes now when we are undertaking this fairly substantial process, there might be a long time before we are able to make those changes, so I think that there are some immediate positive changes that could be implemented quickly. In our view, that can be done within the principle of safe and secure transfer and would not put anyone's benefit entitlements at risk. I absolutely agree with the last comments from Bill and Frank. I think that our big concern about future changes and the speed of those changes in large part comes down to the issue of passporting. We, as an organisation, agreed with the Scottish Government's rationale around safe and secure transfer for the reasons that it set out about not wanting to create a two-tier system at the start of the process and to ensure that passported benefits were protected. That can have a huge policy constraint going forward if the issue of passporting is not sorted out, so there needs to be, however, through the independent review and through agreements between both Governments, real clarity about what is the scope for future change, because the issue of passcoting and the like-for-like benefit is not going to change at any point in the process irrespective of case transfer. If that issue is still going to be there, there needs to be an agreement that ADP is equivalent to PIP or any replacement benefit down south after the green paper, that issue needs to be really bottomed out to get into scope what is at play in terms of what are the changes that could be made while still protecting passported benefits. We obviously do not want to see anyone lose passported benefits and lose financial support, which is absolutely key to people's lives and independent living, but we need to get to a point where we can see what is the scope of changes that can happen, because having an indefinent restraint on policy in Scotland due to the passporting issue is not really acceptable in the long term and needs to be clarity between both Governments about that, so that we can in the longer term consider fundamental changes to ADP, such as a move away from a points-based system or a move away from the 50 per cent rule. However, if the issue of passport and benefit is always going to be there in terms of needing a light-for-light benefit, that is a real restraint indefinitely, so we need to see some clarity on that. I agree with everything that has been said so far. The concern is about passported benefits in that two-tier system, no matter when the review takes place and when the changes are proposed, we will be in the same position. The DWP will have their eligibility criteria still in place for PIP, and that may have changed in the meantime from where we are at just now in terms of the ADP regulations, so we are just pushing the can down the road, so to speak, into laying and having those conversations in terms of making those changes. If you look at the timescale from when the consultation opened to where we are at now, that is a full year that has taken place around the regulations for ADP to be rolled out. The independent review will be gathering data and information to do that effectively. That is going to take an awful long time and potentially up to a year. If that starts in 2023, the summer of 2023, you are talking two years, so I do not think that we will be in a position to be able to roll that out in terms of this parliamentary question. Are we able to make some of those changes now? We believe so. The policy will be there. There is a broad consensus across the chamber at Holyrood that the 20m rule, for example, on the eligibility criteria around that, is not fair, and it is something that we should be looking at. If the issue is a technical one, I think that it is something that the two Governments and the Scottish Government Social Security Scotland and the DWP can discuss and come to an agreement to ensure that those agreements are in place and we can move forward. Without having those conversations and without having that agreement in place, we are going to be in a very similar position come whenever the review publishes that advice and recommendations and then try to implement those changes. Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Thank you, convener. I was just going to the camera and came on there. Thank you very much and thanks again to the panel for your evidence. It is incredibly powerful to hear the impact of some of the eligibility criteria that still exist in disability benefits on the people that you represent. I have to say that, picking up on Bill's point about safety and security, as someone who is declaring an interest here, who gets personal independence payment, I too would of course be really concerned if I thought that, for one minute in the process of transferring from one Government agency to another, the benefits stopped and I lost my mobility vehicle, for example. It is no wonder that disabled people have said safely and securely that transferring is important, but I must admit that I also think that if they were told that it was going to come at the cost of possibly 10 years before there would be any fundamental change to the benefit, I agree that I do not think that they would have put that first. I will move to my question. One of the things that is really important is that the First Minister put the impact of the PIP criteria very well when she said that people who get enhanced mobility support could lose up to £3,000 a year. It is important, though that 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 independence. I wholeheartedly agree with her that that is why I think that we need to move