Social Security Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, September 7, 2017

Official Report 481KB pdf

---

Social Security (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on the Social Security (Scotland) Bill with people who attended the your say workshop in the Parliament the week before last. I attended that workshop and thoroughly enjoyed it, and I thank them for the evidence session.

I welcome Norman Gray, Brian Hurton and Moira Sinclair. Thank you very much for agreeing to appear before the committee to report back from the your say event. I know that you found it a bit daunting, but please do not find this meeting daunting. I am sure that the committee will be interested in everything that you have to say. I invite you to say a little bit about yourselves and your experiences and to report back on the event. We will then move to questions.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I do not receive social security benefits, but this is the third time that I have appeared before the committee to give evidence. The first time was as my son’s representative as we faced up to our fears when he prepared to move from the disability living allowance to PIP, despite the lifetime award of his DLA. The second time was in support of my daughter, who went through the harrowing experience of a PIP assessment following a traumatic head injury. Their experiences further raised my interest in the work of the Social Security Committee and the your say initiative. I am therefore delighted to be here to give my views.

Good morning. I have significant issues with my hips and back. I had the first of many surgeries at the age of 11, and I have been riddled with osteoarthritis. I am currently in receipt of DLA as a lifetime award and I use it to fund a Motability car. That gives me the passport to a blue badge. With both of those in place, I am able to work full time, and I pay more in tax than I receive in DLA. I fully expect the award to be completely removed when I am reassessed for PIP, which will leave me with neither the car nor the badge and with significant difficulties in getting to work.

I became involved with the committee when I responded to a consultation on disability benefits. I, too, am delighted to be here to speak on behalf of those who were at the your say meeting and in general.

Good morning. I have attended your say events for the past two years. I have keratoconus, which is a degenerative condition.

My experience of going through the system started when I was put into the work-related activity group because I was classed as fit for work. I appealed the decision and the case took around 12 months to go to tribunal. Under regulation 35, I was put into the support group in less than five minutes, as I would be at risk in a working environment. I decided that I would tell people about my experience and I got involved in the Parliament. I have been going backward and forward ever since.

Thank you very much. I ask Norman Gray to read out the report of the your say workshop.

The submission provides the group’s answer to the various questions that we were asked about the Social Security (Scotland) Bill. I will read out each question and then give our group’s views.

The first question was:

“What are your views on these principles and this approach?”

As a group, we fully support the idea of including the principles in the bill. They should underpin how the new system runs. We particularly support the objective that states that

“respect for the dignity of individuals is ... at the heart of the Scottish social security system”

and that

“social security is ... a human right”.

The next question was:

“Are there other principles you would like to see included?”

There should be an additional commitment to providing information to people and making the application process as clear, understandable and transparent as possible. Meeting people’s individual needs should not be an afterthought, and a range of access methods should be available to reach people in the way that works best for them, as the Government has proposed. Meeting people’s needs should be put ahead of improvements to the system, and the system should have the flexibility to change according to individual needs. There should be an additional objective that gives individuals the right to advocacy and support. The Scottish Government’s commitment not to use private contractors should also be enshrined in the bill.

The next question was:

“Do you agree with the idea of a charter? Is there anything specific you would like to see in this charter?”

We are all positive about the idea of the charter and agree that a yearly report is important for accountability. The charter should state the rights and responsibilities of both sides, not just of those claiming benefits. Specifically, the charter should contain the following: a commitment to clear explanations of decisions and the reasons behind them, transparency about the assessment system and who the decision makers are, and a commitment to putting in place timescales for processes and meeting them. We are particularly supportive of the Government’s commitment to there being a range of different communication channels, and we would like that to be included in the charter. Phone contact should possible be by local or freephone numbers, not as it is at present.

The next question was:

“Do you have any views on the rules that should apply to all benefits?”

