Welfare Reform (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (SSS 2013/65)
Item 2 is oral evidence on the Scottish statutory instrument that has been laid to make provision for access to passported benefits in relation to the new personal independence payment. We have received written evidence, which members will have been able to consider in advance of the meeting. I propose to invite the witnesses to make brief opening remarks before we open up the meeting to questions. Are members content to proceed on that basis?
I invite Bill Scott to go first. Bill, I picked you because you are sitting right opposite me.
Thank you, convener—I think.
I will be awkward and go to the other end of the line of witnesses. I invite Jan Savage to make opening remarks.
First, I thank the committee for inviting Enable Scotland. The committee does not have a written submission from us because we accepted its invitation fairly last minute. However, if there is anything further that we can submit after today, we are happy to do so.
In general, we are happy with the proposals, but we recognise that there are some people who will have an entitlement to DLA today who might not succeed with entitlement to PIP. As a result, the passporting arrangements may not offer them some protection. We have some suggestions about one or two things, which are broadly in agreement with the proposals from Inclusion Scotland, but we are pretty much happy with the proposals.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to come and speak.
I will now open up the discussion to questions from members.
Like Lynn Williams, we would have welcomed more time to scrutinise a number of the issues. Unfortunately, it seems that Westminster keeps us hanging until the last possible minute before telling us its intentions.
The Department for Work and Pensions has produced projections for the United Kingdom, and we examined the current claimant load, as the DWP calls it—the number of people who are claiming those benefits at present—to find out the number of Scottish claims as a percentage of overall UK claims.
We tend to get caught up in numbers, as so many folks do. What do the folks with whom you come into contact think about all the changes?
There is real fear. One of my work colleagues is a wheelchair user and is currently on higher-rate mobility disability living allowance. She is worried that she may lose that allowance and that, if she does, she will lose her means of getting to work, accessing services and having a social life. Her fears are replicated by other disabled people when we go out and discuss the reforms with them.
So it would be fair to say that these regressive changes—the welfare reforms that are supposed to help people back into work—may, in situations such as that of Bill Scott’s work colleague and many others, force people into a position in which they are unable to work, are more reliant on others and have a life that is not as fulfilling as it currently is.
Our sister organisation at UK level, Disability Rights UK, carried out a survey of its members in which well over 1,000 disabled people took part. More than 50 per cent of those who are currently in employment said that they believed that they would be forced to give up work if they lost their mobility allowance. That is not just about fear but about what the changes could mean in practice. The mobility allowance allows people not just to buy or lease Motability vehicles or to access concessionary travel but to pay for a taxi because they have some extra money coming in. If they lose the ability to pay for those extra transport costs, their ability to get about is severely restricted.
Would any of the other witnesses like to comment on how that loss could impact on folk who might no longer be able to work or socialise?
I am here with my Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations hat on, but I can speak from my personal life as a campaigner as well. I echo Bill Scott’s comment that this is another change on top of other changes to people’s lives. The impact on unpaid carers, for example, is that they may have to give up their jobs to ferry people to and from their hospital appointments. Like Bill Scott, I am picking up concerns about the wider, cumulative impacts of some of the welfare reform changes on unpaid carers, which will be substantial. The written submission from Carers Scotland highlights them.
We will meet Iain Duncan Smith informally in a couple of weeks’ time. Unfortunately, the Westminster ministers continue to refuse to give formal evidence to the committee. What would you ask Iain Duncan Smith or say to him about this aspect of welfare reform?
It is hard to put into words the impact that welfare reform is having on families. Bill Scott and Jan Savage may pick up some of these points. People with disabilities contribute to society and have a lot to offer—I married someone who has a disability—but the reforms take away their ability to do that. They take away their ability to live in an equal way to others and to have the same chances and opportunities that we have. We sometimes take those opportunities for granted. When someone loses their blue badge or Motability car, they lose the ability to get out and about and do things that we do automatically without thinking.
I reiterate that last point. There is often a misconception that the DLA and PIP are almost work-related benefits. In fact, there are swathes of people with learning disabilities who want to work and make a valuable contribution to Scottish society. The unintended consequences of welfare reform around passported benefits could have the cumulative impact of putting up far more barriers to people with learning disabilities who want to make a valuable contribution to society. They want to work but, in removing their access to work and their ability to get to work safely, we are putting one more huge barrier in their way.
Outside work, we see the demise of our high streets and retail parks where the shops are. Folk rely on mobility allowance to run a car, which is often necessary for them to get to where the shops are because the high streets are in decline.
The eagle eyed among you will have noticed that the convener has manfully battled his way through his traffic problems. I hand over to him.