on this. My question to the panel, and probably specifically to Keith, Bill and Craig, is that, in the coming weeks, months and years, can you set out a rough figure of the number of people who are going to be left without their independence as a result of the continuing criteria the way it is? Do you think that there is any reason why the Scottish Government could not start to review eligibility and advocacy now so that, when safe and secure are finished in 2023, if it indeed does, we can switch on the new system that day almost? Mark, please, I think that you were mentioned first. I was just waiting for my microphone to come on, convener. As I said to one of my earlier answers, we believe that 611 people across the UK will leave employment as a result of losing their mobility component and their enhanced mobility component. Roughly that would be around about 70 people in Scotland if you calculate what the MS population is in Scotland. We hear that regularly from people who would be speaking to through the consultation process the fact that they are now having to claim additional benefits as a result of losing their mobility vehicle. They have had to give up their work, as I have said, but they are almost becoming a recluse, as Bill said earlier. Social isolation is a huge issue for people with MS generally, and that is something that we are perpetuating, to some extent, by continuing with a measure that says that if you cannot walk 20m, you do not deserve to have that enhanced rate of mobility and allow you to have that mobility vehicle. I agree that if we are not willing to change the eligibility criteria now, then that work should start. In terms of our position as an organisation, we very much are pushing for a return to the 50m. Being the measurement that is used, again, this is an arbitrary measure and it is not ideal because, ultimately, if you can walk 51m, what difference is that to walking 49m is not that far. We need to have a whole-scale review of eligibility criteria that measures mobility holistically and does not rely on an arbitrary figure that looks at somebody's ability to walk on a flat level surface. I do not know what the panel's experience is, but there are very few roads around where I live that are flat and level, which means that it puts more pressure on people who have balance issues, who have issues with fatigue and concentration as a result of their fatigue. We really have to look at mobility criteria in the whole and assess how that can be measured holistically. To do that, we need to make sure that we have policy involvement with that. We will get healthcare professionals involved in that process, but it is most important that we are actually involving people with disabilities and conditions such as MS and others to make sure that we are measuring mobility effectively. I will bring in Bill Crieg, which is mentioned by Pam. I am conscious of the fact that we have not heard from Fisha Hatt yet, and if she has anything to add, I will be happy to bring her in after that. Bill, please. Obviously, I agree with the other thing that Keith has just said. Just to go back to one of the issues, it is related. It is on passporting. A lot of the passported benefits that you get access to are reserved. In the case of the mobility component, most of the passported benefits are devolved. For example, automatic entitlement to the blue badge scheme and the motability. Motability is self-financing. As soon as somebody is on the higher rate or enhanced rate of the mobility component, they can afford a motability vehicle and the leasing pays for itself. In fact, motability comes out several hundred million pounds a year in profit, which is then donated back to the motability category. I do not think that there are big barriers over the 50m and 20m role, as there might be, unfortunately, around the 50 per cent role. I think that there could be more done in the nearer future. I think that the biggest barrier to it is cost. I think that that came through in the Scottish Government's policy paper on this, that there are costs associated with that. It was mentioned in the last session that the UK Government wanted to save 20 per cent of the DLA bill, and, partially, it was going to achieve that through the change to the 50m role and bringing it down to 20m. In fact, it has only made 5 per cent of savings, but virtually all those savings have come from people losing the higher rate of motability when moving from DLA to PIP. There are cost implications, and those should be considered how we are going to fund that in the future. However, as I said, I do not think that there is a big barrier in terms of passporting. Thanks, Bill. Craig Smith, followed by Tricia Hatt, please. I think that Hangel's point about when we should start looking at changes. I think that I should start immediately. Obviously, we have the commitment to the independent review, which is absolutely key. We want to see that being truly independent and being led by people with disability and lived experience of the social security system. However, I do not think that that should be a barrier for the Government and wider stakeholders in looking at changes to the eligibility criteria. We know what the key issues are. It has been brought up numerous times from across the disability sector since the journey of devolution of Social Security Scotland happened—things like the 50 per cent rule, things like the descriptors. We know what the key issues are, and there should be an on-going evaluation of them and a way to change that, which can feed into the independent review, but should not necessarily have to