Official Report 615KB pdf
Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Transitional Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 [Draft]
Welcome back. Under agenda item 3, the committee will take evidence on the draft Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Transitional Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022. We are joined, in person, by Ben Macpherson, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and Kate Thomson-McDermott, who is the head of carer benefits and the case transfer policy unit at the Scottish Government, and, remotely, by Kayleigh Blair, who is a solicitor for the Scottish Government, and Darren Kelly, head of operations, Dundee, at Social Security Scotland.
I invite the minister to make an opening statement.
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to give evidence on the draft Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Transitional Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2022.
I am grateful for our recent discussion on case transfer more generally, which I hope that members found useful. I also appreciate the work of the committee to date in considering the case transfer provisions for people whose awards are moving from disability living allowance to child disability payment and from personal independence payment to adult disability payment. The draft regulations that we are discussing today mirror the processes in the regulations on those benefits in many ways, but there are some key differences, which I will come to shortly.
10:15As I have set out to the committee and Parliament before, we are determined to ensure that case transfer is a seamless process and that we transfer people’s awards safely and securely. It is not a simple administrative process. We are refining information from Department for Work and Pensions systems, some of which are decades old, and transferring it to Social Security Scotland’s new, agile single benefits system. Ensuring that we have the right information and that no one falls out of payment across the total of approximately 700,000 awards that will transfer is a project that takes planning and time. We are doing that work at pace, while ensuring that we do not risk the process’s being undertaken in a safe and secure way. Protecting payments is our absolute focus. The benefits in question are payments of money that people rely on, and we will make sure that recipients continue to get paid the right amount of money at the time that they expect.
From 13 June, we will pilot the PIP transfer, with full transfer beginning at the end of August with the national introduction of our adult disability payment. At that point, adults who receive disability living allowance and would otherwise be required to apply for PIP will start to have their awards selected for transfer. It is that transfer, which is known as natural case transfer, that we are here to discuss.
The draft regulations will ensure that a Scottish resident who was born after 8 April 1948 will have their DLA award selected for transfer to ADP if one of the following three criteria is met: a change of circumstance relevant to the DLA award is reported; the DLA award is due to be renewed; or the person asks to have their DLA award transferred. Once the transfer completes, the person’s initial ADP award will be a like-for-like copy of their DLA award. Then, because the eligibility rules for DLA and ADP are different, the person’s award will be reviewed and ADP rules will apply.
I must make it clear that that review will mean that some people’s awards will stay the same, while other people’s awards may be increased, reduced or ended. That said, the process will not be a repeat of the DWP’s transition from DLA to PIP. In line with our case transfer principles, people will not have to apply for ADP in the way that they had to for PIP. Instead, they will be supported through a review process. People who undergo that review will have our new forms of support available to them through our local delivery service and our independent advocacy service. People will have the enhanced rights that we have built into ADP available at every stage of the process.
I will briefly outline that support. We have replaced the adversarial approach of the DWP through the removal of assessments and degrading examinations. We start from a position of trust in what people tell us. The onus will be on Social Security Scotland to collect information on people’s behalf. The agency will need to collect only one piece of formal supporting information when it makes a decision. Short-term assistance will also be available for anyone who has a reduced or nil award after the review and wishes to seek a redetermination or appeal.
We are also exploring ways of providing support to anyone who may lose the enhanced mobility component on review, given the impact that that will have on their ability to continue to access the accessible vehicles and equipment scheme. I will update the committee on that as soon as I can.
We have designed the process to be as supportive as possible, while acknowledging the challenges that moving between different benefits with different rules could create. I believe that, with the regulations, we have struck the right balance.
I will be happy to take questions.
Thank you for that opening statement. We move to questions from members. Deputy convener Natalie Don will kick us off. She will be followed by Foysol Choudhury, who joins us remotely.
Good morning. Will you expand on the plans for tailored communication as part of the support that will be available for people who transfer from DLA to ADP?
