Seòmar agus comataidhean

Could I develop that point with Ms Horne? You said that you do not want the mobility component to come in immediately and that you want everyone to be transferred across safely before that aspect is looked at again. I know that Age Scotland has had discussions with the Scottish Government and that it has put forward alternatives. Do we need to redesign the system completely? Do we need to look at having a more individual-focused scheme, rather than just giving people a lump sum? Is that practical? The needs of someone who lives in a rural area might be very different from those of someone who lives in central Glasgow, where—as Mr Mason said—a buggy might in some cases be more appropriate than a car. Do we need a more flexible scheme? I appreciate that it might be difficult to come up with one that would have to consider an individual’s needs rather than just giving a lump sum. Is that possible in reality?

The criteria for being awarded the new benefit are different from that for adult disability payment, the descriptors are not the same and it is based on an average day in someone’s life. Is that the best approach, or would you like the descriptors that we have for ADP to be brought in—maybe not immediately, but over time? Maybe you do not a view on that, but I put that to Ms Howard first, and then one of the other two witnesses can come in.

That is helpful.

With regard to getting the information right the first time, one of the changes was that Social Security Scotland would get the information rather than the client having to get it. My understanding from a letter that I received from Social Security Scotland is that, when you are looking for that information, the letters that you send to doctors and so on go into a generic box. People who have been in touch with me have said that there seem to be long delays in getting that information. How quickly are you getting the information from either social work or doctors? What is the average time between requesting information and getting it?

That would be helpful. If I was a client and was reading that, I would be thinking, “Oh, it will be really difficult to get an in-person hearing.” VoiceAbility and any other third sector organisations that are giving advice should be able to say that the SCTS wants to provide a hearing in whatever way the client wants, so that their best interests are served.

So you do not know how long it takes. When you request information from, say, a general practitioner, you do not have an average time for how long it takes to get that.

Mr Mason would probably ask about cost. At the moment, very few hearings take place in venues. The United Kingdom tribunals service previously rented rooms in certain locations. Are you using the same venues, and how much are we paying for those venues if they are not being used very often?

How far would you expect people to travel for tribunals as the number increases?

I have a couple of questions. The first is a bit nerdy and niche—I apologise for that. The new tribunal service has been set up, but precedent was set by cases that were taken in the previous tribunal system. Will the new tribunal system follow that precedent, or is it starting with a blank piece of paper for First-tier Tribunal decision making?

That is absolutely fair.

The VoiceAbility submission states:

“It is possible to participate by video conference or by telephone; by paper; or rarely, in person”.

I am concerned that that wording suggests that the presumption is that in-person hearings, as you would call them, are rare, which would push the client down the route of thinking that in-person hearings will prove to be more difficult to get. Are you concerned by that wording? Could it be more explicit that the client can participate in the way that they want to, which is what the legislation says?

Has VoiceAbility been told that?