wait until the independent review gets its work under way. We believe that there should be minor changes. To the eligibility criteria in the daily living, under some of the descriptors, we would like more explicit reference to psychological distress—for example, under preparing food and taking nutrition—to highlight the experiences of people with eating disorders and the psychological distress associated with preparing food, which is not easily captured under the current descriptors. There are fairly minor changes, which we argue could happen now. There may be a counterargument that that may again be a change too far in terms of a like-for-like benefit. We would argue that minor changes to descriptors would not fall under that. Back to the timing point. Work needs to begin now, before the independent review, on references for that. On-going work from the Scottish Government, the Social Security Agency, the Commission and the wider sector, because, as I said, we know what key concerns are and key structural concerns are with the benefits such as the 50 per cent rule and the descriptors and point-based system. Thanks, Craig. Tricia Hatt, please. Followed by Pam Duncan-Blancy for a follow-up. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, convener, for bringing me in. I would agree with everything so far that the panel has said. I think from a cancer population supporting people with a cancer diagnosis, often they have not accessed any benefits, they may have been working. I think that it's really important that we make sure that this new system is done in a timely manner, that, again, the review is undertaken as a quarterly review and the Government is able to review it. Again, just look at the targets that are being hit for people. Are they being hit? Are people getting access to it? All that information from people themselves? How was the system for them? Could they access it? We've got a long history of supporting people with benefits claims, particularly now through the improving cancer journey. Those link workers, the support staff and benefits advisers are very skilled at supporting people to get access, so we need not for that to change in any way. Thanks, Tricia. I'm very conscious of time. We've got probably just under half an hour left and quite a few colleagues to get through. If we could be quick with questions and answers and if colleagues on the panel have anything to add, it would be helpful if they could come in, please, rather than reiterations. Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Thank you. I just finally wanted to pick up on the point in Sammy H's submission around the fact that there was an intention for people who were on PIP if they were being reviewed during this period to be reviewed in the ADP system and that that has been delayed, as we know. Can you talk a little bit about the impact that has had on the people you represent? Bill, if you have any further evidence on that particular issue, it would be really helpful to hear. Bill Scott. I have no evidence on that, unfortunately. We've had limited contact with disabled people, unfortunately, all online, since the pandemic started. We've not asked them that particular question, but I'm sure that there are people out there and I'm sure that other people can answer the question better. I can see Craig Smith who is looking to come in there. Yeah, so, Pam, as you correctly said, we mentioned this in our submission to the committee. Our concern was around that delay to the implementation of ADP, which we absolutely understand and we accept that the pandemic happened and is happening as we're all sitting in our rooms at the moment. That delay to the implementation made sense. Our concern was for that cohort of people who would have transferred this year in 2021. We know that the very welcome commitment was people transferring when their PIP claims came up for review. We then transferred to ADP without having to make an application without being assessed, which we very much welcomed. Our concern was for that cohort for this year, whose claims came up for review in PIP. We'll now have to go through a PIP reassessment, possibly a face-to-face assessment and possibly a long wait depending on how long the reward is before their case transferred to ADP once ADP comes online next year. That's a really big impact for people with mental health problems because we know the distress caused by, for example, the face-to-face assessment for PIP and the real stigmatising issues that come up in that and the general real distress and impact on people's mental health about going through that process. We highlighted that with the Government when the delay was announced, again reiterating that we understood about the delay and called for a rapid case transfer for people who went through the PIP system this year who were promised that they would be in ADP and through no fourth of their own with the pandemic that's been delayed. We definitely would like to see the Government looking at that when they come to case transfer around people who were awarded PIP this year, once the award came up for review, but also people who lost out on a PIP claim this year after they were not lost in the system. We think that there should be some really proactive engagement with the Scottish Government with the third sector and with awareness campaigns around people's right to apply for ADP, even if they have made past applications that maybe they didn't get an award for PIP possibly this year or previously when ADP does come online next year, so that cohort who would have avoided a face-to-face assessment under if the