Certainly. As you would expect, we have developed a strategic communication and engagement plan for case transfer, which covers how we plan to communicate key messages and timings, as well as our plans for stakeholder engagement, which is very important, and paid-for marketing communications activity.
In addition, we are developing a wide range of clear communications to help to support people who transfer from DLA to ADP. Those include easy-to-read notifications, so that clients know what is happening at every part of the transfer journey, and—this is consistent with the Scottish Commission on Social Security’s recommendations—a specific leaflet to explain the differences between DLA and ADP. The leaflet will also encourage people to get independent advice before making a decision to ask to have their award transferred.
We will also undertake a series of stakeholder roadshows, beginning this month, which will outline the transfer process for the group in question to our key stakeholders. In addition, there will be a stakeholder toolkit, which will include specific fact sheets, video content and frequently asked questions. We are developing specific case transfer guidance to provide stakeholders with further information on the case transfer process. That guidance will be hosted on the socialsecurity.gov.scot website.
We know that the client group that we are talking about in the context of the regulations before the committee can be particularly difficult to reach, so we will rely on our public and third sector partners to help to get the word out. As the Government undertakes that work, we encourage MSP colleagues—as we do across social security—to continue to raise awareness in their constituencies and regions.
You touched on the subject of my next question, which is about how people will be helped to decide whether they would be better off volunteering to move to ADP. You mentioned independent advice about award transfers. Will that advice be given by Social Security Scotland or will people be signposted to another advice service?
In addition to the significant communications that we are developing, which I have just gone over, advocacy and local delivery services will be available. As colleagues know, the advocacy service is a free service that is available to anyone who identifies as disabled and requires support to engage with Social Security Scotland. That service will be available. Everyone’s circumstances are different, so we encourage everyone who is thinking about asking to have their benefit transferred to seek independent advice for their situation and circumstances.
In the current financial year, the Scottish Government is investing approximately £12 million in funding to support the provision of free welfare and debt advice, as the committee is aware, in addition to our independent advocacy service. That funding will help people to access the advice and support that they need in a way that works for them, whether that is face to face, online or over the phone. As I have mentioned, we have local delivery teams from Social Security Scotland in every authority area, and we encourage people to seek the advice and information that they need.
Good morning, minister. You have answered quite a few of the questions that I was going to ask. How are Social Security Scotland and the DWP working together to ensure that clients get consistent communication from both agencies?
That is an important question, given that we are still involved in a joint delivery programme with the DWP. Case transfer is a joint project between us and the DWP. We work closely together to develop our processes and guidance to make sure that people get consistent answers to their questions. Individual client communications that have been developed by each organisation are shared to ensure that we give the same messages.
I will give an example of our joined-up approach. When an award is selected for transfer, the DWP will write to the client to let them know that their DLA allowance has been selected for transfer and will be coming to an end. We will then write to the person to introduce them to Social Security Scotland and to provide information about the transfer process. That is an example of how the two organisations will work together to ensure that people are informed and properly apprised of the process that they will be going through.
Good morning, minister, and good morning to your team, too.
I have two questions. First, I want to follow up the deputy convener’s second question to try to get into my head and understand what advice people will be given on whether they should transfer or not. Clearly the ultimate decision will be made by Social Security Scotland when it reviews all the papers.
This is an issue that you will appreciate from your legal days, minister. If I phone up and ask, “Should I transfer across?” and the adviser takes me through the process, is that not just the adviser’s decision? It is not the decision of Social Security Scotland. Will it be made very clear to the individual concerned that what has been advised will not definitely happen and that it is only the adviser’s opinion?
First, I reiterate my comment about encouraging people to get independent advice and to utilise the resources that the Scottish Government is making available in that respect. What Social Security Scotland can do is advise on individual entitlement by describing to people what, given their circumstances, will be the situation for them; as I have emphasised, everyone’s circumstances will be different. However, we strongly advise people to take independent advice from the advocacy service and through the welfare provision that I outlined in my answer to the deputy convener.
Will it be made clear to someone who phones up Social Security Scotland to get that initial advice that the best thing to do would be to seek advice from an independent individual?
