In the Guardian today, once more, complete Anglocentrism as a writer does not think to ask if any other part of the UK has already done what she wants Andy Burnham to do.

There’s not a mention of Scotland in the above but to what extent does the Scottish system already offer what is suggested?

Scotland’s Adult Disability Payment (ADP) system already delivers a substantial portion of what the article advocates, particularly in shifting away from the most criticised elements of the current PIP system in England and Wales. It provides a more humane, less intrusive process and greater security for people with long-term or progressive conditions.

Main suggestions by Ryan:

• Scrap the points-based assessment process (the intrusive interviews/tests) and replace it with a detailed claim form plus evidence from the person’s own medical/support team (closer to the old Disability Living Allowance/DLA model).
• End private contracts for assessments and redirect savings.
• Restore indefinite awards for permanent or unchanging needs, ending routine reassessments.
• Use efficiencies to invest in prevention.

How Scotland’s ADP Compares

Scotland replaced PIP with Adult Disability Payment (ADP), administered by Social Security Scotland. Eligibility criteria, payment rates, and the underlying activities/descriptors are broadly the same as PIP (daily living and mobility components, standard/enhanced rates based on points). However, the process, decision-making, and award security differ significantly and align closely with the article’s recommendations. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/adult-disability-payment/adult-disability-s/

Process and assessments

• No mandatory face-to-face functional assessments or “DWP-style” examinations by private contractors.
• Decisions are primarily evidence-based: applicants complete a detailed form (online, phone, or paper; can be saved and returned to). Social Security Scotland has the onus to gather supporting information (medical records, statements from professionals/carers) and typically needs only one piece of formal supporting evidence.
• Many awards are made without any consultation. Where needed, interactions are lighter (e.g., phone/video) and focused on gathering info rather than testing capabilities in a clinical setting.
• This is far less dehumanising and intrusive than PIP’s assessor model. The system was co-designed with disabled people and operates under statutory principles of dignity, fairness, and respect. https://gpa.net/blogs/emea-1/scotland-13-changes-as-claimants-change-from-pip-to-adult-disability-payment

This closely matches the proposal to move away from points-based assessor interrogations toward a detailed form + medical/team evidence approach.

Indefinite awards and reassessments:

• Indefinite awards (no review date) are available when needs are “very unlikely to change” or only likely to increase, and the person receives the enhanced rate of both daily living and mobility components.
• In these cases, there is no automatic future review unless the claimant reports a change.
• Other awards have review dates (often several years), but reviews are “light-touch” — focused on discussing changes rather than full re-assessments.
• This is particularly suitable for progressive conditions where needs are stable at a high level or expected to worsen over time. https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/publications/2017/02/adult-disability-payment-decision-making-guide/pages/choosing-an-appropriate-review-period-for-adult-disability-payment/exception-indefinite-awards-awards-without-a-review-date

This directly implements the call to bring back indefinite awards and end pointless reassessments for lifelong or progressive needs.

Other alignments:

• No private profit-driven assessment contracts.
• Faster processes for terminal illness (enhanced rates of both components, decisions in ~7 working days).
• Generally higher award rates and easier access than PIP in England/Wales, partly due to the less adversarial process. https://scothealthequity.org/new-awards-of-disability-benefits-for-adults-comparing-scotland-with-england-and-wales/

Overall Assessment

Scotland already offers a large majority of what is proposed — especially the practical, day-to-day improvements that matter most to claimants with progressive disabilities: a far less stressful and dehumanising application/decision process, no private assessors, evidence-led decisions, and indefinite awards that provide security when needs are stable or worsening. It functions as a working model of many of the reforms advocated for England and Wales. It stops short of fully overhauling the underlying eligibility rules (as the Independent Review suggests could go further) and has not yet paired it with the prevention investment angle.

In short, the Scottish system is significantly closer to the “truly progressive” vision outlined than the current PIP system criticised in the article. Many of the worst PIP experiences described (degrading assessments, endless re-testing of permanent conditions) are already largely avoided north of the border.