timescale was kept to this year, who may have faced that through PIP this year just because of the delay. We would like to see some proactive work from the Government just to identify that group of people, which we think are quite significant for group of people, and invite them to transfer to ADP as soon as possible. Mary McNair, please, followed by Faisal Chowdry. Thank you, convener, and good morning, panel. To aid our understanding of the 20-metre rule, the same question that I asked to our first panel was introduced by the Atelier Government at Westminster. What was the rationale for introducing it? Was it an any assessment of its impact? Is there any suggestion that will move away from it, given the condemnation of the policy? I will put that to Bill and Keith. Bill, you have spoken about that already, but if you could expand a bit more, that would be really helpful. Bill, please. At the time that the welfare reforms were being introduced, it was identified by the then UK Government that the cost of disability benefits were rising. In particular, people were gaining access to the mobility component of the DLA and carrying it into their pension years. That is possible. If you apply to PIP, DLA or ADP and you are entitled to higher-rate mobility, you carry that through into your retirement years. The intention was not just to reduce the spend on working-age disability benefits, but also on disability benefits in retirement. You can make long-term savings that way, because you could be affecting somebody's entitlement to a mobility vehicle for 30 or 40 years quite easily by removing that entitlement by reducing the length of the test, whether you can walk 50 metres down to 20 metres. At the time, every disability organisation in the UK opposed the move and said that it would result in unfairness. The UK Government, in its response to the consultation on the change, stated that it was going to go ahead with that because it knew that it would result in benefit savings. There is only one reason for it, and that is because it would reduce the number of people who were entitled, and reduce their entitlement not only during the working-age part of their lives but also into their retirement. It has a long-term impact on, as I say, £3,000 a year but also on people's ability to get about for the rest of their lives. I am conscious with two UK-wide organisations present, Keith and Trisha. Have you any view as to whether the UK Government has any intention to review the 20-metre rule? Clearly, that would answer some of the problems that have been requested here in terms of the concerns on passporting and the concerns around the move for those from DLA that are currently on DLA moving to ADP. I hope that my other colleagues in other countries would listen. We are very much in contact with them, particularly after the review and discussion today. I will update them. I hope that there would be some sort of influence that we could bring about to my colleagues down in England and Wales. I would hope so. Similar to Trisha, it is UK colleagues who have been working and leading on that. Obviously, the green paper and the white paper have been published, and I do not know the ends and outs of that. I am afraid, so I cannot say for certain if it is something that has been considered. I do not believe that it is, but I cannot say that with any certainty. Again, similar to Trisha, we are working very closely with our colleagues to highlight the benefits that should be come through in terms of where we are at now with ADP but also pushing to come back on where we should go in the future. I can make sure that our colleagues from London pass on information and we can share that with the committee afterwards. I would also like to say that I completely agree with everything that Bill had said around the reason behind changing the distance from 50m to 20m. One of the things that we have been pushing on at UK level throughout the time of 2013 is asking the UK Government to provide evidence as to why it has used that measure, and there is no evidence based to it. As I said, there is no basis that I would highlight that someone who can walk 21m has more need or less need for mobility support than someone who can walk 19m. It is not based on any evidence, and therefore it is very much an unfair criteria to measure somebody's ability to mobilise. Thank you very much indeed. Keith-Marie, do you have a further question? Yes, I have. Before I bring in Fausal. Do you want to encourage claims for ADP? Although it is early days, are the panel aware of any lessons that we can learn from the initial implementation of the child disability payment? I will pop that to Frank. Frank McKillop, please. It is certainly a big advantage that the child disability payment has been the publicity campaign, which originates with Social Security Scotland and through organisations such as our own and other charities that support families with children. Raising that awareness is sometimes an advantage to the fact that it is something different, in particular related to negative experiences that families have had in the past, in terms of applying for benefits. There is certainly an opportunity there in broadening applications and perhaps building on perhaps poor experiences that people have had, where they have had bad experiences at assessment for PIP, and perhaps feeling that they were unfairly denied access to a benefit that they should have been entitled to. That is probably a major lesson that can be learned there to ensure that we are activating and supporting the third sector to reach out to people that they support and