 Mae'r ddaodd wedi cyd-facol. Mae'r ddaodd, ben Macpherson, yn gwychio, a'r ddoddau cairbylliant sydd o'r lliw methu hefyd. Mewn cyd-facol yn ddaodd. Mae'n mynd i gyd ddaodd ar gyfer blaen ac yn ddig ה�wyddiad. Mae'n mynd i gyd iddyn nhw y wedi teimlo. Mae'r ddaodd y ddydig yn gwychio'r ddoddau cairbylliant Social Security special rules for end of life bill. I appreciate that this debate was scheduled at short notice. That was due to the UK legislation being progressed rapidly. Given the extent to which the UK bill has been expedited and the upcoming parliamentary recess for our parliament, a legislative consent motion is needed to ensure that we align with the UK Government's approach. That is expected under the terms of the Scottish Government's agency agreements with the Department for Work and Pensions. The UK Government's bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 11 May and serves to change the UK Government's current definition of terminal illness for the purposes of disability benefits administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. In the DWP system, currently those who are estimated to have six months or fewer to live due to terminal illness can have their disability benefit applications fast tracked so that they can start receiving their payments more quickly. The UK Government bill will expand their definition of terminal ill to those who have fewer than 12 months to live rather than six months. The UK Government expects that change to result in a widening of fast tracked access to disability benefits for terminal ill people. Disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance are all affected by the UK Government bill. Provision relating to disability benefits falls within devolved competence by virtue of the Scotland Act 2016 and the amendments that the 2016 act made to the devolution settlement. Therefore, the UK Government bill in question today relates to devolved matters, triggering the requirement for an LCM. Until we fully implement our Scottish replacements, disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance are being delivered by DWP on behalf of Scottish ministers under an agency agreement. Therefore, a requirement for those benefits to be administered consistently across the UK until case transfer completes and our agency agreements with DWP cease. Of course, adult disability payment, which replaces disability living allowance and personal independence payment in Scotland, is being rolled out in stages and is currently available in six local authority areas. Another seven areas will be added in July for new applications ahead of full national introduction at the end of August and the on-going case transfer process. At the point of full roll-out on 29 August, when adult disability payment is available nationally—this is an important point—anyone in Scotland who becomes terminally ill while in receipt of PIP or DLA will have their entitlement automatically transferred to Social Security Scotland and will benefit from the Scottish definition of terminal illness, which I will come on to shortly. Going back to the UK Government bill, this will likely have limited impact on those currently in receipt of DLA or PIP in Scotland. It will impact on people in receipt of or applying for attendance allowance ahead of the introduction of our pension age disability payment, which will replace attendance allowance in due course. Encouragingly, the UK Government's bill brings the new definition of terminal illness in the UK closer to the definition that we have introduced for disability benefits here in Scotland, but the UK definition will still be based on a fixed time period with regard to life expectancy. That is in contrast to the Scottish Government's definition of terminal illness as part of the delivery of Scottish forms of assistance, including child disability payment as well as adult disability payment. Our definition is based on clinical judgment that does not include a time limit on life expectancy, meaning that people approaching the end of their life are more easily able to have their applications processed quickly than with the Scottish definition. I have said so far that I consider a legislative consent motion to be the right course of action in order to maintain alignment with the UK Government's legislation, as is expected under the terms of our agency agreements. Providing legislative consent is therefore the most pragmatic and appropriate course of action. I therefore move that motion in my name. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. If you would be like Deja Vu, I have not had a similar debate on a different issue but around social security last week. Last week, the minister felt that I was maybe slightly partisan in my comments, so I will try to be slightly more constructive this week. However, at eight worth point nine, particularly around clause one of the bill going through Westminster moment, is that the reason why we are having to debate this for DLA PIP and attendance allowance is because there has been a delay in implementing ADP and other Scottish benefits here in Scotland. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Mr Belfer, for taking intervention. Just on that issue that he mentioned, does he accept that the devolution of social security benefits is a joint programme of work between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and the delay on the delivery of some of our devolved benefits has been because both Governments had to re-prioritise during the pandemic period? I do accept that the pandemic has had an important factor in regard to the delay, but even before the pandemic, there were statements in the chamber to say that those benefits were going to be delayed anyway. I simply point it out as a factual comment. The second interesting point is that the UK Government seems to be able to bring forward legislation fairly speedily when it is required. I wonder why it takes the Scottish Government quite so long. Last week, the minister indicated that there simply was not time for a bill to be brought forward in this Parliament, but