Lifetime awards should be reinstated for those with conditions that will not improve. Reviews of on-going claims should happen only when individual circumstances change, and the criteria that are used in decision making should be made clearer. There can always be a responsibility on whoever receives the benefit to report any improvement. There should be more respect for medical professionals and the value of medical evidence in the benefit assessment process. There should be straightforward, consistent appeals procedures. Information should be saved and shared and should not need to be supplied multiple times to the agency. If an appeal is made, the claimant should remain on the benefit until a decision has been taken on the appeal. That would be preferable to using the new short-term assistance for that purpose. If an agency error leads to overpayment and the benefit claimant supplied the correct information, the payment should not be recoverable. Each individual should have a named person who deals with their case to allow for consistency and improved communication.

Thank you. I will open with a general question. I was at the workshop, and the evidence that was given there is exactly what you have said here. One of the striking points concerned lifetime awards for debilitating illnesses that mean that people can appear to be all right one week and not all right another week. The evidence that was given at the your say event was that that was not looked upon favourably.

We also heard about condescending remarks being made. Because people took the time to dress properly and have a shower and so appeared well, it was remarked that they must be well. What are your thoughts on that issue, which was raised at the your say workshop? Moira Sinclair mentioned that people should get a lifetime award. How difficult is it to put that idea to the DWP?

It has become more difficult with the move to PIP. There are an endless number of medical conditions that medical professionals tell us will not improve. I am not going to grow a new skeleton any time soon, as far as I am aware. There are also conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, that are not only degenerative but mean that people will have good days and bad days. One day, it might take somebody a couple of hours to get up and they can do a few things but, another day, they might be in absolute agony, so nothing is going to happen.

The point that was discussed at the your say workshop was that, when people go to assessments, they make an effort. The feeling was that it is wrong to penalise people for making an effort. We all want to go out in public in a presentable fashion. We all have our mother standing over us saying, “You’re not going out like that! Have you washed behind your ears?” Everyone who goes to the reassessments faces the same issues. Somebody might get up six hours earlier than normal to ensure that they are ready and presentable, but that does not mean that they are coping and that, therefore, their disability is not a problem.

Forgive me, but I will interject there. I understand that more questions were asked at the workshop and that Norman Gray has told us about the responses to only some of them. Did the witnesses decide to give the answers to the questions between them? If so, does one of the other witnesses want to pick up where Norman left off? Was that what you had decided to do?

Yes.

Yes.

Sorry about that. Whoever is next can continue.

That will be me.

The next question that we considered was:

“What changes, if any, do you think should be made to the individual benefits in the Bill?”

We started by looking at carers allowance. We think that there should be different arrangements in place to allow those who are claiming carers allowance to combine that better with employment. We also feel that the criteria for carers allowance should be looked at. For example, the fact that it is not available beyond pension age should be looked at, and there should be the option of claiming part of the allowance rather than the current all-or-nothing situation. For many people, the allowance is their only source of income.

We agreed on the importance of an allowance for young carers, although we did not think that it should necessarily be financial. We feel that carers allowance should be a passport to other assistance such as vouchers towards glasses and that kind of thing. More should be done to ensure that we look after the health of carers. We believe that, given the alternatives, carers allowance represents very good value for money for the state.

On DLA and PIP, as we have mentioned, if a lifetime award is in place, that should transfer without the need for reassessment. A transitional process should be in place for those who lose the benefit. Links with other agencies, such as Motability, need to remain, and there should be a greater allowance for mobility issues. There should be more recognition of the fact that many disabled people work and contribute or have done so previously. Also, claimants should not be penalised for pushing themselves to do as much as they can. For instance, making an effort on physical appearance should not be a negative factor when people are assessed.

We thought that it would be worth considering a different system for winter fuel payments whereby vouchers are issued or fuel bills are met directly to ensure that the money is spent on fuel. Those who do not want the vouchers could donate them to charity or to those who need them more.

We were asked:

“What are your thoughts on the proposal to increase the Carers Allowance?”

We are supportive of the increase, but we agreed that it is only a step in the right direction and does not go far enough. Carers allowance should be a living wage. Adding extra entitlements such as glasses vouchers, along with improved arrangements for respite, would help. We believe that it is about not just the money but support and assistance in other areas as well.