people that they work with to ensure that people who should be entitled to those benefits are able to come forward and encouraged to come forward and supported and given access to advocacy that they might require, they need to come forward. That is a critical part of it, that we are supporting the sector to support people who need those benefits and will be able to access them. I have a final question for Marie before I bring in Foisal and the Nemerodic. Thank you. Does the panel welcome the approach to encouraging and supporting the submission of further evidence given the DWP's experience? What more can be done to get the message out that a different approach will be taken around evidence gathering? I will just pop that to whoever can answer it. I welcome the different approach in Scotland to evidence gathering for ADP compared to PIP and the reserve benefits. The onus being on the agency to collect one formal piece of evidence and that to be on the balance of probabilities and not have to prove every little bit of criteria is a very positive development. It goes back to the past point about engagement with the third sector to ensure that there is awareness of that and to ensure that people know that the processes around ADP are going to be different from PIP. That is a very positive process change around the responsibility for evidence gathering and that being much more upon the agency rather than the individual and also the role of evidence from families and carers having equal value. I think that there is really important work. I think that the agency is doing a really good job about engaging with the sector around these changes and making that more public awareness. That will be an on-going process as ADP is introduced and is going to be really key in that public awareness. I think that the third sector and others working with people with disabilities have a really key partnership role in that and ensuring that people know that the processes around evidence gathering, for example, but particularly around assessments, will be very different under ADP and that it is about how we can share that information and build people's confidence to engage with the system. Thank you very much. Keith Park, followed by Bill Scott. I agree with most of what Craig said. It is definitely something that we welcome in the fact that there is only one piece of evidence and that onus is on Social Security Scotland to gather that. One of the issues that we have been aware of across the MS community before when it has been the person with MS is trying to gather that information, is that they want that information to come from the neurologist or MS nurse, and they are adding to their workload incredibly so. MS nurses report that they are getting so much contact from people around benefits, applications and support for that, so anything that has improved that system has to be welcomed from their perspective. Again, as Craig said, the fact that somebody's carer family member can provide that support to demonstrate that the impact that the condition has on them on a day-to-day basis, that a professional would not necessarily be able to tease out, has to be a positive thing. Thank you, Keith. Bill Scott, briefly, before I take in Fosal Childry. Yes, very briefly. I think that one of the best ways of encouraging take-up and letting people know that the system has changed is word by mouth. Some of the early reports that we've been having from some of the pilot areas where the child disability payment has been rolled out is that the local office staff of the Scottish Social Security Agency have been leaning over backwards to help families to access child disability payment. That gets around the disability community like nothing else because people are active on social media and talk to one another. I think that it definitely indicates a very different approach to what people have experienced with the DWP. I hope that the good news continues in that sense and that people continue to have good experiences because that will sell and get people to claim the benefits that they are entitled to. Thanks, Bill. Fosal Childry, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I've just had a small question. Have you had any communication from the Scottish Government on process to make amendments? Does the panel accept that Scottish Government's argument that change to illegibility should be left to the independent review? Anyone in particular for that, Fosal? No, I'll leave it to the panel. Whoever wants to answer that. Looking for an R in the chat box from anyone in particular that would like to come in briefly to respond to that. Keith Park, please. Thanks to the first part, we've not had any conversations or discussions with the Scottish Government around amendments. However, as it's been discussed in both panels so far this morning, we believe that some minor tweaks around the eligibility criteria could be made now. The issue around passporting benefits, especially when the meter rule is concerned, we don't believe that anybody who is on the enhanced rate of mobility will qualify for further passported benefits when compared with somebody who is on the standard rate of mobility. As Bill mentioned earlier, a lot of what people are passported to are devolved benefits that will be part of the ADP system through the mobility component or through the blue badge system. We have a petition that is currently in front of the Citizens' Participation and Petitions Committee and, as part of that process, they have written to both the DWP and the Scottish Government asking for specific examples of where the enhanced