that does not seem to be the case in Westminster. I think that we have to look at the time that those emergency types of bills do require and can we do it quicker in this Parliament. My third gentle point to the minister for the record is that, with due respect in regard to the definition of terminally-ownedness here in Scotland, it is not a Scottish Government definition. It was a definition brought forward by this Parliament and, if I may claim credit, it was my amendment that brought it forward. It was agreed unanimously by the whole Parliament. I do appreciate that the Scottish Government is now introducing it and taking it forward, but the definition can be owned by all five parties and by all MSPs that were in this Parliament last time. If I can be a wee bit more constructive in my final couple of remarks, I think that it has been really helpful for the minister to be able to define exactly where people apply if they sadly get a terminally-ownedness definition post-August. I suppose that my concern is how we get that information out from this chamber to those that need it, either within the CEP, advice shops and the other third sector and also just generally within the Scottish public understanding, but we do have a new definition that there is a faster way to do it and that you can get both higher care and higher mobility quicker if you go through that procedure. I would be interested if the minister could, perhaps in his closing remarks, just say if there is any advertising going to take place over the summer and, if so, how will that happen? We are misspences come decision time. We will be voting for that. We think that it is a positive step forward by the UK Government, and I do hope that it will get the support of every member within the chamber. Let me start with the substance of the motion and the impact on people. That is about lives and terminally-ownedness, possibly the time when we need our Governments to be the most sensitive and responsive. For that reason, I and we on the benches welcome the move to extend the period in which a person who is terminally ill can qualify for special rules for terminal illness exceptions. I agree with the minister that those matters do constitute legislation in which this Parliament has competence. In fact, in Scotland, as has been said, Social Security Scotland has its own special rules for terminal illness, under which there is no qualifying period. A policy designed to ensure that people are provided with the support that they need when they need it. A policy that I commend the Scottish Government for having and for the diversion from UK Government policy in that regard. However, I am afraid that I am also again a little disappointed. Firstly, because the people in Scotland are not yet feeling the full benefits of social security, devolved social security, not because we need more power in that area, but because the Scottish Government is still letting people down by failing to manage the powers that we already have. The Parliament passed social security legislation in 2018, yet over four years later, only a handful of local authorities have opened applications for the benefits. New applications will not be available to everyone in Scotland until at least the 29th of August. Full transfer of those currently on PIP over to ADP is not expected until 2025. 313,620 people on PIP have been left at the hands of the DWP, facing delay after delay, as a result. Those people have been led, I will. I appreciate Pam Duncan-Glancy taking the intervention. I just pose in a constructive spirit the question to her again, which I have done before. We all want to move to implementation of those benefits as quickly as possible on full-case transfer, but what are the Labour Party's suggestions within the budget constraints of the Parliament and the technical and human challenge of undertaking those exercises in the execution of Government policy? What would the Labour Party have done differently to have done things quicker? We are going as quickly as we can, and I am not hearing any constructive suggestions of how we could have done this quicker or could do this quicker in the future. I thank the minister for that intervention. It is possibly the first time that I have heard the point about the budget in relation to PACE, which is interesting, although I think that there are a number of things that we could do differently in terms of the administration. I also suggest that we need to work closer together with other parliaments in the UK. The fact that we have a UK Government who did not consider that a legislative consent motion was needed and a Scottish Government who did, and we will support that motion, as my colleagues have already said, to show that there is significant confusion, but yet those people are still being led up a hill and left waiting for years and years and are now being told to wait for more for substantial change. The same is true of child disability payment, despite new applications being fully operational here. Safe and secure transfer will not happen until 2023, and the Scottish National Party Green Government has not set out a timetable for attendance allowance. In the meantime, it is no wonder that there is disagreement between the Governments on what they need consent for, because they have been incapable of working together at PACE, and that is the point that I have put to the minister. We need to work at PACE, work together, but instead they have created a confused system where we have devolved powers to Scotland, the Scottish Government has sent some back, asked the DWP to take care of others and chosen a few to make some progress on, so it is clear that it is a messy arrangement and it is not helping anyone. Frankly, it seems to me that nobody has a clue and it is the Scottish people who are paying the price. How on earth can they expect people in Scotland to navigate this if they can? Nonetheless, we will support the motion today, but I stress that I would far prefer to spend parliamentary time on social security legislation that would fundamentally and materially improve lives of the people