Chamber and committees

The evidence from the DWP was welcome. It is probably the most reassuring statement on the issue that we have heard from the DWP in a public setting. It is clearly something that I discuss with DWP ministers in our private meetings. That is good, and it demonstrates the benefit of the DWP giving evidence to the committee, because we have a shared system. I very much welcome that.

I will make a slight caveat to that. What does “find a way” mean? If it means that, for example—this is purely hypothetical—a person might get the reserved benefit only if they went through another application form or another type of assessment, the DWP would have found a way but found one that was detrimental to the client. As we look to make changes in Scotland, it is important that we continue to work closely with the DWP to test out what “find a way” means, because we might get to the point where the clients or stakeholders who are asking for change would see it as a disbenefit if the way that is found is problematic for the people whom the DWP exists to support.

I very much welcome what was said, but I put the caveat on it that we cannot immediately assume that we can do absolutely everything in Scotland. For example, if we were to make substantial changes to any of the disability benefits that greatly increased the number of people who were eligible up here but would not be eligible down south, we would be asking the DWP to pay out benefits that it would not pay out to people in similar situations in England. That is a decision for the DWP to do with what it will, but we need to have that in mind as we look to the changes that we might wish to make.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the great importance that we put on ensuring that people are encouraged to apply for benefits that they may be eligible for. The committee will be well aware, and I believe that it has heard evidence, of the concerning level of benefit uptake of certain reserved benefits for older people—pension credit is the most obvious case.

We are keen to do everything that we can, and we already see that in one area. Because our system is seen to be easier to make applications in, and because the application and assessment process is seen to be more dignified, people are more confident in applying. I heard that directly on a recent visit. We talked about CDP and the fact that parents were talking among themselves about how information had been shared in the school community about how easy the process had been, and people were therefore encouraged to apply.

That is exactly the type of process that we want to see for the pension age disability payment. How do we do that? We will do similar things to what we have done for other benefits, particularly when we launch pilots. We are keen to engage with the local authorities that will be involved in those pilot schemes to ensure that they are fully up to speed with what is happening and that they can support our third sector partners in all those pilot schemes.

As the committee would expect, regular sessions happen during the build-up to a pilot and once a pilot launches. There is also further work that sits outside the social security system but is very important, such as the welfare advice and health partnerships, which place welfare rights advisers in 160 general practices.

There is on-going work to ensure that as we consider uptake we are challenging ourselves not just to look at those who are perhaps the easiest to encourage but to look at seldom-heard groups. I hope that our approach to tackling the additional barriers that those groups face will be assisted when we publish a seldom-heard groups action plan later this year.

I talked through some of that already, so I will not repeat those points, but I will expand on the importance of the local delivery team. We really see that as a key difference between the DWP system and how the system is set up here.

Our local delivery staff have the ability to be available throughout the community. They are not just sitting in an office somewhere waiting for people to come to them but going out to libraries, schools and community settings to meet people directly. They are also able to go directly to people’s homes, should someone wish to receive that support in the home. That is vital, perhaps particularly but not only for an older age group. That service is available to all clients and not just those who are applying for disability benefits.

The local delivery teams are a part of the system that was set up right at the start and was absolutely designed to improve uptake. I hope that this is where it really comes into its own.

There are fundamental differences in approach. One is that there is an inclusive application support process, so that—as I mentioned in my opening remarks—people can apply in a way that is right for them, which is different from the current system.

Another aspect of our social security system that we are proud of is the local delivery teams. They provide support to people who are applying for benefits to maximise, as best they possibly can, what people can get, and they ensure that people get support to fill in the application forms correctly and in full.

Another area where we are keen to make a real difference is terminal illness, which we spoke about earlier. Our approach to award reviews has been very much welcomed within what we have done already in devolved areas. We are ensuring that the process is lighter touch and not as stressful, so that the individual has a lot more dignity in that process. One further example of the difference that we can make concerns short-term assistance, which is unique to Scotland.