rate of mobility would passport further benefits, and neither organisation has taken that opportunity to give examples of where that would have an impact. We would definitely believe that some minor tweaks around the eligibility criteria could take place just now. One of the positives was about the Scottish Government making amendments to who can sign the form for end-of-life care benefits. Initially, it was clinicians, but that has now been extended to registered nurses, so that has been a very positive support. I think that our concern, which I alluded to earlier, would be that, if the opportunity is not taken to make, as Keith had outlined, minor tweaks to the regulations and to the eligibility criteria, if we don't take that opportunity now, we could have a situation that, for several years, the majority of Parliament, although the wider population and the wider sector feel unfair, will remain in place and will continue to be to the detriment of people with disabilities who are applying for those benefits. That would not be an outcome that would be in anyone's interests, so I feel that there is an opportunity to make sure that we have the eligibility criteria right. There may not be the fear in terms of the safe and secure transfer process that we can do anything revolutionary at this point, but there are those tweaks that can be made, otherwise we will have that very undesirable situation where criteria that there is broad agreement are unfair are continuing to disadvantage disabled people for some years into the future, despite what should have been the advantages of devolving this benefit. Thank you, Brian. Keith Hill, briefly. Keith Hill, just to say, including Scotland, you are involved in the number of stakeholder groups which are in regular discussion with the Scottish Government around changes. It has been a far easier argument to have them around process than it has about change in eligibility criteria, and largely for the reasons that the Scottish Government has set out in its policy memorandum accompanying the draft regulations. They have been concentrating on safe and secure transfer, but we, like the other organisations around this table, believe that some changes could be made in the here and now and should be made in the here and now, because they are disadvantaged disabled people to such a great extent that they result in unfairness and should be addressed. Thank you very much indeed, Bill. Emma Roddick, please, followed by Miles Briggs. Thank you. This question is for Craig. I noticed that the SAMH response says that the assessment issues are the most significant problem for mental health patients applying for PIP. Would you agree that the changes that have been made in assessment amount to a massive change in the experience of disabled claimants with a mental health issue even before eligibility is considered? Yes, that would be a short answer to that. I do not know if there are massive changes, but we are confident that there will be significant positive changes arising from how eligibility is going to be assessed and the move away from a default face-to-face assessment position with functional assessments and informal observations under PIP to what seems to be a much more positive system under ADP. We welcome the move away from face-to-face assessments and we have been involved in discussions through membership of disability and expert advisory group as well as research assessments directly with the Scottish Government on how the consultations under ADP will work. There seems to be a broad move away from face-to-face towards phone consultations, not assessments, if required and a more paper-based determination of eligibility, which we think is very welcome, particularly some small—not small, actually—important issues for people. Things like the move away from informal observations is key or if an assessor makes an informal observation, under ADP they will need to disclose that to the person that they are speaking to in the consultation and allow that person to respond. We know that that has been a real issue for people with mental health problems where they have experienced under PIP having their appearance judged, their manner of speech judged as not being what someone would expect from a mental health problem to look like or sound like, and that has been really distressing and hugely stigmatising. We hope that the move away from a reliance on things like informal observations will be really helpful. The move away just from an assessment process to a consultation process where it is more about a bespoke gathering of evidence where there is gaps in someone's application rather than the implementation of functional assessments and standard questions. Particularly, we are really happy with the suitably qualified assessor criteria from the original Social Security Act and how that is being applied in ADP, where someone who is carrying out a consultation will need to have experience of directly working with people with mental health problems where the applicant has a mental health problem. We think that that will make a really big change. Obviously, this is taking on faith at the moment, so we are really positive about it. We will need to see how it works in practice, and that will be a role for independent review and on-going equality assurance and on-going improvements to the system that it has always taken under review, and how consultations work in practice that we gather really good evidence around that, particularly people's experience of that and clients' experience of that, so that we can make further tweaks if necessary. However, to cut a