Chamber and committees

First, I reiterate my comment about encouraging people to get independent advice and to utilise the resources that the Scottish Government is making available in that respect. What Social Security Scotland can do is advise on individual entitlement by describing to people what, given their circumstances, will be the situation for them; as I have emphasised, everyone’s circumstances will be different. However, we strongly advise people to take independent advice from the advocacy service and through the welfare provision that I outlined in my answer to the deputy convener.

We had hoped to be able to tell the committee about this today. We are working closely with Motability to ensure that those who move on to the accessible vehicle scheme can access the transitional protection scheme provided for individuals who lose their enhanced mobility award when transferring from DLA. As Mr Balfour will be aware, there are different rules, depending on when the individual joined the Motability scheme. In most cases, however, the client will be allowed to keep the vehicle for eight weeks after the end of entitlement and will receive a £2,000 payment.

We are nearing formal agreement of this approach with Motability, and we just need to continue our discussions with it, but I will be happy to write to the committee when it is confirmed. We are seeking to do that as soon as possible.

In my opening statement, I talked about the three circumstances in which people would be part of the cohort transferring under these regulations, or what we call natural case transfer. There is still managed case transfer for those transferring from working age disability living allowance to ADP, and we have considerations to undertake in that respect, but the position is clear: clients to whom any of the three different situations apply will be selected as part of this process.

Of course, we have worked to ensure that people do not have to undergo the sort of DWP-style assessment that they have when they are asked to apply for PIP. A lot of the motivation for putting the natural case transfer process in place was to prevent people from having to go through that PIP assessment process. Instead, they will simply be transferred on to ADP, after which their situation will be reviewed in due course.

We have thought about many different options, and I will bring in Kate Thomson-McDermott in a moment to talk about the considerable amount of work that has been done. Of course, the big challenge for us was that we obtained these powers over disability benefits when the UK system was still in transition between DLA and PIP, but we have tried to make sensitive and effective decisions not only to improve our system but to ensure that case transfer is undertaken in a safe and secure way. Do you want to add anything, Kate?

No—they will not have to make an application. The cases with regard to ADP will be reviewed under the light-touch review process that we have set out.

Of course, it all depends on an individual’s circumstances, too—I cannot speak generically. I am sorry to interrupt you.

Certainly. It is important that we prioritise the case transfer of any individual who would otherwise be required to apply for a PIP under the DWP business-as-usual rules. I know that colleagues will appreciate that. We have already made significant improvements to the assessment process for ADP and will apply the eligibility criteria fairly and consistently to all those entitled to ADP to ensure that the impact of a disability or health condition on an individual, including the impact on mental health conditions, learning disabilities and fluctuating conditions, are taken fully into account.

As Pam Duncan-Glancy has rightly emphasised, we have given a firm commitment to a wide-ranging independent review of ADP commencing one year after the national launch of ADP. In recent days, I have been in active discussions on that matter with officials, but in light of the extensive feedback that we received, we have made a further commitment to a two-stage review, with work beginning later this year, to identify what improvements can be made on the mobility criteria and what should be included in the scope of the stage 2 independent review. We will provide details on both as soon as we are in a position to do so. I appreciate that members, stakeholders and people more broadly are interested to get an update on the first stage, and I certainly give an undertaking to do that as soon as I can.

As I laid out in my answer to the deputy convener on the first questions on these regulations, our resourcing of the independent advocacy service has been set out and budgeted for and is being provided and scaled up. I have already talked about the £12 million that we have provisioned for welfare advice and the engagement with stakeholders that is being undertaken by officials. The agency and the Government have a very close relationship with relevant stakeholders, and the fact that, as we understand it, there will be around 100 transfers per month means that we have capacity in the systems in Scotland—both in Social Security Scotland, of course, and in the advocacy service—to be able to provide that support to those people.

It depends on the individual circumstances. We have to evaluate every case on the merits of the individual’s position and the fact that we will be doing every review from a position of trust. We have some awareness of what has happened with PIP but our system has differences built into it. I think that you heard about some of the implications of that from the Scottish Fiscal Commission earlier in the meeting.

We know that, going from DLA to PIP, about a third of people have received an increase, a third have received a decrease and a third have stayed the same. However, as I said, we will treat every case individually, as people would expect. We will project where we can, but we want to make sure that people are processed individually within their circumstances, and we do not want to prejudice that.

Is it not for me to bring in my officials if I wish to?