I apologise to colleagues and witnesses. I had a 15-minute stationary wait on the M8 because of a smash.
In their opening statements, a number of witnesses—although not all—mentioned a lack of information. I want to explore information in a couple of different ways. First, I will ask a couple of simplistic questions. From whom are you not getting the information? I will ask that question again. I would like to explore the information that you are getting from the DWP, for example. How useful is that, and what else do you need from the DWP that you are not getting at the moment?
Colleagues can probably answer from a disability perspective. People will be getting letters from the DWP and some information will be being shared at a Scottish level about the changes that are coming. We will get sight of some of the letters that are going out to claimants.
That highlights the area that I am trying to get to. I assume that each of your organisations speaks for people who are responsible for giving advice when advice is sought. Where do you get the information on which you base that advice? Is there a significant shortage of information on which to base that advice?
I think that there is a shortage of information. Part of the reason for that is that there is an overambitious will to change the current system, and the timetable for doing so is perhaps too tight. The bedroom tax will come in next month, and Westminster is still unclear about the rights of disabled households in relation to it—I know that the tax has a Sunday name, but I hope that you will forgive me for calling it the bedroom tax, because that is the term that we all use.
It is not the one that I use.
There has been a recognition that disabled children who cannot share a room could be forced to share a room, and there was an indication that the Government might think again about that issue. However, even though the bedroom tax is less than a month away, we have not been told what that thinking might be. It looked like case law would be the ally of the disabled household in the Gorry case, but we know that the DWP has lodged an appeal against the decision.
Kevin Stewart has a conspiracy theory about what is at work here, but I am not confident that that is the case.
Do I? That is news to me.
I am keen to explore the area of information. The instrument that we are discussing is a Scottish Government instrument and it will have to supply the relevant information to advisory bodies. Of course, it is under the same pressure that you have just described. How is your relationship with the Scottish Government and how likely are you to be able to source information in order to give advice on the current instrument?
I must emphasise that Inclusion Scotland is not an advice provider. We do not take on individual cases. We signpost to organisations that have that level of expertise. I was an advice worker previously, and I know enough to know what I do not know. I would not want to advise someone at present.
Enable Scotland would not class itself as an advice provider, but we signpost people with learning disabilities and their families to the appropriate places. On the flow of information, the information that is accessible on the internet from the DWP and which we have seen in letters to our members is complex but fairly thorough.
Alex Johnstone asked about the relationship with the Scottish Government on the agenda. I understand that the papers last week contained a letter from the Deputy First Minister that made a commitment to working with key partners, such as the sector, on the agenda and on ensuring that we get out information on passported benefits. I know that, across the wider sector, we would very much welcome that.
On the issue of capacity, we are aware that resource is being made available from a number of sources to support advice services. I will ask about the adequacy of that in a moment, but are the necessary people out there? Can we recruit the necessary volunteers and professional staff to administer and provide the scale of information that is required? Can the organisations that you represent achieve the necessary level of capacity, regardless of funding?
That is a toughie. There is almost certainly a willingness to do that. Our conference last November and our general engagement with the sector have picked up a willingness to ask what we can do and where we can add value. There will always be a challenge in recruiting volunteers.
The final simple question is, is the level of funding that has been made available so far adequate to support the structure that you have just described?
Obviously the initial investment that was announced a few weeks back has not been allocated yet. We are looking to work with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Government to ensure that we get it to where it needs to go to help the most. Part of the work that we are doing with the Scottish Government is a mapping exercise of the third sector and the impact of welfare reform on it, which we hope will help to shape some of the priorities.
The level of investment that has been made available is very welcome as an initial injection, if you like, into the skill set of the sector. Given the rate of change and the different time frames for implementation, it cannot just be seen as a one-off. We would urge the Scottish Government to work with us to look at how we continue to upskill the sector and maintain the skill set.
The one thing that I would say is that the bulk of the money that has been made available so far is the Barnett consequentials—a decision by the Westminster Government. We would not like the Scottish Government to carry the whole can.
We very much welcome the extra investment in the provision of both welfare rights advice and money advice. A lot of front-line services that are not advice providers are also being affected. A lot of volunteers at least need to be aware of what the changes are and aware enough to say to somebody, “Oh, that’s what that change is and that’s who you need to go and see about it.” That could save a lot of work in the advice sector. That kind of triage, whereby people are directed to local authorities, the DWP or whatever, could save the advice sector and organisations such as Citizens Advice a lot of work.