Yes. I am sorry—I should have made it clear that the agency cannot advise on entitlement, because people have to go through the process. Again—and I just want to be absolutely clear and correct with regard to my previous answer—the agency cannot advise on entitlement, because people have to go through that process.
I will bring in Kate Thomson-McDermott if she has anything further to add, but what I will say is that, through our work and engagement with stakeholders, we are doing what we can to ensure that those to whom people turn for that advice, including our independent advice service throughout Scotland, are well apprised of the process, so that they can help people make decisions according to their individual circumstances.
Kate, do you have anything to add?
I just want to build on what the minister has said about the technicalities of the process. Once somebody has contacted DWP and has asked to have their case transferred, it will be transferred; it will be put in the case transfer pot and that process will be gone through. It is therefore very important that we get the communications, messages and signposting for support out to people before they make that decision and that phone call.
We are designing our communications plan and the supporting materials so that we reach people ahead of making their decision, because once the decision to transfer has been made, the cases will transfer. There is no ability to put a brake on or reverse that process at any stage.
That clarification was helpful.
I also want to ask about the review of mobility, particularly with regard to cars, that you mentioned towards the end of your opening statement. I welcome your comments in that respect. Clearly there is the pilot programme, and then the full programme will start in August. When do you expect your work in that respect to be completed, and do you have any feeling with regard to where it might go? Perhaps that second question is a bit unfair.
We had hoped to be able to tell the committee about this today. We are working closely with Motability to ensure that those who move on to the accessible vehicle scheme can access the transitional protection scheme provided for individuals who lose their enhanced mobility award when transferring from DLA. As Mr Balfour will be aware, there are different rules, depending on when the individual joined the Motability scheme. In most cases, however, the client will be allowed to keep the vehicle for eight weeks after the end of entitlement and will receive a £2,000 payment.
We are nearing formal agreement of this approach with Motability, and we just need to continue our discussions with it, but I will be happy to write to the committee when it is confirmed. We are seeking to do that as soon as possible.
10:30
That would be very helpful. Thank you, minister.
I call Emma Roddick.
Hello, minister. I realise that the hope is that people understand that they might be better off on ADP than they are on DLA and opt to transfer when they can. What challenges will be presented with regard to managed migration if a lot of cases end up not transferring through the natural migration process? What might be the negative effects for claimants who do not move?
In my opening statement, I talked about the three circumstances in which people would be part of the cohort transferring under these regulations, or what we call natural case transfer. There is still managed case transfer for those transferring from working age disability living allowance to ADP, and we have considerations to undertake in that respect, but the position is clear: clients to whom any of the three different situations apply will be selected as part of this process.
Of course, we have worked to ensure that people do not have to undergo the sort of DWP-style assessment that they have when they are asked to apply for PIP. A lot of the motivation for putting the natural case transfer process in place was to prevent people from having to go through that PIP assessment process. Instead, they will simply be transferred on to ADP, after which their situation will be reviewed in due course.
We move on to questions on transitional protections from Pam Duncan-Glancy.
Good morning, minister and other members of the panel. I want to say up front that, as with other areas of ADP, there are aspects of these regulations that we welcome, such as the terminal illness rules and the different approach that is being taken. My questions, therefore, are put on the basis that we will support these regulations today.
However, I have a few questions about some of the decisions that have been taken up to now. The move from DLA to ADP is not necessarily happening just because someone’s circumstances have changed; it is an administrative change. Can you guarantee that the no-worse-off principle set out by the Scottish Commission on Social Security will be applied in the case of those moving from DLA to ADP, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and if so, how?
As I said in my opening statement, we have thought about how this process will affect individuals. First, there is the case transfer process and then there is the review, which is what I think—if I am not mistaken—you are referring to. The very clear position is that, at the end of the case transfer process, no one should be worse off than they would have been, had they stayed with the DWP.
As for the review of cases, which of course will happen in due course, the differentiation in our system is that, if an award is increased after being reviewed, that increase will be backdated to the point of case transfer, ensuring that no one misses out. That sort of backdating does not happen in the current system.
