Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, and good morning, convener.

As with all our social security benefits, dignity, fairness and respect have been embedded throughout the process of developing both child and adult disability payment. The journey between the benefits is already well established, and the regulations before the committee today will further improve the client experience of it.

We have extended the eligibility for child disability payment to age 18 to ensure continuity for young disabled people and their families. Given that, as we have been told, this can be a difficult transition period in a young person’s life, we have introduced what is a key point of difference from the Department for Work and Pensions system.

The regulations also build on the existing improvements by protecting payment dates for young people moving to adult disability payment. That provides financial continuity, reduces the risk of gaps in payment or overpayments and eases the transition from one form of assistance to another. It is worth noting that no such protection of payment dates is currently available in the DWP system.

We are also making sure that, where people will get more money when they move to adult disability payment, the process is fully aligned with the policy intent while delivering consistency and fairness across different client groups. We have safely and securely transferred the disability benefit awards of well over 97,000 people living in Scotland, and we are continuing to do so in line with our case transfer principles. No one has to reapply; people continue to be paid the right amount at the right time; and, since the launch of adult disability payment, no one has been required to start a process that would subject them to a DWP-style face-to-face assessment. We will complete the transfer as soon as we can while ensuring that the process remains safe and secure, and we are communicating clearly with people throughout so that they know what is happening with their benefit and when.

We are taking this opportunity to clarify and improve some of the case transfer provisions that support the process. For example, where a person’s award is transferred from the DWP, we recognise any existing appointee pending a review by Social Security Scotland. We are clarifying that a separate review does not need to take place if the person has already been appointed by Social Security Scotland for the purposes of a different Scottish benefit.

We are also clarifying that Social Security Scotland can stop the transfer process if someone moves out of Scotland to another part of the United Kingdom after their case has been selected for transfer but before the transfer completes. That means that they can stay on their existing award and they do not have to reapply to the DWP after they move.

Finally, people whose awards transferred to the child disability payment currently continue to be eligible until they are 19. That approach was meant to ensure that young people who turned 18 close to the time that the adult disability payment launched had enough time to apply. The proposed amendments limit that extension to those turning 18 before the end of the year, which is fairer and a better prioritisation of resources.

We have engaged with the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which has confirmed that it anticipates no material financial implications for Scottish Government spending as a result of the regulations. That confirmation is particularly welcome in this challenging fiscal period, given that the regulations offer further improvements for the people of Scotland at no increased cost.

I am committed to continually improving public services for the people of Scotland, and the regulations allow us to provide clarity and further improve people’s experiences. Taking such opportunities is a founding principle of social security in Scotland, and the regulations that are before the committee today evidence my unending commitment to continuous improvement.

I want to extend my thanks to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its formal scrutiny of the draft amendments earlier this year and its recommendations, which have strengthened the detail of the regulations that are before us today.

I welcome this opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations and I am happy to provide any additional information as required.

I urge some caution when making comparisons. I will give one example of why the situation is different. Members of the committee will be well aware that, when people apply for PIP under the DWP, the customer—as they are called down south—is obligated to find their supporting information and present it, which is one of the greatest stressors and the greatest area of concern around the system that the DWP has. In Social Security Scotland, there is no obligation for the client to do that; it is the agency that will take that obligation on board, which means that it will take time for the agency to get that supporting information from a professional—a general practitioner, a supporting nurse or someone outwith the health sector. However, if we are comparing, it is important to recognise the amount of work that the client has to put in before applying to PIP to get that supporting information, whereas that is not the case under Social Security Scotland. That process takes time—for example, letters have to go out to a GP, and then that information comes back in.

I am well aware that people are waiting too long for child and adult disability payments, which is why a number of measures have been put in place through the client journey to see what can be done to improve that, and I am satisfied that the improvements are making a difference. That difference will have to show up in the statistics as they are published, but a great deal of work is happening and I believe that David Wallace has spoken to the committee about some of the detail of it. I could go on with more examples about how the process has changed, from what is in an application form to our work with stakeholders about how the supporting information is gathered, to the ability for our client advisers to look at that in the system and work within Social Security Scotland to try to bring things to a resolution quickly.

One of the other important aspects is that the agency has given clients many opportunities to, for example, provide us with the details of whom to get supporting information from, which gives the client many opportunities to be able to feed that into the system. That process also takes time if, for whatever reason, the client is not responding to information and requests that are coming out from the agencies.

