Seòmar agus comataidhean

I presume that the committee’s interest in that is with regard to considerations around the green paper from the UK Government. We do not want to pre-empt the review. The necessary prioritisation of safe and secure delivery of the adult disability payment means that we have been clear throughout the process about our intention that changes to eligibility criteria should not be made before the case transfer process is complete, as I have stated many times today.

The second stage of the independent review, which I talked about, will enable exploration of wider considerations of how we want the system to work in Scotland. That will provide an opportunity to consider alternative approaches, such as a whole-life disability benefit, without introducing significant change to eligibility criteria, which would put the safe and secure transfer at risk. To do that, we need an agency that is capable of delivering change and adapting. That is why it is important, in building the capacity of Social Security Scotland, that we undertake the period ahead in a safe and secure way. We want to hear what the independent review says. The point that Mr Briggs raises will of course be a point of interest in the review process.

I would like to add something briefly. I noted Bill Scott’s evidence to the committee in December and his positive comments about the difference that the local delivery teams have made in the delivery of the child disability payment. He made important points about the significance of word of mouth in relation to the different experience and better service. I am confident that, when we deliver the adult disability payment, we will see a similar effect, with people having a different and improved experience, which will help to build confidence in communities in the new service that we are providing.

Thank you, Mr Balfour. As you would expect, as new case law emerges, we regularly and consistently consider its application and its repercussions for all the benefits to which it relates.

We are absolutely committed to considering case law that emerges in different parts of the UK and its repercussions for our system and for people in Scotland. Kayleigh Blair, from the Scottish Government legal division, will speak briefly about that.

I would be grateful if Kayleigh Blair would answer Mr Balfour.

It is an important point.

It may be helpful to the committee if I bring in David Hilber to add to what I have said about case transfer.

Yes—they are absolutely good use of resources, because they will help people throughout their journey. There was strong demand for those initiatives to be introduced during the progress through Parliament of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill in 2016-17, which became the 2018 act. Those things are investments in the people of Scotland and are the result of extensive consultation of people with experience of the social security system, and of disabled people’s organisations and experts. I am confident that that will result in a significantly better experience for people who apply for and receive the adult disability payment.

That, too, reflects points that I made earlier—that it is hugely important that social security be treated as a human right, and that we want to deliver it using the principles of dignity, fairness and respect that we are committed to.

Is that question about the review of the adult disability payment?

This is a significant moment. We are delivering in as straightforward a way as possible, we will always start from a position of trust and people will be able to choose how they apply and the channel that best meets their needs. We will fund the independent advocacy service, so there will be no DWP-style assessments or functional examinations. We will need to collect only one piece of formal supporting information when making a decision, and the onus will be on Social Security Scotland to collect that on people’s behalf.

We will give equal consideration to all sources of information, including the client’s family, carers and friends. Importantly, and as has been emphasised throughout our discussion, we will apply the eligibility criteria fairly and consistently to get more of our decisions right the first time. We will take full account of people’s needs and fluctuating conditions, and people will still be able to access short-term assistance if they challenge an adult disability payment decision. Finally, we will, of course, fast track applications from people with a terminal illness.

We are doing so much that we should all be positive about. Of course, as we have discussed, as the process of delivering the adult disability payment combined with the case transfer process progresses, the review and further discussion will help us to think collectively about what future constructive changes we can make over and above these significant improvements.

The evaluation programme will assess the operation of key aspects of the delivery of the new benefits, including the new procedures that are applicable to the adult disability payment as they unfold, such as the provision of supporting information, special rules for terminal illness, client consultations, case transfer from UK benefits and decision-making processes.

The first of those thematic evaluations is an assessment of the operation of the provision of supporting information for benefit decisions, drawing on the experience of the child disability payment, which will be commissioned later this year, and further aspects of evaluation that might require more evidence from the adult disability payment in particular, such as consultations, terminal illness rules and award duration that require the caseload to build up over time and the consequences to emerge. We will of course be cognisant of that.

The engagement of stakeholders has been so important up to this point. We invite academic and third sector organisations to our annual social security evaluation forum to discuss our approaches to evaluating benefits. We will continue to engage with stakeholders appropriately and meaningfully. As I have said throughout our considerations today, we deeply value the input of our stakeholders, not just in considering the regulations before us but through the whole process of establishing Scotland’s new social security system, which is making and will continue to make a significant and meaningful difference for people in our communities all across the country.

Members will be aware that short-term assistance is available only in the Scottish social security system and not in the DWP system. I emphasise that that is another point on which our system will be different and more supportive of people.

As members will know, short-term assistance supports people when challenging a decision and accessing their rights under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. That addresses barriers to accessing justice by removing certain financial disincentives to challenging decisions that exist in the UK DWP system. However—this is the important point in answer to Mr Choudhury’s question—child disability payment and adult disability payment are separate forms of assistance with different eligibility criteria, and short-term assistance is not designed to be a bridge payment between two forms of assistance.

Extending the scope of the short-term assistance in that way would represent a significant departure from the current policy intent, as it would require short-term assistance to be paid based on an award for which a client was no longer eligible, because of their age or because they are in receipt of the adult disability payment.

Continuing to pay a client’s previous award during a redetermination relies on the client having a previous award for a particular form of assistance that has been reduced or stopped. If short-term assistance were to be extended to cover moves between forms of assistance, it would be paid based on a different payment relating to different eligibility criteria to cover a period where a client was challenging a decision on a separate form of assistance. In effect, short-term assistance is available for the redetermination and appeals process, not as a bridging payment.