09:45  

We were asked:

“What are your views on the proposal of short-term assistance?”

We think that it is a good idea but that it needs to be automatic and to click into place smoothly instead of being a complicated application process. As we mentioned previously, we believe that it may be better to allow people to continue to be on a benefit when they are appealing a decision than to make them switch to a new short-term assistance benefit.

Other ways in which the assistance could be used include during transitional periods such as the loss of PIP or a change in circumstances and when people are forced out of their homes or accommodation—for example, due to flooding. There should also be clarification in the bill about whether money has to be paid back should the appeal be lost.

We were asked:

“Do you agree that discretionary housing payments should continue largely as they are? Do you have any other views?”

We feel that the current system seems to operate as a postcode lottery and that the scheme should be statutory for all local authorities. There should be better information and awareness about the assistance that is available to people, and the application process should be easier.

We were asked:

“Do you have any views on the approach to put most of the rules about new benefits in secondary legislation?”

We thought that there were pros and cons to that approach, but we trust that the Government will do the right thing. One of the strengths of the approach that we discussed is that it will make it easier for criteria to be changed once it is better understood how things are working in practice. We are generally supportive. However, there needs to be more clarity around which external bodies the Government is developing the regulations with. They should not be just the usual suspects and should include those who have first-hand experience of the benefits system.

We were asked:

“Is there anything else you want to tell us about the bill?”

We are in agreement that the whole benefit application process needs to be simplified. The use of language is important—for example, in the reference to assistance rather than benefits, which we very much support. The change in name reinforces the principles that the system is supposed to be based on and reinforces that we are to be treated with dignity and respect throughout.

The panel said that, for the carers allowance, there should be an option for claiming part of the allowance. Could you expand on that?

That refers mainly to young carers. Young carers are not looking for financial reward for caring; they need things such as respite care associations, because they miss out so much on life as they go through the caring system. They want a reward or payment in kind rather than a financial payment. That is very important.

Brian Hurton spoke about the group’s views on whether the rules about new benefits should be in primary or secondary legislation. Your submission says:

“We thought that there were pros and cons to this but that we trust that the Government will do the right thing.”

You might trust this Government to do the right thing, but that might not necessarily apply to every Government that comes afterwards. Although you trust this Government, do you feel that some of the good work that is going into the bill should be in primary legislation so that it is safeguarded against a later Government that you might not trust?

One of the issues that I brought up was the use of private contractors. One suggestion was that the ban on private contractors should be enshrined so that future Governments can never reverse it and use private contractors when they are in office. We need a guarantee that that ban will never be reversed, as I am concerned about future Governments coming in and taking bits out of the legislation.

Another aspect was that we agree that parts should be in regulation rather than in the bill to make it easier to make changes that will no doubt be required as time goes on. That is partly about the law of unforeseen circumstances. I have no doubt that there will be something that leads us down a path where we want to make a change, and it would be easier to do that if parts were in regulation. That is where we were coming from.

Another factor is accountability. The Government will have to report to the committee each year on what has happened, so there will be some check on what future Governments are doing. Various checks are built into the bill.

Thank you very much for coming along. I have a couple of quick questions and I am happy for anyone to answer them. You mentioned transferring from DLA to PIP without any reassessment. Given that the regulations and criteria are different for DLA and for PIP, how would someone be transferred in that way? To give an example from my experience, I went up an award level. If I had been transferred across, I would have been on a lower award than the one that I got under PIP. How do we avoid people not getting the right award? How might that work in practice?

The next question is directed at Moira Sinclair. I am interested in your comment that, if you do not get PIP, you will not get a blue badge. I understand that the test for a blue badge and the test for PIP are different and are assessed differently, so why are you concerned about that? You may or may not lose your DLA or PIP, but why would that affect your blue badge?

Our feeling was that, if people have a lifetime award, it should be transferred from DLA to PIP. We thought that when the criteria were clear—for example, if someone was in the top rates for everything and had gone through various processes—that would transfer, but we were not of the view that absolutely everything should merge into PIP; we were talking about just the top level.

