Chamber and committees

Yes, because, as I hope we have demonstrated today and in my previous attendance in relation to the initial regulations, the roll-out has been well planned. We know what our anticipated caseload will be within the agency; therefore, any changes that have to be made to resources within the agency have been planned for.

An important aspect of how the agency operates is the fact that there are a number of different ways in which the workforce can move flexibly from one area to another. I appreciate that, in some areas, there are specialisms within those teams, but the agency is cognisant of the need to flex depending on what is happening. This is an exceptionally busy year for the agency—in fact, it is the busiest year that the agency will see going forward—but all of that has been planned out in the workforce forecasting that we have done, and we do not anticipate any issues.

We will, of course, keep a close eye on that. The committee will be well aware that I have kept a close eye on the work that I have asked the agency to instigate around processing times to make sure that those come down, because they were too long when we introduced the child disability payment and the adult disability payment. That situation is absolutely moving in the right direction, so I think that, importantly, we can reassure clients who may be coming to the agency for other benefits that there will be no disbenefit to them, because things have been carefully planned.

I do not have a figure for that to hand. We can certainly check, but we do not expect this to involve a change in the number of people who come forward. This is a change in dates rather than anything else, so it is something that we have already planned for.

I appreciate that it is not directly your constituency, but I was in Motherwell recently to speak to carers there about the difference that Social Security Scotland’s approach has made to them—both for them as carers and for those they care for. It was a fantastic opportunity for me to meet people and to hear not only about the further improvements that we need to make but about the difference that our approach is already making for people. That was a really useful event for me and my officials to take part in.

As I said in my opening remarks, the on-going work to raise awareness is absolutely vital in enabling people to have an understanding of what is happening and in taking away any stress particularly for those who are in the process of case transfer, who will know that there is no obligation on them to do anything. There have, therefore, been a number of stakeholder events for the roll-out, including online roadshows, and further roadshows are planned. So far, those have been attended by around 270 representatives from, for example, welfare rights organisations and carer support organisations—the people the committee would expect us to be in contact with.

From the roll-out date in June, there will also be further publicity through media, social media and so on to ensure that we get the message across in a generic sense but also particularly to those networks that are already trusted by carers and those they care for.

It is exceptionally important that the rules around backdating are understood and that it is clear that, if an individual is eligible for backdating, it is the agency rather than the client that is responsible for doing the necessary work .

The carers who meet the eligibility criteria for the carer support payment but not carers allowance and who live outside the initial pilot area will be able to have their award backdated to the pilot launch of the benefit if they apply within 13 weeks of the benefit being available in their area or if they have good reason for applying later. It is the same form, but, if there is a recognition in the form that the applicant is a student, processes within the agency will kick in at that point, so that the client does not have to do any additional work or provide any more forms—that will be taken care of by the agency.

Briefly, no—it is not. I have raised those concerns with the UK Government. I am greatly concerned that that does exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do, which is to actively encourage people who have a long-term condition or disability to apply for what they are entitled to. We should support people in that process. That goes back to the fundamental principle that social security is a human right and an investment in our people, and the Scottish Government has absolutely no intention of deviating from that course.

We expect to complete our case transfer process for pension age disability payment by the end of 2025, and we are on track for the case transfer of all our benefits by then.

We are always keen to look at continuous improvement in social security. I appreciate that the Government often says a lot about how we are very proud of what has happened in the social security system and that it is performing well, but, as I have said, I am also cognisant of the fact that it is a new system and that we will learn from the processes. That means that we have to be open to continuous improvement and to change.

Once we have completed the case transfer process and we have had a period of stabilisation, as part of our continuous improvement process we will, of course, consider how the payment can be developed over time. We will look to see whether there are opportunities to make improvements, as I hope the committee would wish us to do. Those will be evidence-led and based on the client experience of pension age disability payment. As we move through the case transfer process, we will see what needs to be done to change things.

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.