Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is very important to support people through the system—that is why we have, for example, local delivery within it—and through the application process. The application then goes through the decision-making process, in which it analysed against the eligibility criteria.

The other important aspect is to point to the number of appeals, which is very small, and the number of reconsiderations, which is also very small. That points to there being a great difference between what happens in the DWP and what happens in Social Security Scotland in relation to the latter agency getting the decision right the first time.

If anyone who has had a refusal has concerns about that and wishes to seek redetermination or to make an appeal, they are given that information directly when they get their letter. Of course, we must have a system that supports people. We must have a system that makes a strong eligibility-based decision, and then we support people to go through the appeals process if that is required. The committee can take heart from the fact that the number of redeterminations and appeals is exceptionally low compared with the figures for the DWP, which once again demonstrates that we are getting the decision right first time in many more cases than was the case with the DWP.

Of course, because it is a new system, there will inevitably be monitoring and evaluation to ensure that we have a system that is fair and that decisions are being made. I understand that the committee has had an invitation—it has been outstanding for some time—to go to Social Security Scotland’s headquarters. I am sure that the agency would be delighted to take you through the monitoring and evaluation process in greater detail when the committee finds time to visit.

It involves working as part of a cohesive team, as I hope the committee would expect. You are quite right that some of those responsibilities will lie with the Scottish Government and some will lie with the agencies, but we are not sitting in two different meetings having two different discussions—we are working together, in a collegiate way, looking at where things need to be done.

For example, things may need to be done in-programme, which technically sits within the Scottish Government, and will involve changes to the systems, or changes to the guidance that is used by staff may be required, which would be delivered within the agency. That is why we are all working together as one team on this, rather than it being either an agency issue or a Government issue.

Of course, within that, each action point has lead officials who are looking at it, but it will vary depending on what the action is.

I have perhaps mentioned some of this in previous answers, so I will try not to repeat myself for the sake of time, because I have probably talked for too long already.

One of the key differences is the ability to receive CDP up until the age of 18. That is a hugely important change, which we brought in—as I said in my opening remarks—because it was recognised as a key stressful time for individuals.

In some ways, that complicates the system, because there is not a hard cut-off point and people can make a decision to move to ADP earlier. It is important, however, that that is because it is the right decision for them rather than for the system. As I mentioned earlier, a number of pieces of correspondence will go out to an individual to let them know about the transition phase, and, importantly, to give them the details of where they can seek support.

Another key difference is the local delivery staff that we have in Social Security Scotland, who provide support in filling out application forms. That support mechanism, which is important, is not available within the DWP system.

We also have an independent advocacy service that is available to people who are in receipt of CDP and ADP, and more widely. It is important to ensure that advocacy is provided, because that is clearly very different from support with filling in applications. We also have signposting to independent welfare rights and advice services, which reassure individuals that they are not alone in what can be a difficult time for them, when they are also transitioning into adult services in a number of different ways.

I hope that that gives examples of how the approach is different and of how we can provide support at different points in an individual’s journey from CDP to ADP.

The point about what we can automate and what we can make easier is important, because they are not necessarily the same thing. The challenge with making the move from CDP to ADP a fully automated process is that the eligibility criteria are completely different. It is impossible to make an assumption about a CDP case and immediately transfer that to ADP, so we cannot automate that.

What, then, can we do to make the transition easier for that individual and as simple as possible? There will still need to be a transition from one benefit to the other, and the eligibility criteria will be different—that has been embedded since we agreed the regulations for CDP and ADP.

We are making it easier in a number of ways, but we are very keen to ensure that we do everything that we can, should anything come through as a result of lived experience now that the systems are in place, whether that is in the regulations or in the way that we work, to make it easier for people. We are at that stage rather than full automation.

Again, that points to one of the challenges for people in transition. The difficulty is the complexity of any benefits system—that is not a dig at the DWP, as any benefits system is complex—to ensure that people are at least cognisant of the fact that a change from CDP to ADP may mean changes to other benefit entitlements, such as to passported benefits and so on, which vary so much from individual to individual.

As I said, there is a role for the agency, as the letters go out, in signposting to independent services so that those services can advise individuals. For example, someone might receive a higher award on CDP than they would on ADP, but the position could be vice versa for somebody else. It has to be person centred. As I hope the committee will understand, that has to be done outwith the agency, because, once someone applies for a benefit, the process has begun—and once the agency makes a decision on somebody’s application, that decision is made. That is why it is important that, before people make an application, they know what support and advice services are out there and can work with those services so that they are guided through the challenges, implications and complexities that they might not be aware of—particularly if they are going through the process of moving on to the adult benefit system for the first time.

I do not think that there is an issue with data collection there, because management information is able to link people who have moved from CDP to ADP. We will be able to see, for example, differences in award levels or gaps in payments, which would mean that we have not got the system quite right.

The data collection and monitoring evaluation that is in place will be able to point to the concerns that you have raised, and will allow us to identify what needs to be done to rectify such situations. I am confident that that data collection is in place.

Yes, I do think that we have made progress. The case transfer process was always going to be one of the most challenging aspects, but it needs to work for every single person as we go through it. That is why a great deal of work is going on not just within the agency but very closely and collegiately with the DWP. It might be that the issue has not been handled correctly either within the agency or by the DWP, and they need to work together—and are working together—to ensure that such situations do not happen.

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.