If an award is decreased, that change will only take effect from the date of the decision, which means that there will be no overpayment that the person will be asked to repay. That clear difference will be of advantage to people.
I know that both aspects will be welcome, minister. Just in case I forget to do this—as I have in the past, so please allow me to do it just now—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as someone who receives PIP and who, I assume, will at some point transfer to ADP.
The aspects that you have just set out are really helpful, but I am still not clear whether you think that some people will be worse off. Can you specifically commit to the no-worse-off principle in this regard?
No one will be worse off through the case transfer process.
But what about the long term?
I cannot speak for individual circumstances after the review, because that will be part of the review process under the eligibility rules for ADP. However, we have explored a number of options for people who might see a reduction in their award or might receive a nil award when their ADP is reviewed, and I will just set out some of those different options now.
We will support people in a number of ways. First, as I have stated, we are ensuring that individuals transfer at their current award level in the first instance, so that they can be supported through the review process. We are also, as I said in response to the deputy convener, setting out clearly in advance the support available to them through our local delivery service and independent advocacy service.
Individuals will benefit from the changes that we have made to ADP to ensure that they are treated with dignity, fairness and respect. For example, we will trust what they tell us. We will place the onus on Social Security Scotland to collect information on people’s behalf during the review and require only one piece of formal supporting information. An important point is that people will have the right to challenge any decision that sees their award reduced or results in their getting a nil award, and they will have access to short-term assistance through that process. The situation for people will, as a result, be a significant improvement on their situation had they been in the DWP system.
I do not doubt that. That the current DWP system is poor, particularly in the move from DLA to PIP, is well documented, so the Scottish Government’s different approach, which includes protecting people for that bit longer, is hugely welcome.
You said earlier that people will not have to reapply as they have to do in the move from DLA to PIP. Ultimately, however, they will have to reapply; it will just happen later, and then they will have to make an application for ADP, which is what—
No—they will not have to make an application. The cases with regard to ADP will be reviewed under the light-touch review process that we have set out.
That is helpful. Have you at any point considered—
Of course, it all depends on an individual’s circumstances, too—I cannot speak generically. I am sorry to interrupt you.
No, that is okay. It is important that we have a dialogue on this.
Disabled people will be watching this and, I guess, worrying, as anyone on DLA transferring to either PIP or ADP will worry. As I am sure that everyone appreciates and understands, it is not a great feeling when a review happens, and the communication and the messages that you put out will be important. Given that, over the years, your Government and my own party in particular have been saying that the changes from DLA to PIP were concerning and given the many problems that you had when the UK Government changed to PIP, have you at any point considered replicating some of the DLA systems in ADP to create a like-for-like benefit for the people concerned?
We have thought about many different options, and I will bring in Kate Thomson-McDermott in a moment to talk about the considerable amount of work that has been done. Of course, the big challenge for us was that we obtained these powers over disability benefits when the UK system was still in transition between DLA and PIP, but we have tried to make sensitive and effective decisions not only to improve our system but to ensure that case transfer is undertaken in a safe and secure way. Do you want to add anything, Kate?
We have looked at a whole manner of options. When we started to look at case transfer, the expectation was that the managed migration from DLA to PIP would be completed before the Parliament and ministers took over competency for disability benefits. When it became clear that that was not going to happen, our first action was to ask for the managed migration process to be halted.
We then looked at a number of options, including whether we could transfer cases administratively into the social program management system while keeping them within the DLA legislative framework. However, that posed quite significant challenges. We would have had to build DLA into Social Security Scotland’s systems and then train up staff to work to the DLA and DWP legislative framework and to carry out revisions and supersessions instead of redeterminations and appeals. In other words, the whole framework that came with the benefit would have had to have been recreated within SPM, which would have been a huge undertaking that would have impacted the ability to deliver ADP and then go further.