I would urge caution about making direct comparisons, but I absolutely recognise that work needs to be done. That work is being done and it will continue to be done.

They are not double, because you cannot compare the two figures; they are not a like-for-like comparison.

Exactly, so I—

At every avenue, we have endeavoured to ensure that we are working with people with lived experience to provide a benefits system that is not simply fit for purpose but provides dignity, fairness and respect at every opportunity. That is an important aspect of what we are trying to do and, again, it is about seeing social security as a human right. It is important that we look not only at how we introduce our benefits but at how they work in practice. The regulations today are an example of how we can continue to improve.

I am pleased to see that the recent evidence through, for example, the client experience surveys that Social Security Scotland publishes, has shown a high level of satisfaction with the process of application and with the level of support that people get to fill in the application, which is why we are determined to continue to improve. We should take pride in the fact that people with experiences of the DWP have helped us to shape a system that is markedly different from the experiences that they have had previously.

—in my original remark that the waiting times are unacceptable, and that is exactly why a lot of work is going on.

Information for the case transfer process, including where to report changes of circumstance, is set out clearly in the letters to clients during the process, including the initial welcome letter. It is also discussed at stakeholder events, and the information is very much on the case transfer sheets that the agency’s staff use.

An important aspect of our transfer process is that, if clients who are in receipt of DLA and PIP report a change of circumstance, they are moved on to adult disability payment, so that they do not have to go through a DWP face-to-face assessment.

I recognise that some people have had the difficulties that Ms Callaghan mentioned. Some of that issue will, I hope, be assisted through the regulations that are going through today. In addition, work is already going on in the agency and in the DWP to make sure that every staff member, in both agencies, is absolutely cognisant of what should happen during the case transfer process and about how anything should be dealt with.

More than 97,000 people have had their awards transferred, so, overall, the case transfer process is successful. However, I recognise that there are issues around the management of some cases, examples of which you have given, which demonstrate that the process is not working for everybody. That is why some of the regs are here today and why work is going on not just within the agency but within the DWP.

It is important that, regardless of where you phone, you get the same information on how your change of circumstance is dealt with. A great deal of good work goes on between the agency and the DWP to ensure that the same information is given to clients.

As I have said, I am not taking anything away from the fact that there have been individual cases where the process has not worked as it should have. Indeed, that is why there is a lot both in the regulations and in the work that is being carried out with staff to ensure that, regardless of where you phone, you get the same information.

If you will forgive me, Mr Balfour, I do not quite understand the question, because of the point that I just made to Mr O’Kane about there being different eligibility criteria. You cannot exactly compare the two because of that. However, in saying that, I hope that I can reassure you that, even though there are differences in awards, Social Security Scotland has work in place to monitor and evaluate the individuals who move from CDP to ADP. Those individuals can be identified and tracked in the system, and any differences in awards or money can be monitored.

Although there will be differences because of eligibility, we are doing absolutely everything that we can to monitor and evaluate those individuals, and to compare the award that somebody got with CDP with the award that they get with ADP to see whether there are any fluctuations or changes, or anything of concern in that regard.

You raise an important point. There are the aspects around new build, which I think is where Mr Coffey was going with some of his questioning initially. However, when the initial buyer sells, the home report will be there. If there are lessons to be learned about how the home report process needs to be improved or adapted, it can be looked at, because none of it is set in stone. There is information in the home report, but those aspects can always be built on, should we feel the need for that.

No. There has been a disappointing response on that so far. We have sent letters to the UK Government on the specific issue, asking that that be looked at and that additional funding be made available to the devolved Governments, as it should be made available to departments in the UK Government as they seek to deal with the issue. It is fair to say that the letters that we have had back on that have been disappointing. There is no sign that the UK Government has recognised that there is a need for mitigation funding for RAAC for the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government. That is clearly a concern, and we will look at that.

As I think someone mentioned earlier, local authorities are not sitting with an unallocated pot of money to deal with the mitigation of RAAC, nor is the Scottish Government. Our capital funding is allocated and it is under pressure, given the great increases in construction costs that we have seen over recent years. I will not go into the reasons for that, but it is a fact about the context that we are in. At this point, it is clearly concerning if there is an expectation that the Scottish Government should assist all public sector bodies with the situation without UK Government support coming in to assist with that process.