The committee broadly agrees with the witnesses that the changes will have a pretty iniquitous impact. However, the Scottish Government’s very clear purpose in introducing the regulations that we are discussing is to give some protection to those who currently automatically qualify for passported benefits and to ensure that the maximum possible number of those who automatically qualify at the moment continue to do so after the changes. From my understanding of the written submissions, the witnesses and some of their colleagues who are not represented this morning seem to be saying that although that has largely been achieved in respect of benefits that will be passported through universal credit, the regulations as they stand fail to do the same for other benefits under, for example, the blue badge and the national concessionary travel schemes that will be passported under PIP. Is that a fair summary?
I think that the regulations protect those who will go on to establish an entitlement to PIP, but the concern must be for folk who in the past would have qualified for DLA but who lose their entitlement to PIP.
I am keen to find out whether the various specific suggestions that have been made in the submissions are helpful. Carers Scotland, which is not represented at today’s meeting, has suggested that setting eligibility at four rather than eight points for moving around would protect far more of those who currently qualify for a blue badge. Inclusion Scotland, which is represented today by Bill Scott, has suggested that if the regulations made it automatic for anyone who was entitled to a blue badge—which I presume means through whichever route—to receive the national concessionary travel scheme card, that would protect a significant number of people who might lose that concession.
By and large, yes. I also liked the suggestion by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which did not occur to us—so good for COSLA. It suggests that those who are appealing their decision with regard to the new personal independence payment should retain their entitlement to the blue badge and concessionary travel until their appeal has been heard and decided. Given that appeals are taking more than 12 months from beginning to end, that form of transitional protection would last for quite a lengthy period. Moreover, given the fact that about 40 per cent of those who appeal their work capability assessments are getting their benefits reinstated, such a move would mean that those who might otherwise lose out in the interim would, as they should, retain their entitlement in the interim. It seems quite a sensible suggestion.
Do the other panel members support the proposed changes to the regulations?
The whole point of consulting us was to come up with practical suggestions for dealing with this issue. Because you are changing from one system to another and because the systems are not quite the same, you will, with the best will in the world, miss someone and we are willing to discuss the suggestions further and offer whatever help and support we can to ensure that the regulations are as tight as possible. A review mechanism must be built on top of that to ensure that through our own intelligence we pick up on things that might have gone awry or on people who have might unintentionally have lost out.
Some folk might have been awarded a higher-rate mobility component on an indefinite basis a number of years ago. The law talks about people being “virtually unable to walk”, and that phrase has been interpreted and reinterpreted by the commissioners and now the upper tribunal. At one point, it was recognised that someone who was “virtually unable to walk” could not walk more than 100 yards, which means that some people will have received a mobility award on the basis that they could walk no more than that distance. Given that the new system does not have the 100 yards criterion, some people who had received the higher-rate mobility component might find on revision to PIP that they do not get even a lower rate. If there were scope to catch such people, that would be welcome.
My understanding of the written submissions is that to get four points a person would be able to stand and then move more than 50m but no more than 200m. As a result, if the bar were set at four points, we would get somewhere close to the position that Richard Gass described. Is that correct?
That would be one way of doing it; however, that might also be seen as extending entitlement and I understand the pressures on the budget. Perhaps guidance should be given to local authorities that when they determine the catch-all “virtually unable to walk” criterion in the local assessments, they state that the 100 yards limit be considered.
I thank the witnesses for coming this morning.
First, it is common sense. If a change is made from 50m to 20m, more people will be affected, because there are more people who will be able to walk the interim distance. Our figures are the DWP’s projections. The original projection was that, at the end of the PIP assessment process, 250,000 people who were on or would become entitled to higher-rate mobility allowance would lose it but that, by 2018, 428,000 people would have lost it. That is a 70 per cent increase.
In your experience of working in the sector, what would be a 20m walk and what would be a 25m walk, say? What would be the practical application for an individual suffering from a disability issue?
If the distance is 20m, somebody might get down their garden path; if the distance is 50m, they will probably not be able to reach their Motability vehicle. That is the practical difference. When someone parks to go to the shops, the difference between 20m and 50m can be significant when it comes to reaching the shop door. The same applies for going to hospital. Blue badge parking is situated as near to the hospital doors as possible; usually, it is within the 50m range. If the distance is suddenly moved down to 20m, a lot of people will not be able to make the distance and they will be able to mobilise only by using a wheelchair. That has consequences, in that they will have to be accompanied everywhere they go if they are to get in and out of their wheelchair.
Undoubtedly, the move from 50m to 20m is a cut and a cost-saving exercise. Where does it stop? Will we then take it down to 10m? Most folk can probably take one step and many can take two. At some point, that becomes a meaningless assessment of the ability to walk.
