Chamber and committees

Has the SFC been transparent in its assumptions about PIP?

On the subject of more practical things that can be done more quickly, your report mentions that nearly half of ADP applicants said that they would have liked more signposting to other services. That seems to be something that could be done relatively quickly in joining up services. Even if that does not bring a saving for Social Security Scotland, it probably brings a saving for the wider system if people are signposted at an earlier stage.

Excellent—thanks. Most of my other questions have already been asked, but there is one final area that I wish to raise. The report recommends that ADP spending should be considered as part of an equalities and human rights-based budgeting approach. Could you try to put that in layman’s terms? What, practically, would it mean if that approach were adopted in relation to ADP in future?

You have talked about how ADP might interface with wider outcomes—that is the area that I am keen to focus on. It seems that the report is timely; my view is that it is perfectly reasonable for a new organisation to focus on the transfer of recipients to the new system and to make sure that it meets those aspirations about treating people more humanely and with respect. However, it feels as if that section is done and now we need to look at what more we can do with our new ADP benefits system. It is reasonable to want to see how we can interface with other parts of the system.

In paragraph 88 of the report, you suggest that

“the Scottish Government’s approach to supporting disabled people is fragmented”

and that it should be joined up more to ADP. You have said that there is no direct link between ADP and other services. If we are seeing this as an opportunity—I hope that the Government is seeing the publication of your report as an opportunity for the future—what links should be made?

That would be good—thank you.

On the £770 million figure, we have been talking about a funding gap, but it is not really a funding gap, is it? It is a gap between the block grant adjustment and what is being budgeted for. Provided that the Scottish Government—or the Scottish Parliament—is budgeting appropriately for this demand-led service, there is not actually a gap, as such. It is just a gap in terms of where the money is coming from, because it is not hypothecated in that way, is it?

So, it is the OBR’s assumptions that we need to look at in detail.

My hope would be that, across these islands, everyone who is entitled to benefits gets them, because, ultimately, that is best for society. If that was going to happen, it might be the OBR’s—

But this is something that the Parliament makes a decision on each year—that is, how much of the whole budget we think that it is appropriate to spend in an area.

That brings me to the question of how you got the figure of £770 million, because it is important that we understand the working behind that. When we set up Social Security Scotland in this Parliament, we did so with a different ethos, and everyone in the Parliament was clear that we wanted these benefits to be paid to everyone who was entitled to them. If that figure is £141 million more than the money that is coming through Barnett consequentials, it is because this Parliament decided that it should be.

The question is this: what assumptions have you made on the £770 million in relation to what is happening in the rest of the UK? Is the assumption that the rest of the UK will continue with a system that does not give these benefits to everyone who is entitled to them and does not aim to give all disabled people who are entitled to the personal independence payment—as it is elsewhere—their benefit? Is your assumption that that will continue?

I represent the great city of Dundee; lots of my constituents work for Social Security Scotland, and lots of them used to work for DWP. I am not quoting anybody, but I hear that the difference between the two approaches is night and day. Before, success was cutting somebody’s benefits; now, success is making sure that people get the benefit that they are entitled to. Therefore, what assumptions did you make about the UK benefits system in order to get to the figure of £770 million?

That is helpful. My view is that getting people the benefits to which they are entitled is almost like preventative spending if we do it right. However, we need to collect the right data so that we can show that, whatever the figures are, and whatever the difference is between what is being spent in England and what is being spent in Scotland, savings are being made elsewhere in the system. We can then show that, as well as treating people better, the system is working better for the whole of society. I guess that we need to collect the data. Are there any particular bits of data that you think we need to start collecting that currently we are not collecting?

Has the Government given any thought to considering the benefit in a fresh way, or do you think that it should do that? It is in effect replicating PIP now, although it does not need to do that in future. It does not need to be just for that; it could have a wider application. Do you think that the Government should be considering that?