Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Social Justice and Social Security Committee 12 March 2026 [Draft]

12 Mar 2026 · S6 · Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Item of business

Adult Disability Payment

Keith Park (MS Society Scotland) Watch on SPTV

I agree with everything that my colleagues on the panel have said. The MS Society Scotland is disappointed with the response of the Scottish Government for many of the reasons that have been outlined. Yes, we have positive changes to processes, guidance and training for staff at Social Security Scotland, and that will improve the experience of people applying for ADP, but fundamentally we are still using the same eligibility criteria that were introduced when we transferred from the disability living allowance to PIP. Those eligibility criteria were introduced to reduce the UK Government’s benefit spend, and the UK Government has acknowledged that over time. That is especially relevant to the mobility component of ADP and PIP, where the UK Government is trying to reduce the benefits bill by £220 billion over a period of time.There is evidence from work by pro bono economists that £1 of benefit spend in disability areas will result in £1.48 of economic activity, so it enhances economic activity rather than taking away from it. Also, if we get awards wrong for people living with disabilities and MS, the cost to society will be much higher. The MS Society did a report in 2021 that highlighted the fact that, over the three-year period on which the spending review was focused, there would be a knock-on cost of £96 million in additional funding for people living with MS, which is 2 per cent of the people who were applying for PIP at that stage. That highlights the additional costs that are incurred, but which might not necessarily have been incorporated into some of the calculations.Moreover, I do not know whether the calculations have taken into account the figure of £770 million rising over time to more than £1 billion, which the Scottish Government indicated in its response would have been the additional cost if we had adopted some of the changes. Edel Harris has said in her written evidence that she would like to see some of those calculations to be able to understand that better; it would definitely add weight to the Scottish Government’s argument for pushing things down the line, but the additional costs definitely have to be considered.09:30Moving to a different policy area within the Scottish Government, we are looking at how we move towards primary and secondary prevention with regard to long-term conditions and how we better manage those who are living with such conditions. Without any additional funding to help meet the additional costs of living with a disability, people living with MS and other conditions are finding things much more challenging. Again, because of the cost of living, people with MS are having to decide whether to pay for food or for treatment, and, indeed, how they live their lives, and that has a big impact on how they manage their condition. Any reduction in independence will have an on-going impact on their condition and increase the requirement on them to apply for benefits in other areas to try to meet those costs.

Search Hansard contributions

Social Justice and Social Security Committee 12 March 2026 [Draft]

In the same item of business