We then looked at bringing in a hybrid system. Could we create a benefit within the 2018 framework that still had the eligibility and criteria components for DLA, so that we could use the same rules and SPM for appeals, redeterminations and reviews in the Scottish system? That would also have been better for clients. We looked at that, but it was just not possible to deliver that in time for ADP national. We really looked every which way.
However, we are still very much considering that option for DLA-managed transfer and DLA for 65-plus, and we hope to be able to come back to the committee with our decisions on that in due course. As I have said, the option is still being considered; however, it was not going to be able to be delivered by ADP national, and we wanted to ensure that we had an option in place from ADP national onwards that would allow clients to move on to ADP and go through the ADP process instead of having to move on to PIP. This was the best option that could be delivered.
Thank you—that was really clear. However, what I am trying to get at is whether, in designing ADP, you at any point considered replicating the best aspects of PIP and DLA to ensure that the ADP transfer system would be much smoother for anyone coming from DLA or PIP as a result of its being able to look at the eligibility criteria across both.
I would refer you to what has just been said. I would also point out that we also have to transfer people on PIP and that we need rules that are consistent and like for like with PIP. We have 300,000 PIP case transfers to undertake.
I have seen the figures—there are also the 40,000 on DLA. I was just keen to know whether any thinking had been done on that.
Some of SCOSS’s recommendations hinge on the review process, which brings us back to the eligibility issue. Can you give us an update on that process?
Certainly. It is important that we prioritise the case transfer of any individual who would otherwise be required to apply for a PIP under the DWP business-as-usual rules. I know that colleagues will appreciate that. We have already made significant improvements to the assessment process for ADP and will apply the eligibility criteria fairly and consistently to all those entitled to ADP to ensure that the impact of a disability or health condition on an individual, including the impact on mental health conditions, learning disabilities and fluctuating conditions, are taken fully into account.
As Pam Duncan-Glancy has rightly emphasised, we have given a firm commitment to a wide-ranging independent review of ADP commencing one year after the national launch of ADP. In recent days, I have been in active discussions on that matter with officials, but in light of the extensive feedback that we received, we have made a further commitment to a two-stage review, with work beginning later this year, to identify what improvements can be made on the mobility criteria and what should be included in the scope of the stage 2 independent review. We will provide details on both as soon as we are in a position to do so. I appreciate that members, stakeholders and people more broadly are interested to get an update on the first stage, and I certainly give an undertaking to do that as soon as I can.
10:45
Thank you.
You have touched on this already, but my final question is on the support that people will get through the transitional arrangements. Do you have any understanding of the number of people who will need that kind of independent support through the advocacy service or third sector organisations, and have you looked at the capacity that those organisations will require to meet that demand?
As I laid out in my answer to the deputy convener on the first questions on these regulations, our resourcing of the independent advocacy service has been set out and budgeted for and is being provided and scaled up. I have already talked about the £12 million that we have provisioned for welfare advice and the engagement with stakeholders that is being undertaken by officials. The agency and the Government have a very close relationship with relevant stakeholders, and the fact that, as we understand it, there will be around 100 transfers per month means that we have capacity in the systems in Scotland—both in Social Security Scotland, of course, and in the advocacy service—to be able to provide that support to those people.
Thank you. I have no further questions on this subject, convener.
We have some questions on backdating. I will bring Emma Roddick in on that, followed by Jeremy Balfour and Miles Briggs.
Sorry, convener, can you give me a moment?
Of course, I will go to Jeremy Balfour first and then I will come back to you.
Sorry, my computer has just gone quiet. I will let Miles go first.
Luckily mine is working. Good morning, minister, and good morning to the others on the panel. I want to follow on from Pam Duncan-Glancy’s line of questioning. What work has the Scottish Government undertaken to predict the number of people who may see their award ended or reduced, and has that modelling been undertaken?
It depends on the individual circumstances. We have to evaluate every case on the merits of the individual’s position and the fact that we will be doing every review from a position of trust. We have some awareness of what has happened with PIP but our system has differences built into it. I think that you heard about some of the implications of that from the Scottish Fiscal Commission earlier in the meeting.