You are right that there is a different assessment for a blue badge. The issue is having to go through that process. At the moment, I can qualify for a blue badge by ticking a box to say that I receive DLA at the higher mobility rate, rather than having to go through the blue badge assessment as a separate process.

The point about the DLA to PIP transfer is that the two systems can merge together in moving across, but there is a need for an assessment as people move from DLA to PIP. The PIP criteria are sometimes very negative for certain conditions—especially mental conditions. My son has a developmental problem that will never change—it has been the same from birth. He was under great stress because of the transfer. We had about two weeks of very bad behaviour and about two weeks afterwards of unaccountable behaviour from him simply because he thought that he would lose his award. In such cases, it is important to explain that someone’s DLA award will continue into PIP but that they will be reassessed so that we are sure of their level of PIP—that is the main thing.

As a new member of the committee, I have a supplementary question. On lifetime awards, I fully agree with the comments of all three witnesses. I do not know whether, through the people you have been talking to and meeting, you have evidence to show that people are not getting lifetime awards. My experience as a member of a tribunal was that quite a lot of lifetime awards were given, and I am surprised that people are not getting them. Can you give the committee any evidence to show where people are not getting lifetime awards?

I am in receipt of DLA and I am on lifetime awards, but I am still waiting to be put on to PIP, and what will happen is the sort of question that is going through my mind. I get an amount that is based on a low care component and a high mobility component, so if I was going over to PIP without an assessment, I would probably be put into standard care and high mobility. However, what would happen if my care needs changed? I could be given enhanced care. I really do not know about that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy. Evidence has been given to the committee and the papers are there, but Brian Hurton has answered the question.

Thank you for coming to talk to the committee. I have two quick questions. The first is to Moira Sinclair and is in the same area as Jeremy Balfour asked you about. I want to be clear about why you said that you fully expect your award to be completely removed. Why is that?

I receive DLA at the higher rate for mobility, but I receive nothing for care. With the change of criteria under PIP, mobility components are different. Because I can drag myself 50 yards or whatever, I will lose everything.

What impact will that have on you? You said that you work full time.

Yes—I work full time. The first obvious thing is that the Motability car will go, and then I will have to go through the process of trying to get a blue badge. There are all the transport issues. I can be on a train or a bus, but the issue is standing at the train station or the bus stop and being able to move again afterwards—I can seize up a bit. They are all little things, but I would have to work out how all that would fit together.

In Parliament later today, I will ask the Minister for Social Security a general question about why the ban on using private contractors is not in the bill. Brian Hurton talked about that in his opening remarks and I am interested to know why he is against using such contractors.

That is about what disabled people are going through now. We really do not want to go back down that road, to be honest. I would rather have the assessments in public hands, because private contractors are out for profit. I do not want to go into a lot of detail, but a lot of people have had bad experiences of private contracting being used for medical assessments, which should always be in public hands.

The important thing is that, when the system is out of private hands, we get a consistent approach that is all dealing from the same area and the same source.

My daughter had a bad assessment by one agency. The assessment was inhuman and what she was asked was unfair, especially as she had had a severe head injury. When she appealed the decision and was interviewed by somebody from a different contractor, the assessment was different and was sympathetic. That assessor did not just sit at the computer and ask questions to the computer while the person sat behind them; they interacted with the other person. There is no consistency in how private contractors operate.

We were concerned to make sure that those who are involved in making the decisions base them on medical knowledge and expertise. We felt that that was not always necessarily the case when the assessment was done through a private contractor.

I thank those on the panel for their evidence and for all the work that they have put in so far. What discussions have you had about the complexity of the current system and how easy it is to get help with applying for benefits? You say that

“there should be an additional objective that gives individuals the right to advocacy and support.”

How easy has it been for people to access support when they need it? How complex do you feel the system is?

