Chamber and committees

The need to ensure that we do not create a two-tier system and that the case transfer is secure is one of the main reasons for its complexity.

Pam Duncan-Glancy makes an important point about the transfer from DLA to ADP. I know that the committee has received evidence on that as part of its consideration. It is not part of the regulations that we are discussing today, but I assure the committee that I will update it on that process shortly, ahead of producing separate draft regulations to make provision for the transfer of those cases.

Today, we are covering our plans for the adult disability payment, including the detail of our processes for transferring the PIP awards of approximately 300,000 people safely and securely to ADP and our commitment to making sure that they are paid the right amount at the right time. We know that the transfer from DLA to ADP is a really important process, too. As I said, we will produce regulations on that shortly and I will update the committee on it as soon as possible.

Marie McNair is raising the important point about why the eligibility criteria that we are proposing need to be largely the same as those for PIP. The committee will be aware that that is fundamentally about three important considerations. The first is safe and secure transfer; the second is making sure that we do not create a two-tier system where people on PIP who are still to transfer into Social Security Scotland would be subject to different conditions from those who are applying for ADP; and the third is the fundamentally important question of passporting and the need for the DWP to consider ADP on a like-for-like basis with PIP for passporting benefits. It is important to point out that we have made some changes in the eligibility criteria that relate to the better experience that we want people to have, but throughout our engagement with the DWP it has been important for them that there were not significant changes to the eligibility criteria for ADP, in order for it to be considered on a like-for-like basis for passporting.

Marie McNair mentioned the 20m rule and I know that the committee has received a lot of evidence on that. Scottish Government ministers have also had a lot of engagement on the issue, with stakeholders and others. It is important that people understand that if the DWP were to change its eligibility rules that could, of course, have an impact. We would be able to be more assured that the DWP would consider ADP with different eligibility rules, if they were concurrent with any changes that the DWP were making, for passporting purposes. Also, the considerations of any added payment out, within the fiscal framework, would be built into the resources received by the Scottish Government, so that there were better resources for the payment of social security. We are already committing a significant amount of additional resource to pay out over and above what we receive through the fiscal framework for social security benefits, because we want to do more and assist people more in our communities.

Of course, we have had no indication from the DWP that it intends to change the 20m rule and that is certainly not a suggestion in its green paper.

Marie McNair is absolutely right to highlight those important differences. Not so long ago, I was a member of the Social Security Committee during the progress of the bill that became the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. I remember the powerful evidence that was provided by organisations that support people at a time of terminal illness and their families. It is a real tribute to the Parliament and to the stakeholders we work with that we have got to the point of delivering such support for those with a terminal illness. It is important that there is adequate support and that people get that support quickly. That is exactly why we have taken the position that we will rely on the evidence of clinicians to make our decisions about granting support to those with a terminal illness. It a matter of considering not time periods, but people’s situation and medical position. That will enable people to get support as quickly as possible.

I will try to come back on as many of those questions as possible. Forgive me if you have to come back on some of them, given their extent.

As I said, we need to consider the 20m rule within the review process; we need to get the feedback on how the adult disability payment performs once it is launched; and we need to undertake the independent review so that the Government can receive feedback on the eligibility criteria. As I set out in a previous answer, we are undertaking consideration of the mobility criteria in 2022.

On the points that have been raised with the committee about those with fluctuating conditions and mental ill health, I appreciate the evidence that the committee received on 16 December. I considered it with interest and intent in a proper manner, and I am grateful for it.

I go back to some of the fundamental points about what our new system will deliver. We have removed all functional examinations from the process. As members will know, the DWP requires examinations, such as testing flexibility and strength and the mental state examination. Those tests do not meet our values of fairness, dignity and respect, and we know from feedback from individuals who have been through the process that they cause widespread stress and anxiety. We do not want that in our new system.

I have mentioned the reliability criteria, which require a person to be able to carry out activities “safely”, “repeatedly”, “to an acceptable standard” and “within a reasonable time”. Those criteria are defined more fully in our legislation to help us make sure that, when an individual is asked whether they can complete an activity such as walking 20m, the full impact of that activity on the individual, including pain and fatigue, is considered.

I appreciate that the considerations for fluctuating conditions have been raised in the evidence that the committee has heard. The improvements that we are making to the delivery of ADP, such as providing additional application channels and replacing assessments with person-centred consultations, are intended to address many of the concerns that people have about the eligibility criteria, how they are applied and their impact on people with fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis and epilepsy.