long answer short, we hope that the change from assessments to consultations is a really positive, probably the most positive step in the changes from PIP to ADP. Thanks, Emma Roddick. Thank you for that answer. I am going to come back to you again. Sorry. I notice in the submission that the retention of a points-based system is raised as something for the independent review to consider. Would you expect that to agree that a points-based system for determining need is appropriate? If not, what would you propose instead? Difficult question to answer. We have long-standing concerns with a point-based system that lacks a holistic approach to determining the impact of someone's disability or mental health problem on their daily living and mobility. I do not have a wonderful answer about what you would replace it with, but we would like to make learning back from disability living allowance and different models of assessing the impact that someone's disability has or the impact that society has on disabled people, because we might need to be taking a much more social model to disability when we are looking at how we are assessing the impact of disability. I do not have a perfect answer. I would like to see full consideration in the independent review of alternatives to a point-based system, because it is very limiting at the moment and does not have that holistic approach that we would like to see going forward. I do not have a great answer on me, but it should be a key focus for the independent review to look at a wide-way alternative to how we determine eligibility for disability benefits. Miles Briggs, and we can hopefully bring Bill Scott in as part of that answer. Thank you, convener. I knew it tight for time. Good morning to the panel. I wanted to ask a question with regard to the independent review and what witnesses' expectations are around the review, both in terms of scope, remit and working practices, and when would you expect that work to be completed in a timely fashion? Maybe bring Bill in to start. As I indicated earlier, I would like to review if it is to properly take evidence from those who use the system, as well as evidence from those who are involved in assisting those who use the system—welfare rights workers, advocacy organisations, et cetera. I would expect it to last around a year to do its job properly. I think that that is an issue. On the assessments one route, to go back to an issue that was raised, I think that it is quite important. I think that there have been really positive changes in the assessment system, as people have pointed out, proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but I do think that it is still an ongoing concern that a care assistant with two years' experience, maybe of working with older people with dementia, will still be able to make an assessment to somebody with a mental health issue, even though their level of qualification is an SQA too. Whereas the complaints around the PIP system are that consultants have been overruled in their assessment to somebody's mental health by a midwife, et cetera. There will still be that contradiction at the heart of things that somebody with relatively limited experience and quite low qualification level could overrule somebody who has spent their life and has risen in the profession through their ability to diagnose a mental health condition and is still overruled. On the points-based system, I think that it could be improved. There is certainly not necessarily a logic to how the numbering points are awarded for certain criteria and not others. Maybe an improved point-based system could be developed. Thanks, Bill. Briefly, Keith Park, before I bring Miles back in. I again agree with everything that Bill said, especially around the qualifications aspect for people who are undertaking the consultations. One of the things that we regularly hear from people living with MS is that their GP does not really understand the condition in all the symptoms that come with it because they do not have a huge amount of experience of working with people with MS. For somebody with two years' experience of social care, the chances that they have come across somebody with a complex condition, such as MS or any with invisible symptoms, is unlikely. I think that, in terms of the length of time for the review, a year is probably appropriate in terms of the information and the scope of the review. To do it properly, it might take longer than that to make sure that we gather as much information about the system as we possibly can. Again, looking at the assessment, we agree that there have been positive changes to the assessment process and, as part of the consultation, those were brought in in terms of how the assessment process has been carried out to ensure that people who have been impacted by a 20m rule and other such rules have more chance of getting the higher rate and the enhanced rate of mobility. We need to be able to gather the data to find out if that is the case. If you ask the question in a different way, you will still get the same answer, because the question has not changed. Thanks, Keith Milesbrods. Thanks, convener. That is helpful. I will bring in Trisha and Craig, but I also wanted to ask this point, referring back to the first panel that we had with regard to terminal illness. How does the panel believe that there is scope around recruitment for qualified people to support people with the application process? Specifically, organisations such as yourself at Macmillan Cancer and Trisha, how can they be included in that process? I will bring you in, Trisha, and then Craig. Thanks, Miles. The