We know that, going from DLA to PIP, about a third of people have received an increase, a third have received a decrease and a third have stayed the same. However, as I said, we will treat every case individually, as people would expect. We will project where we can, but we want to make sure that people are processed individually within their circumstances, and we do not want to prejudice that.
I take from your answer that that is where you think this might go: a third, a third and a third.
I am not saying that, because that is what the evidence shows happened for people going from DLA to PIP, but that is the evidence from the DWP’s undertaking of its process. We will see how that situation develops in our system. A key point of emphasis that members will appreciate is that we expect to get more decisions right first time. The split of a third, a third and a third comes from initial findings, but 65 per cent of PIP appeals are successful, so there is a different outcome in the end. We have those background situations that help us to consider how this process into the ADP will progress. Certainly, we would look to get decisions right the first time. That is a determination of ours so we are likely to see more success.
Does Darren Kelly have an opinion on that modelling?
Is it not for me to bring in my officials if I wish to?
It is for you to bring them in if you wish to bring them in, minister.
Mr Kelly, if there is anything that you want to add from an agency perspective, feel free to do so, but members will be aware that our determination is to get more decisions right first time. The process that I have set out regarding how people have moved from DLA to PIP is background information, but we are at the beginning of the process when it comes to Social Security Scotland.
The only thing that I would add is the investment and time that is being put into training and working closely with our DWP colleagues to ensure that we get the decisions right the first time. I do not have anything else to add on that.
I will go back to Emma Roddick and then Jeremy Balfour.
I am aware that SCOSS was concerned about the proposal to backdate to the start of the ADP claim rather than to when a change of circumstance is reported. As the natural case transfer by definition applies to those who are coming forward with a change of circumstances, what difference is there likely to be between those two dates?
When it to comes to increases that result in a change of a person’s conditions, we do not estimate there will be any increased cost, because our approach largely mirrors the DLA-to-PIP transition, which is covered in the funding that we receive from the block grant adjustment. However, our approach to any decreases will likely increase our costs, as we are choosing to be more generous than the DWP policy. The position with increases to a person’s payment is that they will be backdated to when the case transfer happened.
With regard to decreases, we will apply that only from the date of the review rather than the change of circumstances or case transfer. Therefore, they will apply from when the person’s review outcome is decided. Of course, if they choose to undertake a redetermination or appeal, they will get short-term assistance through that process. It would be only from the conclusion of their review that any decrease or a nil award would be applied.
I would just make a point of clarification for the minister: I do not think that anyone from Social Security Scotland works for him. It is a totally independent body away from Scottish Government. I say that merely so there is no misunderstanding on that.
I have a quick question, minister. There seems to be a difference in the treatment and the extent of backdating that is available to people transferring from DLA compared to people transferring from PIP. Did you look at any mitigation measures around that?
Can you just refine that question, Mr Balfour, so that I am clear about what you are asking?
My understanding is that the backdating that is available is different for DLA compared to that for PIP, and that there may be people who will be less well off as a result of that transfer happening. Has any mitigation been considered for that?
As I said, any increase will be from the date of case transfer. In terms of a reduction or a nil award, there is the process of case transfer—which will take 13 to 17 weeks—and then there is the review, which takes time, and then any redetermination or appeal.
There might be circumstances where, under the DWP system, the time before the reduction was applied would have been longer but, in a significant number of circumstances, we anticipate that, in the event of a decrease or a nil award, people will generally be better off within our system, because of short-term assistance and the fact that we will apply the decrease only from the date of final decision rather than date of transfer or change of circumstance, which is the situation with the DWP. Kate Thomson-McDermott can say a bit more about that.
Our approach across all the case transfers seeks to ensure that people are not financially disadvantaged as a result of the transfer. Prior to transfer, there are different rules for different groups of people and people are in different circumstances. What we do is try to look at what would have happened if they had stayed with the DWP and ensure that, when we move them over, they are in an analogous position or are better off.
For each of the case transfers, there will be slightly different rules in terms of effective dates, processes and backdating to make sure that we are matching as closely as possible the journey that clients would have continued on had they stayed with DWP.