10:00  

I tried to get an advocacy worker but, unfortunately, I was told that to do so I would have to have learning difficulties. Somebody with extreme learning difficulties can get an advocacy worker to help them to fill out the forms, but that should be widespread, and everyone should be given an advocacy worker to help them to navigate the system. That would be supportive.

When my daughter applied for PIP, she went to the citizens advice bureau because, as a result of her condition, she could not understand the form. The staff took her through the whole system of applying but then, when she was told that she had an interview with an assessor, they said that they were not allowed to go with her and represent her. She was left on her own, having had all that support to get to that stage. I had to go with her as her advocate. Continuing advocacy is important.

We talked about simplification of the process in general, which led us on to short-term assistance. We really wanted to avoid people having to fill in more and more applications for slightly different benefits, because that is an arduous process that can be complex. The simpler we can make it, the better. That is where our comments came from about making the forms clear and transparent and using language that the normal person can understand.

That led us to discuss the fact that, if someone has provided the information once, that should be it. They should not need to think, “What did I write on that form two years ago? If I write something slightly different, will I get picked up because I’ve contradicted myself in some strange way?” We wanted to make the system as straightforward as possible.

You are all painting a picture of a stressful system that takes a lot of getting to grips with. When people are at their most vulnerable or unwell, that is even more difficult.

Is there a role for the Government in automatically assessing people for support without making them fill in an application form? I am thinking about the medical professionals you liaise with constantly and the information that they hold on you. Could that be used to ensure that you are receiving everything that you are entitled to, without the need to be assessed by non-medical professionals?

I guess that, if that could be done, we would not object to it. If my general practitioner or surgeon or whoever could say, “Yes—tick that box,” to avoid me filling in a form, I would be all in favour of that.

Is Alison Johnstone talking about constant reassessment?

I am asking about the fact that people are being asked to fill in numerous forms.

When a consultant or GP writes up someone’s medical condition, that should be it. If it is a degenerative condition, it will never improve. Anyone who looks at that information should accept that, so that we do not have to fill out forms all the time.

Constantly being given forms to fill out is really stressful. We have to go through the same rigmarole of explaining our disability; it should be once and that is it. Later, there could be a smaller form to ask whether someone’s condition has changed. Obviously, we would say no—it has not changed. Somebody with a degenerative condition, who has had a lifetime award, should not be constantly reassessed.

One problem with PIP assessments is that not enough cognisance is taken of doctors’ reports. In some cases, the assessment is done with no reference whatever to the medical reports. One way of saving people from having to undergo a face-to-face assessment would be having the medical report there on the first application. The assessor could determine from the medical report whether a face-to-face interview was required, which would simplify the process and in some way demystify the situation.

When you were asked whether you wanted to tell us anything else about the bill, you said that the whole

“process needs to be simplified”.

You also spoke about the use of language, which I was struck by. You gave the example of

“referring to assistance rather than benefits”.

There is a benefit cap. We can imagine that, if the language was changed and that was called an assistance cap, there would be an awareness that, although someone needed assistance, they would not get it. That is really important. Do you hope that your input on that subject will be picked up on?

I am really pleased that the language is starting to change. I do not like the language that the DWP uses. Disabled people—or whoever—are always classed as a “customer”. To be a customer, someone has to buy a product, but I view myself as a patient of the state. That is what I am: a patient, not a customer.

The language that the DWP uses is demeaning, so I am really pleased that the Scottish Government is getting to grips with changing the language.

Part of the reason why we liked the move to the use of “assistance” harks back to what I understood DLA’s purpose to be originally. It was supposed to level the playing field. It was supposed to account for increased expenditure and difficulties that I might have because of my disability and to get me on a par with everybody else. It is not a benefit, a gain or somebody giving me a gift. It was supposed to be assistance just to get me to the point where I am level with everybody else.

Good morning and thank you for everything that you have contributed so far. It has been illuminating, and it is important for us to hear it all.

I want to ask about the points that you made in response to the question about your views on the rules that should apply to all benefits. You said:

“If an appeal is made, the claimant should remain on the benefit until a decision has been taken on the appeal. This would be preferable to using the new short-term assistance for this purpose.”

