Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Ross, your organisation has talked about training and other potential requirements ahead of time, in relation to lead-in time. I can read the quotation:

“Insurers would need at least 12 months’ notice of this change and details of the new system in order to support its smooth introduction, and provide training for claims handlers to understand the new system and the social security applicable.”

From Mr Rogerson’s perspective, it is a case of press the button and on we go because there is a single point of contact and things at the point of use—as Lynne Macfarlane was talking about—carry on as before. The numbers simply change with a disaggregated breakdown. However, are other things lurking, Mr Ross, that need a wee bit of attention?

Did I characterise your suggestion correctly, Mr Gass?

That is helpful. Right at the start of this line of questioning, Ms Young mentioned a specific case study where CAS had been supporting somebody. You called the person John for the purposes of anonymity, Ms Young. In that case, there was an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Social Security Scotland that was unexpected, and it was made despite the fact that John’s condition had deteriorated. He sought a redetermination on the basis of that deterioration in his condition. We have to capture that properly.

Do correct my terminology, Ms Young—my apologies. There is a wider point that I wish to make.

That explanation is helpful. It seems common sense that there should be a duty on Social Security Scotland in such circumstances to tell people such as John not to withdraw from the process, because it still has the right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and that what John sought in the first place would be locked in until any potential Upper Tribunal appeal has been disposed of. That must be a pretty straightforward thing to make happen.

More widely, Ms Young, you have given one case study or example, but I am sure that there are lots of others where, if common sense were to prevail, we could just fix things. Is there a general need for a review of the guidance, advice and information that Social Security Scotland gives out in such circumstances?

I would have thought that, in such a situation, a basic duty of care from Social Security Scotland would kick in.

I will mop up one final aspect of this helpful line of questioning. Mr Gass talked about the bespoke one-page form that distils all the key information that you can assist clients in completing, which they then sign and off it goes. However, because of the specifics of legislation, a 16-page form has to be sent as part of a box-ticking exercise. I know that this is a rather mundane workaround, but could that form not simply be sent blank with an addendum attached to it? As long as that form had been sent in, it would still count. That is a workaround and not a solution.

Are there clear workarounds, in the very short term, that you could work with Social Security Scotland to secure?

Richard Gass indicated agreement.

There might be a few daft-laddie questions this morning, so I apologise, but I would prefer to understand properly.

Our briefing paper says that applicable benefits could be claimed back for up to five years. Does the certificate relate to benefits that have been received up to the date of the award or do you fast forward? If, as a direct result of an injury, a claimant will be on devolved or reserved benefits for ever or for a prolonged period, is that taken into account for clawback? How does that work?

That is even better, Mr Gass.

What are the witnesses’ views on having a review process for those benefits, as opposed to a redetermination or an appeals process? So far, is the process working fine, or would you like to see any changes? I suspect that, with little experience, there might not be a lot to say. For the record, Ms Young, what are your thoughts on that?

That is helpful.

I do not want to create a division between the witnesses—although it would be nice to get one, because you are all agreeing with each other.

Mr Ross, I think that you are saying that we would need awareness raising of the terminology and the phraseology around the different system in Scotland, rather than taking it for granted that all individuals who work in the sector would be fully aware of the situation. I am sure that they are aware, but we would need to get it right and be 100 per cent sure. Is that what you are saying?

So the big takeaway for us is the need for a single point of contact for the sector in delivering on this. You guys do not have to address the complexities—it is for the DWP and Social Security Scotland, between them, to deal with those. You do not have to see those complexities as long as the front-end user that Lynne Macfarlane was talking about can just continue as they always have done, with the appropriate training.

Sorry, Lynne—I apologise if I have misrepresented your position.