Chamber and committees

Again, this is a more complicated situation than we would have hoped for, but, nonetheless, it is about looking at how can we support people during that process. Although new applications are not available for Scottish adult DLA, it is important that there is an avenue for people in the rest of the UK, should they move up to Scotland. With regard to when we need further information, the Scottish adult DLA cross-border form has been developed. That will be available to people with an on-going DLA award who have moved to Scotland. In essence, that will be similar to the part 2 form that is used for other disability benefits, so that clients can provide the further information that is required about their conditions and how they affect them.

Under the arrangements, individuals who have moved to Scotland while receiving a DWP benefit will be signposted by the DWP to contact Social Security Scotland, and to ensure that people understand the process of accessing Scottish adult DLA, clear information will be provided through the usual channels. Again, the process is not ideal, but we have endeavoured to make it as simple as we can for the individuals concerned.

Despite best efforts, we have not been able to agree a cross-border process on terminal illness cases, which is, I think, particularly disappointing. We note that the commission welcomed the Scottish Government’s on-going attempts to agree a data-sharing option with the DWP for terminally ill clients. We would all hope that it is recognised that those clients are in some of the most vulnerable situations, and it would be far from ideal if we put an additional barrier, stress or process in place for those individuals and families. We will absolutely continue our efforts to reduce the burden that we are placing on those families wherever we possibly can.

The DWP has agreed to confirm with Social Security Scotland when a client is registered with it as eligible for special rules for terminal illness, and that will allow Social Security Scotland to confirm that status without needing to seek confirmation from the client. However, the process can be triggered only when a client applies for the special rules for terminal illness, and we have confirmed that it is a cross-border application.

Again, it is not an ideal position that we have been placed in, but we are continuing to work through the data-sharing options with the DWP, particularly for those vulnerable clients.

Let us consider winter payments in the round. In my introductory remarks, I mentioned in passing some of the differences that we have made. For example, the child winter heating payment does not exist in the rest of the UK. Also, our winter heating payment for low-income people is a guaranteed income, which is very different from what happens in the DWP system.

We have used the devolution of winter heating payments in the round to make different choices in those aspects. It is challenging if, while we attempt to move ahead with our policies, there is a handbrake turn from the UK Government on its policies, particularly if there are repercussions—as has been the case with some of the winter heating payments—for the Scottish Government’s in-year budget and not just for the future. That makes things challenging, and we have to bear that in mind as we make our decisions.

I hope that that gives a demonstration of the difference that we can make with devolved social security when it comes to the winter payments. It is still important to use those powers responsibly within our fixed budget and to make choices that we think will deliver support to pensioners, who are most likely to be struggling.

That is subject to what we get from the DWP—being given that information is what will allow us to function. With the caveat that we are reliant on that data and its quality, we expect to begin the payments by the end of November, as we have planned to do.

The ambition is to have paid the majority of clients by the end of December this year. That reflects the DWP’s payments process, which is similar. We are ready to begin the process for those payments at the end of November, and the agency stands ready to receive the data from the DWP to allow data matching to continue. However, it is dependent on the quality of that data.

It is important to recognise that, although this is the first time that we have had the transfer of this data from the DWP to Social Security Scotland, there have been other data transfers in the past. Lessons learned exercises have been undertaken following those processes, because, sometimes, there has been a challenge in relation to the quality of data from the DWP, leading to further work and further manual intervention being required by Social Security Scotland. I hope that the committee is reassured that, following the experience of previous years, those lessons learned exercises have put in place an even better and more robust process for the DWP to be able to hand over high-quality data to the agency this year, to allow it to get on with its work.

I am happy to provide further information on that, if we can, although it might not just be from the Scottish Government. It goes back to why Scotland has the CDP or ADP, or why there is the personal independence payment down south. They exist to recognise the additional costs of being disabled whether someone is in employment or not. That is an important principle.

The changes to the PIP that the UK Government proposed rather turned that on its head, because they were about taking support away from people. It became evident from the concerns that were expressed by disabled people’s organisations, for example, that people were less likely to get into employment or to be able to stay in employment that they were already in, because many people used their ADP, or PIP down south, to deal with some of the additional costs, and that supported them into employment. More work needs to be done to follow on from the work that DPOs have done with their own members—which I appreciate; I think that their case is exceptionally credible and I would support it. However, there are still discussions in the rest of the UK about those types of policy changes.

That is still important to me because of the discussions that we had near the start of this parliamentary session about how a policy change there has massive impacts on our block grant for social security. I recently attended a round table with DPOs to discuss their continuing concerns about what was happening under the welfare changes that are still in place in relation to UC. They were also concerned about the fact that, at a UK Government level, there seems to have been a move away from acceptance that CDP and ADP were there to support people with the additional costs of being disabled. If that principle is in question, but we still agree on it, there is a degree of work that we all have to do to show its importance. Part of that is about how those things support people into employment or support them so that, even if they will not be able to get into employment, they are not socially isolated.

The figure is accurate, but to describe it as a black hole and saying that the Scottish Government is not looking to recover some of it is inaccurate. I have no issue with the figure; I have an issue with the interpretation that that somehow meant that the Scottish Government was just going to leave that to one side and not do anything about it.

I again point to the fact that we need to look at two aspects of the increases in the level of social security expenditure. One aspect is down to changes that are happening across the UK and will therefore be covered by BGA, and the other is the additional investment that we make.

I appreciate that, just because we get the money in from social security block grant adjustments, it does not necessarily have to be spent on social security. It is up to the Scottish Government to consider entirely different aspects around that.

My second point is that the increase in expenditure is not due to any changes to eligibility that the Scottish Government is bringing in. It is about the eligibility that is currently in the system, which has been passed by this Parliament, and those policy decisions following through to an increase in social security expenditure.

I totally appreciate that there is, quite rightly, both in this committee and in Government, an analysis of the increasing levels of social security. Those are conscious decisions that have been taken by this Government to protect disabled people, carers and people on low incomes. The changes and the forthcoming increase are not happening because we are due to make any further changes to eligibility that Parliament has not already voted on.

I am not trying to be obtuse, convener, but some of the cases that David Wallace is referring to are still in process, because the agency is still very young.

For example, if the agency is working through a voluntary recovery of an overpayment but that does not prove successful, it can move to the next step in the process. We will continue to see that number change.

We are always very open within the Government about looking at different approaches if something more can be done.

Again, I go back to first principles. We always have to ensure that, if people are entitled to a benefit they get it, and if they are not entitled to that benefit they do not get it. The other way to make savings is by changing eligibility. Those are the types of decisions that we will make. When it comes to targets, I go back to the point that, if we want to see a reduction in welfare spending, we have to target people and make changes to eligibility.

The other aspect is to ensure that the system is as robust as it possibly can be. One pillar that you have mentioned is the review process. Rather than that being a process where we have to wait until its end to see whether changes can be made, if issues are identified during its initial steps we can take steps to deal with them immediately. The agency has an iterative process of learning and continuous improvement. There are also other aspects, outwith the review section, where we continuously ensure, through the directorate and the agency, that the system is as robust and efficient as it can be and we make the changes that we are able to.