Will you elaborate on why you think that that is important?

The main reason is the problem of stress. When a person has their allowance taken off them while they wait for their appeal, the allowance might or might not be reinstated later, but what happens in between? How does the person cope? It means that there is no continuity; there is only upset. It is not humane. We are talking about dignity being one of the basic principles. When someone’s allowance is stopped, and they are then told, “Oh, no. Sorry—you were right. We’ll continue it”, it is heartbreaking for them.

One of the major injustices in the system for universal credit, which is a reserved benefit, is that advance payments of universal credit have to be paid back in the process thereafter. Did that inform your decision making on how the system could be better?

It was more about stress levels for people whose allowance is stopped. It puts an awful lot more pressure on the appeal and its outcome. If payment of the allowance was continued throughout the process, that would save an awful lot of problems.

You also said:

“If an agency error leads to overpayment and the correct information was supplied by the person claiming benefits then this shouldn't be recoverable.”

That speaks for itself, but do you want to elaborate on it?

I say in response to the previous question, that we want the appeals process to be slightly quicker than it is at the moment, and that people continuing to receive their benefits during that period might encourage it to be quicker. When a benefit, assistance payment or whatever we call it is withdrawn, that will have implications in respect of a person’s car, their rent payment and so on. Life can move far down the road before the appeal decision comes through: it is not necessarily possible for someone to go back to where they were on the day on which the wrong decision was taken.

On repayments, we completely understand and accept that anyone who has filled in a form for fraudulent purposes or has deliberately misled the agency should pay back every penny, but if the claimant has filled in the form in good faith, has provided all the correct information and then gets a letter that says, “Here is your award,” they should be able to accept in good faith that that is the correct award, and to proceed on that basis. It seems to be very unfair that the agency can try to reclaim the money when it is discovered that a mistake was made on the agency side, through no fault of the claimant and when the claimant has done nothing wrong. The claimant might already have used the money for other purposes, so they will lose during the time that it takes them to pay that back.

My supplementary is about payments that are made in error. On top of the issue of claimants being asked to repay whatever was paid in error, concern has been raised by a legal body about the fact that the system that is proposed in Scotland is harsher than the one in the United Kingdom when it comes to claimants being prosecuted and criminalised if they have made a fraudulent claim and been overpaid. Under the UK system, someone who makes a fraudulent claim and receives an overpayment can be prosecuted and given a jail sentence, but there is a burden on the prosecutor to prove that the applicant knew that they were making a fraudulent application.

However, in Scotland, that burden of proof will not apply: the prosecutor would not have to prove that the applicant knew that they were making a fraudulent claim, so the applicant might have made an honest mistake, for which they would be criminalised. I have received representations about that, and I think that other members of the committee have heard evidence that the Scottish system will be overly harsh and could criminalise people for honest mistakes. Do you have any views on that? Should the Government look at the system again to make sure that anyone who makes an honest mistake will not be criminalised for doing so?

The problem is how we define an “honest mistake”. There might well be an appeal situation in which someone who claims that they made an honest mistake would have to prove that.

Under the present UK system, if the state wants to prosecute a person for a fraudulent claim, it must prove that the claim was made dishonestly, whereas under the proposed Scottish system, the state would not have to prove that the claim was made dishonestly, but would have to prove only that an incorrect claim had been made, regardless of whether the motive for doing so was dishonest or honest.

I still think that there are responsibilities on both sides—the people who apply for benefits and the people who award them. It is quite rational to say that the bill should remain as it is and that repayment would be required, even though that might sound harsh.

That is not an issue that we picked up at the your say workshop: as no one raised it, we cannot comment on it, as a group. However, if that is the case, my view is that it sounds as though the Scottish system might be overly harsh in that respect. Therefore, I would advise that the issue be looked at.

The issue is not one that I have come across, and other members do not seem to have come across it, either. However, I am sure that we will look at it, now that Mark Griffin has raised it.