of Scotland, rather than having to debate constitutional intricacies caused by delays and confusion leaving people without the support they need. It is not good enough that neither Government can get this right. This is the second time in a week that we face the same type of motion and the same constitutional tug of war, because neither Government is able to establish who has responsibility for what. I recognise in closing that the policy and ideological differences between the SNP Government here in Holyrood and the Tory Government in Westminster. However, although social security remains a shared responsibility, it is of the utmost importance that Governments talk to one another, engage with each other and stop wasting time on disagreements about it. That is the best chance that we have of getting things right and doing it quickly for the people of Scotland. I am grateful to members across the chamber for their time and contributions to the debate. Although the Scottish Government has taken a very different approach to the UK Government's definition of terminal illness, as decided by the Scottish Parliament, the UK Government bill represents a positive change that will benefit those applying for disability benefits administered by the DWP who are terminal ill. That is why I am requesting this legislative consent motion. It is required in order for the UK Government to make changes to the definition of terminal illness in Scotland. Just as a point of clarity to Pam Duncan-Glancy, there is agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on this legislative consent motion. It is a different situation to the last legislative consent motion that we considered together. In fact, the UK Government has formally requested this legislative consent motion that we are considering today. Pam Duncan-Glancy, I thank the minister for taking the intervention and thank you for that clarity. I do really appreciate that. The confusion that has resulted in this last week is because of such a confused situation that we are facing. It really is incumbent on all of us to try and work together to make sure that we do the best that we can to roll out social security payments in Scotland as quickly as possible. I would agree in that spirit, and that is certainly how I engage with UK DWP ministers and Scotland office ministers in this process. In terms of something that Mr Balfour raised around process, the only alternative to a legislative consent motion would have been to introduce equivalent Scottish primary legislation, but to take that approach we would need to have the legislation in place at the same time as the UK bill, which was only introduced seven weeks ago to make sure that it comes into force at the same time. Given the extent to which the bill at UK level has been expedited, that would have been extremely challenging, given the other pressures on this Parliament's legislative programme. Without parliamentary approval for this legislative consent motion that we are considering today, those in receipt of applying for DWP disability benefits in Scotland would not be able to take advantage of the widening of the terminal illness definition. I appreciate the point, but I think that what we are doing today is the most practical process in the circumstances. I touch on the point that Pam Duncan Glancy made around speed. Just for clarity, I was not in any way insinuating that budget was a factor in the process of delivering either the rolling out of new benefits, devolved Scottish benefits or the case transfer process. As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, Pam Duncan Glancy will be aware that Social Security Scotland has made very clear that we could not have gone faster in this process and that in order to deliver safe and secure delivery and benefits in the way that have been designed with those with lived experience and with all the stakeholder engagement and expert and independent advice into the process, we have done this at a strong pace in order to deliver a high-quality service and a better service as we continue to undertake case transfer. Of course, we introduced seven benefits that are not available elsewhere in the UK, and that has been a significant improvement. Just also briefly, Mr Balfour raised a really important point around awareness. When we deliver new benefits, including through the phases of adult disability payment, we engage with local authorities and stakeholders through our local delivery teams to raise awareness, but all of us, as MSPs, can play a really positive role in that. I will write to all MSPs and Scottish MPs in the coming days to encourage all of us to do what we can through the summer recess to make sure that we raise awareness of what is available for people and for them to apply. Of course, the Government does that on an ongoing basis and will continue to do it as proactively as we can, but we can all make a difference here together. In conclusion, it is important that those who are terminally ill in Scotland benefit from the change that the UK Government's definition of terminally illness will create. That includes those in receipt of attendance allowance and those adults who will apply for DWP benefits in the short time between the UK Government bill coming into force and the end of August when adult disability is introduced nationally. The legislative consent motion before us today will ensure the continued delivery of UK Government benefits on our behalf while we continue the safe and secure transfer of people to the respective forms of Scottish assistance. I thank Parliament for considering that matter today and look forward to working with colleagues as we continue to support people who are receiving disability assistance in Scotland and colleagues across the summer in order to ensure that we raise awareness of what is available to support people. I hope that Parliament will back that motion in my name and the legislative consent motion. That concludes the debate on social security special rules for the end-of-life bill UK legislation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business.