experience that we have supporting people with our palliative endolive care diagnosis, I think absolutely that the staff need to be supported with training and looking at the staff that we support through the benefits advisers, the improving cancer journey. The support through training really helps them to understand the sensitivity, particularly from an end-of-life care physician. For people now, just because of the new terminal illness criteria, that is going to be really important. If Macmillan can support anything there, I am very happy to do so. We have lots of experience in doing that and supporting people. For the staff, as daunting as it will be there, with only two years of experience in social care, they need to have the basis that is around being able to have conversations. Nurses are trained long in communication skills and look at anticipatory care planning. Social Security Agency staff and GWP need to also have that support to be able to have difficult conversations with people. Thanks, Trisha. Conscious of time. Brief submissions from Craig and Frank, please. It is really brief for me in terms of the recruitment aspect. I suppose I do not have a very good answer about how challenging that will be. I have not seen any scoping from the Scottish Government or agency about, for example, how the numbers of people to carry out consultations and the impact that we will have considering the current social care and health workforce. I reiterate that it is really key that people with the right experience and qualifications are recruited into that role. That goes back to Bill's point, which I would agree with. While there are very welcome legislative changes around that, we need to make sure that we are recruiting the right people to that. Training is there for them. That is a big role for the third sector to support the Scottish Social Security Agency around training people who are carrying out consultations and local staff who are supporting people to apply. From our perspective, people who have experience in social care and supporting people who are learning disability are part of the assessment process. That is something that we regard as a positive. Completely take the concerns about ensuring that people are properly trained and understand that. A lot of the concern probably comes from the bad experience with PIP assessments. We tend to take a more positive view that someone who has experience of supporting someone who has the conditions or the symptoms that are presented will make a fairer assessment than has perhaps been the experience with the consultants that the contracts have gone to for PIP assessments. Take on board the concerns about ensuring that people are properly trained and qualified, but we would consider that to be more positive that people have experience of supporting the people that they are seeing. The seldom heard programme for end-of-life care has just been published a few weeks ago. That clearly demonstrates the strong support from third sector organisations in supporting staff in training. Those staff are skilled, but they need to have intense support through training, education and on-going. Not just as a one-off, it has to be on-going. Thank you very much. It is just one final, very brief question for me, and it is done only to Keith Park, please. That is to ask on issues such as eligibility such as the 20 metre rule. Do you believe that that will require reassessment on transfer? Could you give a reason for your thoughts on that, please? Keith. It is one of the issues that we acknowledge in terms of how people go across. Because there is going to be a rolled transfer across, I think that that is something that would need to be addressed. I agree that it will develop a two-tier system, potentially that people who come across have that assessment or have their position undertaken and reviewed similar to having a light touch review, whether they are able, how far they are able to walk. However, I think that it is one of the issues that we have an opportunity here to get a world-leading, rights-based social security system that supports people with disability to live independently. There may be some tiering issues around transfer because of that, but I do not think that that is something that we should be beholden to. I think that we need to take the opportunity to get that right at the first opportunity, because as I have said throughout the discussions this morning, come 2023, when the review takes place, we are going to be in a very similar position in that the DWP will have criteria and there will be passported benefits issues around that. We are not actually going to be in a better position to review the eligibility criteria at that stage, so I think that the same issue will be a case then. Yes, I think that there may be some issues around how that works out in terms of reassessment, but make sure that people get the support that they need as quickly as possible. I think that it is important that we do it now. I thank you very much indeed, and I can see that the bill is concurrent with that. I really want to thank you all, Craig Smith, Frank McKillop, Keith Park, Trisha Hatt and Bill Scott for your time this morning. Really insightful evidence, really helpful to the work that we are doing around ADP. I want to thank you for your time. That concludes the public part of this morning's meeting. Next week, the committee will take evidence on the budget. I suspend this meeting now and move to private session. In the meantime, I wish you all a very merry Christmas. I invite members to join the private session via the link provided.