10:15  

I have a question about young carers, but before that I would like to pick up on an aspect of the earlier discussion about PIP assessments that arose from the questions that were asked by Pauline McNeill, Alison Johnstone and Jeremy Balfour.

I am trying to understand what you want out of a reformed Scottish equivalent to PIP assessments. I do not want to put words in your mouths, but it sounds almost as if you want the assessment to be based on a medical diagnosis of a condition, which is the job of general practitioner or a surgeon. However, as I understand it, the whole point of PIP is to ensure that assessments are based not on medical diagnosis but on need, because two people with the same medical condition might have quite different needs. It might be that we need to revisit all of that, but the point of the assessment process is not to go over the medical diagnosis, which is the job of the doctor, but to understand the need that is generated by the individual’s condition. Is my understanding right, so far?

Yes.

I am just wondering how radical your suggestions are. Are you suggesting that we do not need to have that assessment of need and that we should base our disability social security simply on medical conditions, so that assessment essentially becomes the doctor’s job? Is that the force of your position, or am I misunderstanding it?

We are saying that much more emphasis must be placed on medical diagnosis. I accept that there should also be a needs element of the assessment. However, our feeling is that, at the moment, the medical evidence is being forgotten. That thinking led us to state that we believe that people should not be penalised. As you say, two people with the same condition will have different needs. However, the fact that person A is forcing themselves, by whatever means, to do various things that person B is not doing should not mean that person A is punished for that and loses out as a result. At the moment, the system offers a perverse incentive to act like person B. If I were to lie in my bed every morning saying, “It’s too sore—I can’t get out of bed”, I would be better off. That seems to be bizarre.

Yes, it does—to put it mildly.

I think that you are overstating our position with regard to the role of medical evidence. My point is that the medical evidence should be taken as evidence that an award is required, but there needs also to be a secondary stage involving an assessment of need. We are dealing with individuals, so there needs to be more than simply a statement that the person has something wrong with them. We are all different and, as Mary Sinclair said, two people with the same condition can do different things.

I see that Brian Hurton is nodding. Do you agree with that, Brian?

Yes.

So, you all accept that there needs to be a needs assessment that is different from and supplementary to the medical diagnosis, but your argument is that the two need to be viewed together rather than there being a big wall erected between them. Is that correct?

Yes.

That is helpful, thank you.

When listening to the First Minister announcing her programme for government in Parliament on Tuesday, I noticed that she is no longer talking about a young carers allowance, which I think was a Green Party manifesto commitment that she talked about last year, but is instead talking about a package of support for carers. That is interesting, because it ties in with what you say in your submission about there being

“an allowance for Young Carers”

that is “not necessarily ... financial.” What sort of package of support for young carers do you have in mind?

Young carers need respite every so often, and people do not always recognise the need for mental respite. My granddaughters care for their mother, and two of them have been away in different weeks on a yacht on the west coast, which has given them a chance to get away from the home environment and enjoy other people’s company, which is a regeneration process for them. It was funded from outwith their home situation. That kind of thing is important—it recognises the needs of the carer and can be adapted to their needs.

It is difficult to state that there is one particular thing that would deal with all young carers; it is more about recognising need and there being something that might provide benefit.

Good morning. The session has been really good. I was struck by one thing when Brian Hurton was talking about language, although this is not part of my question. If a person was a customer, they could say that they will take their custom elsewhere, but people on benefit will not get that option. What Brian Hurton said was bang on.

As a point to balance what Jeremy Balfour said, while I have been a constituency MSP, nobody has ever come through my door who has been upgraded during the process. I might be extremely unlucky or everybody in Paisley is being targeted, but I have never experienced that.

Moira Sinclair, I think, brought up an issue in respect of the appeals process. People end up going through that process and many get what they appeal for; however, there is turmoil when a person’s car is taken off them if they have a Motability car. In Moira Sinclair’s case, it will affect her working life. If a person’s appeal is successful, they will get their car back. That is very good for my former colleagues in the automotive industry, but it is not so good if we are trying to create a system in which we are trying to help people. Obviously, we need to ensure that we have a system that treats people with dignity and respect, as the Government says, but currently the system does not do that. In effect, it puts people’s lives in complete turmoil.