Another practical point is that somebody might be able to walk that distance at home, but not outside the house without support. To be cynical, in effect, somebody could be stuck inside their house for the rest of their life. The change could make the difference between somebody having a life outside their house and being at home all the time.
I absolutely endorse that. We are talking not just about people with mobility and physical disabilities, because there will also be an impact on people with learning disabilities who struggle to get out and about without assistance. The change is putting up a barrier not only to people accessing the world of work, but to their accessing their rights as individuals to live full and happy lives.
That might be another one of the many issues to raise with Mr Iain Duncan Smith at what, sadly, will not be a long enough meeting. Having listened to the evidence that has just been provided, I for one feel it unlikely that I would rely on the assurances from the noble Lord Freud on the issue.
I seek clarification on an issue, although I hope that this is not going over something that I missed earlier in the responses to Kevin Stewart. Section 3 of the SCVO submission refers to the “temporary” nature of
Part of the SCVO’s role is to represent the views of the third sector, so we picked up on concerns in other responses. As we have said, some people might lose out as a result of the passporting arrangements, whether or not that is intentional. To pick up on what Bill Scott and others have said, the concern is that if people lose out as a result of the passporting arrangements, whether or not that is intentional, the risk is that they will become more isolated. There will be the unintended consequences of people being stuck at home and unable to get out and about and travel. As Carers Scotland outlined, that puts additional pressures on family carers. That is why we have called for a review of the regulations to be put in place.
Inclusion Scotland is one of the organisations that picked up on the issue. Does Mr Scott have any additional comments?
Under the European convention on human rights, everyone has a right to a home and to family life. That has been construed widely by the European Court of Human Rights to mean participation in society and the ability to visit friends and family. If people lose not only their monetary entitlement of about £50 through the higher-rate mobility allowance, but concessionary travel and so have added costs on top of a loss of income, their ability to participate in family life might be constrained, which might threaten their human rights. That is why we made that point.
The amendments to the regulations are welcome and will have a positive impact on those who go on to be assessed as eligible for PIP. They will provide transitional protection for those who do not. Our concern is about what happens thereafter to those who, unfortunately, are not eligible for PIP. In time, once their travel card expires, they will lose that, too, and with that they will lose their lifeline to the wider community. The solution to that probably does not lie in regulations, but the issue merits further discussion with our partners in local authorities and national health service boards about how we collectively can make the situation better for those who undoubtedly will be affected.
Several of the witnesses have referred to being in discussions with Scottish Government officials. The SCVO has said that it wants a review, which I assume has been raised with the officials. What feedback has there been on that request? An equally, if not more, important issue is that of an equality impact assessment, which I am sure has been discussed. Has any EqIA been undertaken or has there been a commitment to have one?
From looking at the papers last night, I know that there has been discussion with officials, who made the point that in some cases EqIAs are difficult to carry out. I am not aware of the current situation on that.
As there is no clarity on those issues, it would be useful if the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what its plans are to have a review and about the commitment to have an EqIA.
I do not know whether it is possible to build an EqIA into the regulations. Others have suggested that it is automatically there. As colleagues have said, we are talking not just about passported benefits, but about people’s lives. Given that, we have to get it right.
The record on equality impact assessments is pretty patchy. There are requirements to have them in a host of areas, but they are not always completed or completed effectively. We need to ensure that the equality impact of the regulations is measured as effectively as possible. Therefore, it would be useful for us to check that out.
On the issue of reviewing matters, do the witnesses accept that the arrangements are transitional and that there is a commitment to legislate next year to put the arrangements on an on-going basis? I absolutely accept the points about the serious impact on people’s lives, but do the witnesses accept that part of the purpose of transitional arrangements is to learn the lessons and finesse the arrangements? In essence, the whole process is a review.
There are plans to bring forward further regulations and that will obviously provide an opportunity to review how things are working in practice. However, the problem is that some of this will pan out over the next four to five years. A review in a year’s time will not necessarily give us information on the long-term impacts, because the majority of disability living allowance claimants will not have had their claims reassessed by next year. Only a small number will have had them reassessed. The Parliament and local authorities will have to keep the matter under review over a longer period.
Is this something that we will need to consider when we come to that legislation?
Yes. All of us, by and large, welcome the efforts that have been made, but we are still wondering how things will pan out in practice, because the PIP figures are all projections. Will 47,000 people lose out, or 60,000, or 70,000? What will we have to do then? That will be the question. I agree that we will need to return to the matter.