We have proposed a new way of making entitlement decisions for the adult disability payment to ensure that the criteria are fairly applied to all people. That includes stringently applying the reliability criteria—and I have just pointed out what that involves. The criteria are fully enshrined in the regulations and embedded in every step of the decision-making process, which means that decisions will take full account of fluctuating conditions.

As I have set out, the application process will be inclusive, accessible and provided in a range of formats and routes—online, phone, postal and in person—and it will be transparent throughout to help the individual on their journey. There will be comprehensive guidance for clients on how the eligibility criteria are applied so that they understand that process as well. We will ensure that a client is supported to provide relevant information, guided by the reliability criteria, about how they feel after completing an activity and how long the impacts last. Throughout the process, we will have the advocacy service as well.

I will bring in Janet Richardson to give the agency’s perspective on support for clients with mental health problems. I would be grateful if she could elaborate on some of what I have said for the benefit of Pam Duncan-Glancy and the rest of the committee.

Members will be aware that short-term assistance is available only in the Scottish social security system and not in the DWP system. I emphasise that that is another point on which our system will be different and more supportive of people.

As members will know, short-term assistance supports people when challenging a decision and accessing their rights under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. That addresses barriers to accessing justice by removing certain financial disincentives to challenging decisions that exist in the UK DWP system. However—this is the important point in answer to Mr Choudhury’s question—child disability payment and adult disability payment are separate forms of assistance with different eligibility criteria, and short-term assistance is not designed to be a bridge payment between two forms of assistance.

Extending the scope of the short-term assistance in that way would represent a significant departure from the current policy intent, as it would require short-term assistance to be paid based on an award for which a client was no longer eligible, because of their age or because they are in receipt of the adult disability payment.

Continuing to pay a client’s previous award during a redetermination relies on the client having a previous award for a particular form of assistance that has been reduced or stopped. If short-term assistance were to be extended to cover moves between forms of assistance, it would be paid based on a different payment relating to different eligibility criteria to cover a period where a client was challenging a decision on a separate form of assistance. In effect, short-term assistance is available for the redetermination and appeals process, not as a bridging payment.

Thank you for the question. Yes, I do feel that. The feedback from Bill Scott to the committee on 16 December, on the difference that the local delivery teams have made in delivery of CDP and in helping people to make their applications, was powerful. It will be the same for the adult disability payment. The pandemic and the restrictions have, of course, had an impact on, for example, local delivery teams offering face-to-face assistance in community settings or people’s homes. However as restrictions ease, those things will have more prominence. Local delivery teams being within local authorities is making an impact when people apply; it is a significant improvement that has been introduced in the Scottish social security system and it is making a positive difference in communities.

We have prioritised awards to clients who are between 15 and a half and 18 and are transferring from child disability payment to adult disability payment in order that we can ensure that they will be receiving child disability payments and can be supported by Social Security Scotland when it is time for them to transition. That minimises the need for people who require an appointee on turning 16 to have to go through two appointee processes—one with the DWP and another with SSS—when their awards are transferred. We also decided to prioritise people who meet the special rules for terminal illness in order to ensure that they can avail themselves of our more generous eligibility rules as soon as possible.

We are still working with the DWP to determine how we will prioritise the awards of clients who are under 15 and a half, but we will do so in a way that best minimises the biggest impacts for those who are staying within the DWP system. I hope that that is helpful.

I do not want to be definitive and say that it has never come up, but it was not a point of negotiation, because in order to deliver the adult disability payment safely and securely, the discussions had to take place prior to my appointment. The engagement around the adult disability payment has been on-going for some time. Its introduction was unfortunately delayed due to the pandemic, because the DWP had to reprioritise resources, and the Scottish Government and Scotland as a whole had to deal with the pandemic situation. The decisions were part of considerations, negotiations and discussions in the past period.

The child disability payment, which is already in place, is a significant move and a change that has already been undertaken. As I said, as younger people in the child disability payment system reach the age of 16 and in that period between the age of 16 and 18, there will be significantly improved support and awareness of how they go through the process of applying for the adult disability payment.

I will bring in Janet Richardson to talk about that from the agency side, but the Government is in a healthy place in relation to the promotion of our benefits more widely. We have had collective discussions with the committee and the Parliament on the importance of the benefit take-up strategy and using all communication methods and networks to raise awareness of the social security support that is available. However, there is always more that we can do. When the adult disability payment is launched—if Parliament chooses to pass the regulations, as I hope it will—that will be another opportunity for us all, in every constituency and region, to promote the new benefit and encourage people to apply for the support if they need it and are entitled to it, because we want them to get it.