On cars and the Motability scheme, I hope that once the new disability benefit is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, people will, when they have to appeal, be able to retain the car that they need. Everybody is losing their car right now.

In general, the feeling has been that something other than “You’ve lost the claim, so you need to go through the appeal process, apply for short-term assistance”—if it is brought in—“and deal with the consequences”, could be said. All that is unnecessary. We could say, when a person starts their appeal, that their benefit can continue until the appeal ends. That would make the approach much more sensible.

I think that Norman Gray mentioned long-term conditions that will not change, and Moira Sinclair mentioned MS and MND in particular. I declare an interest in that my wife has MS. MS is a classic example: the person can walk one day and be fine, but then be in bed for the rest of the week after it. The pressure and stress of the system are triggers for relapses. Adam Tomkins went on about need, but with a lifetime award, a person has proved that the condition will not go away, so it is common sense to use the medical assessment as opposed to talking just about need—although I think that consideration of the two would be combined.

Inclusion Scotland told us that there was a scare about fraudulent use of the old system. However, it said that only under 1 per cent of claims in the old DLA system were found to be fraudulent. We need to strike a balance in the system.

I do not know why the Westminster Government has had a massive experiment with PIP. It is just putting the most vulnerable people in our society under pressure and making them feel undervalued. What do you think of the whole process in general?

I can understand the problem of moving to the PIP system. The PIP has a broader base than the DLA and it uses different criteria. The problem with PIP is not so much PIP itself, but how assessments and awards have been done, and how, in many respects, outcomes have not been fair. If you look at the number of appeals in the system, that shows that awards are often wrong because so many people end up appealing.

In many ways, PIP has a fairer basis than the DLA when it comes to recognising a person’s needs and requirements—certainly in terms of the mobility award, for example. My son got a low mobility award in his DLA, but was recognised in his PIP assessment as needing a high award—it recognised his problems with moving around much better than the DLA assessment did. The problem is more how the system is being managed than the system itself.

As with everything, there are winners and losers with the move from DLA to PIP. Although the PIP assessment has correctly recognised some of Norman Gray’s son’s needs, it will put me out on the other side. It is about finding a balance.

It is important to recognise that there are good days and bad days. I know what my limits are, so I will do a lot one day if there is something that I really want to achieve, but I might have a difficult week after that. It has to be recognised that illnesses are a bit of a rollercoaster.

I agree with Moira Sinclair that there will be winners and losers with PIP, through the UK Government. There are questions that have been missed out—for example, about bathing and washing in the bathroom. Because of my visual impairment, I can easily—and have—cut myself when shaving, but the assessments do not recognise that, so I do not get points for it.

I am not scared at the moment, but I am anxious that it is coming and that I will have to go through the whole carry-on with being re-assessed to get put on to PIP. There are certain things about daily living with visual impairments that do not get recognised in PIP, and I am really annoyed about that.

Like Brian Hurton, we were concerned about our son’s move from DLA to PIP, but it transpired that some of our fears were not realised. The example that Brian mentioned—about washing himself—was covered very well in the PIP assessment. We were able to put in a long list with riders about what actually happens. For example, they asked our son whether he can wash, and he was able to say, “Yes, but—”, and all the buts were important.

If there is advocacy, that problem will be taken away as people will realise what they are meant to talk about in the terms of the PIP assessment. Again, it is not a matter of the award itself, but how it is applied.

The issues of advocacy, transparency and simple language were raised on a number of occasions at the committee’s away day.

Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. There were lots of good answers to our questions.

Thank you for having us and for listening to our presentations. It is very reassuring to see that the committee has an open view about what it is looking at and what it might determine in the future. We look forward to seeing what emerges, and what our input has been.

Thank you very much. We look forward to meeting you again.

10:29 Meeting suspended.  

10:32 On resuming—