I endorse that. This is a generational shift and it will take a long time for us to truly understand its impact on Scottish society. In a year’s time, when more legislation is brought forward, it will be useful to take a breath and review what has happened, but I do not think that that will be enough. It will be incumbent on the Scottish Government at that time to ensure that a review mechanism is built in to the new legislation.
I am sure that the committee will have the task of scrutinising that legislation, so we will reflect on that at the time. Thank you.
As I said, we can seek clarity on the longer-term thinking on that. Obviously, these things are being discussed and it would be good to get clarity on where the Government sees things moving forward in that regard.
The question that I was going to ask was very much on the topics that the convener and deputy convener raised. It was about the long-term impacts and the constant reviewing that will be required. I think that that has been covered.
There are probably opportunities to discuss that through the welfare reform scrutiny group, which brings COSLA, third sector representatives and others together round the table. That group has not been used as well as we would like or along the lines that you suggest, and I and others would welcome that greater scrutiny role. I mean that in a positive rather than a negative way. The mechanisms are in place, but we perhaps need to beef them up and use the expertise round the table. Given that we have COSLA, health boards and others sitting round the one table, the group should review that issue.
The experience of work capability assessments is that there is quite a variation between assessment centres in the numbers of people who are found to be fully fit for work. In the Borders, it is only about one in five, whereas in Falkirk it is more than 50 per cent. That sort of variation could pose real difficulties for some local authorities, as the number of assessments that they have to do for blue badges could increase. We know that the numbers will be high, but they could run into thousands more cases than local authorities might otherwise have expected. That is a significant financial burden on local authorities—and on the disabled people if those costs are passed on to them—because people are being assessed regularly for the work capability assessment. It is not a one-off assessment. In many cases, people are being brought back in within six months.
On that point, a suggestion from COSLA was alluded to earlier, about extending some entitlement pending an appeal process. If such a provision could be written in, that would alleviate some of the issues that Bill Scott raised. We would not have to assess somebody locally; we could give them the benefit of their entitlement pending the outcome of their appeal. If the appeal was successful, that would resolve matters and that would be one less assessment for the individual and a reduction in the burden on the local authority.
I will pick up on the question of local authority involvement. The submission from Carers Scotland makes the point that an assessment survey was carried out by Transport Scotland in October 2011 wherein various inconsistencies in approach by the different local authorities were noted. Of course, since then amendments have been made to the legislation and a new code of practice was introduced in January 2012. However, the point is made that
I am not aware of any studies or monitoring, but it seems like a worthwhile exercise, either through freedom of information or some other means, to get those figures and establish whether there has been an increase or a decrease in consistency, at least between different local authority areas.
What guidance is given to local authorities on conducting that local assessment? There is guidance that refers to assessing somebody against being virtually unable to walk, but that used to be for a distance of 100 yards when it was with the social security commissioner, then it came down to 50 yards. I am not sure which definition of being virtually unable to walk the local authorities are advised is the correct one. If there was some clear guidance on that, we could have greater equality across Scotland in that area.
It occurs to me, based on my knowledge of where some of the facilities are at which assessments are carried out, that someone could drive up, park in the car park with their blue badge and then have to walk 20 metres to get into the building, which would mean that they would automatically have done themselves out of a PIP.
Twenty-one metres.
Yes, 21 metres. It just makes no sense whatsoever that they have a system that by its nature, fails people who are just trying to take part in the assessment process.
I attended a session on Dennis Robertson’s proposed blue badge bill on Monday in Aberdeen. I believe that there is another session today in Glasgow. Some assurances were given regarding local authorities’ universal application of eligibility criteria in assessing applicants, and I think that it would be worth while for the committee to confirm with local authorities that such universality is now in place. Aberdeen City Council still has a wee anomaly, as it operates a green badge scheme as well as a blue badge scheme, and it would be worth while for us to find out whether there are any other anomalies.
I will give Alex Johnstone the final question; he might want to put it on the record.
Or he might not.
A few moments ago, Bill Scott suggested that disabled people were—or were likely to be—subject to work capability assessments on a two-to-three-month cycle. Can I take it that that was a slip of the tongue?
I meant all the different assessments taken together. Those people might have to attend a PIP assessment once a year, because that is what the DWP is suggesting, and a WCA once every six months, as quite a lot of people have been assessed six months after the first assessment. If people must also undergo mobility assessments for their blue badge, that would mean another assessment. Putting those all into the mix means that someone could have to go through an assessment once every two or three months for one thing or another, not just for work capability.
Thank you for the clarification.
That concludes our questions. I thank the witnesses for being helpful and informative, as ever. I ask them to keep in touch with the committee as things develop, and we will keep the dialogue going; I thank you all for your contributions so far.