That is an important question. I thank you for the important words about where we are with the adult disability payment.

The question was about how we keep an eye on rising costs that need to be paid alongside the duty to take up and promote ADP and other benefits. Fellow ministers and I are absolutely clear that social security is a human right and are, therefore, committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to support from our system can receive it.

Our “Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018: Benefit Take-up Strategy—October 2021” details how we will encourage and support people to overcome barriers to accessing support. Of course, we have a duty to promote take-up regardless of how much is being spent on the adult disability payment. That duty is in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.

Many of the improvements that we are making to the application and decision-making processes are intended to remove barriers to applying for disability benefits that currently exist in the system. We will promote and make the process more accessible. We will make it more straightforward and we will help people on their journeys, through our advocacy service and through our local delivery teams.

There is a real shift in consciousness from the approach of the Department for Work and Pensions and experiences that people have had, in respect of benefits having previously attracted a completely unjust and unethical stigma that we all need now to knock away. We want to remove stigma and we want to promote take-up. We want to encourage people to get the support that they need, because a social security system that exists to support people, that is accessible and that is delivering is good. It is good not just for the person who receives the award to which they are entitled, but for society as a whole, as we create a fairer society together. It is also good in relation to distribution in the economy—the fiscal impact and multiplier effect that it can have on the economy.

That is not the most important thing, though. The most important thing is that people get the support that they are entitled to, so we are very committed—I hope that you feel that from what I have said—to encouraging people and helping people to get that support.

Again, I will try to respond to as many of those questions as I can. If Pam Duncan-Glancy wants to raise at the end of my remarks any questions on subjects that I have not managed to cover, I will be happy to have them re-posed.

I have to challenge the question about picking up the pace, because I think that it is extremely unfair, given the delivery and what the agency is undertaking. It lacks appreciation of the situation that we have been in with the pandemic and the fact that we are in a hybrid system where we have to deliver the new benefits, which requires significant engagement with the DWP, but also undertake case transfer.

I appreciate the evidence that the committee has heard. I listened carefully to what Bill Scott and others said. I had significant respect for him throughout my time on the committee. However, the pace of what Social Security Scotland has delivered has been remarkable. We have a really strong agency that is performing, and it has delivered well. In the Scottish child payment, it has delivered a new benefit that was not expected. The payment was created by the Scottish Government and delivered by the agency in a very short period, and I know that the Parliament strongly supports it. We will double the payment from April and we are working towards rolling it out for under-16s from the end of this year, provided that we get the data from the DWP.

I think that talking the achievement of Social Security Scotland down does no good for the collective determination that I know exists in the committee and across the Parliament for the agency to be a success. The agency is delivering strongly and it will deliver the adult disability payment strongly as well. We can all be ambitious and want to do more, but we also need to be realistic about what can be achieved in the dual process in which we have to undertake case transfer as quickly as we can.

Building a new agency and delivering a new service in the way that we have done is an extremely complex process that involves building information technology infrastructure, transferring data, engagement between two Governments, making sure that we adhere to all the legislative requirements, making sure that we have all the checks and balances in place, and making sure that we have all the people in place. It is a significant exercise. The reason why Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government directorate have recently won awards for their achievements is that remarkable progress has been made in the delivery of Social Security Scotland, and the adult disability payment is a significant and key next step.

I will bring in Nathan Gale to talk about the fact that the changes that we are making will make a significant difference and are not just cosmetic. First, however, I will touch on some points about case transfer, because I know that there is significant interest in that, and understandably so. Members will be aware from my letter yesterday that the case transfer process is such that those who will be approaching a reassessment will be prioritised. A PIP reassessment will be prioritised so that they are naturally case transferred into our system. We cannot consider cases retrospectively, because the adult disability payment did not exist when people were reassessed for PIP in months or years past. Of course, if people want to make an application for the adult disability payment when it is rolled out, they will be absolutely entitled to do that.

Pam Duncan-Glancy asked, rightly, whether there will be a campaign to promote the adult disability payment. As members know, through our benefit take-up strategy and our various initiatives, we continuously promote people applying for all the benefits that they are entitled to. One of the key differences in the Scottish social security system is that we want people to get the benefits that they are entitled to. We are proactively promoting the take-up of benefits because we believe that social security is a human right, that it is a collective investment in ourselves and one another, and that it benefits us all by building a fairer society for everyone. We will continue to be proactive in encouraging people to apply.

I would be grateful if Nathan Gale could make some points on the significant changes that we are making.