To follow that up, will people be less well off for that period under DLA compared to PIP, or it is the other way around? Which of the two is likely to see somebody getting that backdating happening quicker, or are they both the same?
They match the journey. If somebody had been moving from DLA to PIP, they obviously would have to put a PIP application in. There is an average of 22 to 26 weeks to process that application and any increase or decrease would have been applied from that point. When we move somebody from DLA on to ADP, as the minister has explained, they obviously have to wait. Then we backdate the increase but we would not seek to backdate the decrease. They will get the increase around about the same time—in some circumstances a bit quicker—but any decrease will come through much later.
For PIP, what we try to do is match what the effective date would have been for the natural case transfers, had that change of condition been considered by DWP and the review undertaken by DWP. Then, as best we can, we will try to match the effective date rules for when they move over. It depends on the individual circumstances of the cases, most of the time.
We will move on to our last theme, which is about monitoring and evaluation.
In relation to the case transfer communication strategy, which we discussed earlier, can the minister advise how this will be evaluated over time to ensure that it is working as planned? Following on from that, will statistics be published breaking down which elements of clients’ awards change following the post-transfer review? For example, will it be transparent how many people are losing out or gaining from this move?
We will consider the effectiveness of our communications as part of our wider evaluation of the case transfer process, which will form part of our wider published strategy for evaluating the policy impacts of the devolution of disability benefits.
11:00We are developing plans for the case transfer evaluation, which will include a focus on individuals moving from DLA to ADP, and it is expected that the evaluation of the case transfer process will draw on data from multiple sources, including management information, Social Security Scotland research activity and qualitative evidence from those who have experience of the case transfer process. We expect to publish an evaluation report on the case transfer process in summer 2023, and are continuing to consider appropriate reporting timelines in line with our developing evaluation plans.
In terms of the statistical question, quarterly reporting of ADP statistics will begin from 14 June 2022. The content of these statistics will expand over time and we intend for information on case transfers and reviews to be included in future cycles of that reporting. As part of that, we expect to include information relating to the change in clients’ awards following post-transfer reviews.
That is extremely helpful.
I will go back to Jeremy Balfour.
No, I do not have a question.
Apologies—I see that you were just typing that in the chat box.
Finally, Pam Duncan-Glancy, do you have a further question?
I have a short question. Minister, will you commit to come back to the committee in a year’s time to give us an update on this particular part of the transfer?
Certainly, I am open to coming to the committee. We had a good discussion on case transfer generally recently and I am certainly open to doing that again. Obviously, we will have different engagements—like we have today—on specific regulations, but if there is an appetite from the committee to have a similar session to the one we had previously on case transfer, which would include the process that we are discussing today, I would of course attend it.
I would be keen to have such a session, following on from my colleague Natalie Don’s points around an analysis of how case transfer has impacted on individuals. I am not sure whether that will be available in a year but, if it is, a session on that would be helpful.
I refer to my answer to the deputy convener, in which I set out what we will publish. Of course, the statistics that are assimilated as time progresses will be more insightful for all of us as the roll-out of case transfer is undertaken more generally. I talked about our evaluation report that is to be published in summer 2023. I would imagine that the committee would probably want to discuss that at that point.
If there are no further questions from members, we will move on to the formal debate on the motion. I remind committee members that only members and the minister may take part. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-04303.
Motion moved,
That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Disability Assistance for Working Age People (Transitional Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 [draft] be approved.—[Ben Macpherson]
Motion agreed to.
Do colleagues agree that the clerks and I will produce a short factual report of the committee’s decisions and arrange to have it published?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the minister and the officials who have joined us online today.
Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2022 (SSI 2022/161)
Agenda item 5 is consideration of a negative instrument. Background information was supplied to the committee in paper 5. Are members of the committee happy to note the contents of that?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of this morning’s meeting. At next week’s meeting we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government and the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth in our final evidence session on our low income and debt inquiry.
11:05 Meeting continued in private until 11:37.