Those are the improvements that will be made to ensure that applying for and getting the benefit is different. Mr O’Kane rightly points out that people will want to seek reassurance about the case transfer process and processing times. As I have said to him and others in committee and in the chamber, processing times for CDP and ADP were too long. There is a great deal of improvement in that, and I have been through some of the reasons for that with the committee. All the lessons learned are being built into the design of what we do with PADP.

I think that I am fine, convener.

This is one of the areas that are brand new to Scotland and of which we are proud. I am therefore keen to ensure that it is working effectively. If there are differences of opinion on usability, we are keen to hear them, because the system is still quite new.

Short-term assistance is not designed to replace disability benefits; it is there as a temporary payment to assist someone who is challenging a determination to reduce or cease their entitlement to a disability benefit. The intention when STA was being designed was to ensure that no one was discouraged from challenging a determination by the idea of having to manage for a period with a reduced income.

Short-term assistance does not interact with the backdating of reserved benefits. If someone is successful in having their decision changed at redetermination or appeal, that does not affect that backdating. However, I appreciate that people want us to look at that issue and to have discussions about it, and I am happy to carry on that dialogue to ensure that people feel that the system is being used as intended, or that, if there are lessons to be learned, we can learn them.

If Mr Doris is content for me to do so, I will be happy to get back to him further in writing about passporting benefits and short-term assistance in particular.

I agree that short-term assistance is unique to Scotland. The intention behind it is to ensure that no one is discouraged from challenging a decision. However, it is not in itself an award of a benefit, so there is a difference there. There is a nuance of approach between what happens when someone receives short-term assistance and what happens when they receive a benefit. I will be happy to provide that information in writing, in particular on the carers element, as I appreciate that Mr Doris is talking about passporting to another part of the devolved system—not passporting to the reserved system. I can provide more detail in writing about how that would work and talk the committee through that process.

The disability benefits that we have exist to ensure that we support people who have long-term disabilities or health conditions and the qualifying periods exist to ensure that assistance is targeted at such people. We have the qualifying periods because, if we did not, we could get into a situation where people who have short-term conditions would be eligible and would receive assistance for short periods. That is not the way that the current DWP system is set up, and it is one aspect that we feel it was right to transfer over to ensure that we focus our support on those who have long-term disabilities or health conditions.

I point out that, although there is a longer qualifying period for PADP than for child disability payment and adult disability payment, that goes hand in hand with the fact that there is no qualifying period into the future, as there is with CDP and ADP. That is one of the reasons why we have the slight difference in approach.

I come back to the question whether any change in the system would impact on the DWP’s current position to ensure automatic passporting. If we had a shorter qualifying period, would that run into difficulty? That has not been tested, but I raise it as a concern that we have in our minds, particularly as we go through case transfer, to ensure that people who are applying for the benefits have the same rules and that there is, therefore, no danger of getting into that difficulty with the DWP.

We need to look at eligibility. There is no mobility component to the pension age disability payment, so it is challenging to see how local authorities could determine whether an individual’s mobility needs satisfied the blue badge criteria based on the PADP award. That is the same for attendance allowance. That is the reason why there is not an automatic entitlement process.

In a recent meeting with Age Scotland, which I mentioned earlier, we discussed the blue badge scheme and whether more could be done to assist people through increasing knowledge of the scheme and the fact that, although there is not an automatic entitlement, it is still available for them to apply to. The agency will look at the award letter that comes through after someone gets PADP to ensure that it signposts them to information on the blue badge scheme and how an individual could apply to it.

Although entitlement is not automatic, because there is no mobility component to the benefit, the agency will look at what it can do after an award to signpost people to the blue badge scheme. I am happy to carry on that conversation with stakeholders to consider whether more can be done to ease that process. As we have discussed in committee before, I am keen on the automation of benefits and moving people along as fast as possible. If that is not appropriate in this case, which I do not believe it is, I am keen to carry on the conversation with them about what more we can do.

It is both, because of the point that Mr Doris rightly raised about some of it being passported to another part of the social security system up here and some of it being down to a reserved benefit. We were clear when we designed STA that it is not in itself a benefit. The question is for both Governments, but it is certainly one that the Scottish Government should be absolutely live to, given that we set up STA on a particular premise. There is a question for the UK Government, but I would not shirk our responsibility to consider that.