Chamber and committees

Since I last updated the committee on this, work has been on-going and we have continued our engagement with SCOSS. I cannot say enough how grateful we are for the work that SCOSS does and its input towards our collective determination to build a social security system that is as effective as possible and shaped as it should be in order to serve the people who we wish to assist.

As I have discussed before with the committee, the Government has made and will be fulfilling commitments around helping SCOSS with extra secretariat resource and practical support in order to undertake its important work.

One of the challenges of 2021 was the pressure on SCOSS because of the number of regulations that it had to consider, not just those within the programme but additional regulations that emerged through circumstance and events—for example, the regulations on people from Afghanistan settling in Scotland. There is an ambition to ensure that SCOSS has adequate resource and time to assess regulations, but we are subject to not only our programme but events.

I can confirm and reassure the committee that the resource to support SCOSS is in progress. As part of the formal follow-up to which I have already committed, I would be happy to provide a little more information on that, if that would be helpful for Pam Duncan-Glancy and the committee more widely.

Kirsten—are you able to give some clarity from a legal position, please?

On Mr Balfour’s last question, I say just for clarity, convener, that the arrangements are in place, as stated. I will set out the nature of the arrangements between the agency, practitioners and health boards. Mr Balfour asked about the formal position; I want to make sure that I am clear in elaborating on the wider circumstances of engagement with practitioners and health boards, which I will do as a follow-up.

I want to reassure the committee that advocacy will be available to all clients who self-certify as having a disability, including individuals who are applying for, or are in receipt of, the Scottish child payment. The advocacy position is strong. Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre will say a bit more about that.

With the CDP, we are seeking that cases be transferred as quickly as possible. When we launched the child disability payment—similar is happening as we move towards launching adult disability payment—our strong advice is that people should wait to be transferred because that will be a better experience for them. It will be done seamlessly and Social Security Scotland will manage the process. We are very keen to stress to people that they should wait until case transfer is undertaken.

Choosing to end a DLA or personal independence payment claim in order to claim CDP or ADP is always an individual’s choice. Our concern, however, is that, in doing so, people will expose themselves to unnecessary risk that a carefully managed case transfer programme avoids. For example, if someone bypasses the case transfer process, they will be required to make a new application and to provide information and evidence on their care and mobility again, which might cause undue stress or anxiety. Of course, there is no guarantee that the person will be awarded CDP or ADP—although it would be more likely than not that they would—or that it would be paid at the same rate. There would be no guarantee of that.

For all those reasons, we think that it is much better if people wait until our case transfer process takes place in order to ensure that they have the best experience when moving from the DWP to Social Security Scotland. I am grateful to the third sector, parliamentarians and other stakeholders who are helping to emphasise to people that it is much better for them to let us manage the process of transferring their entitlement to Social Security Scotland, and that that will be done seamlessly.

As I said in my answer to Emma Roddick, as far as I am aware there is no prioritisation within the case transfer process with regard to circumstance or condition, but there are, of course, case transfer considerations around, for example, natural case transfer for people who are approaching a review date on their DWP award. That is why I suggested that it might be helpful to the committee to discuss case transfer in the round at a future juncture. I should be clear that, as far as I am aware, there is no prioritisation in the way that Pam Duncan-Glancy alluded to within the case transfer process as things stand.

As has been stated to Parliament on several occasions, we intend to have all case transfer completed in 2025. That is the—[Inaudible.]—from disability living allowance for children to child disability payment. We are working to complete that by spring 2023.

There is a detailed process of engagement between the DWP and Social Security Scotland on the batches of cases that are being done. It is being done in a way that is coherent and professional. In terms of prioritisation being based on need or any considerations around that, that is not a relevant factor. The position is that transfer of people who are in receipt of disability living allowance for children to child disability payment transfer is being done in a practical and systematic way in order to meet our aspiration for completion in spring 2023 for that Scottish benefit.

Thanks to Pam Duncan-Glancy for those questions. I think that that is a question that is broader than the set of regulations before us today and is particularly relevant to the adult disability payment regulations that we are considering next week. If it is appropriate and if it is agreeable to you and the committee, I would be happy to touch on case transfer when we consider the adult disability payment regulations next week. Also, if it would be helpful for the committee, I would be happy at a future juncture beyond 27 January to come to the committee to discuss case transfer as a topic in general beyond the consideration of specific regulations. The process and the assistance from the officials that I will have with me next week means that I will be better placed to touch on these matters then.

That is an important area, and it relates to why we are introducing the regulations. We want to avoid overpayments as much as possible and to ensure that there is engagement with individuals. Through the regulations, we want to encourage contact and engagement in order to avoid overpayments building up.

Miles Briggs asked about self-assessment rather than an objective test. That issue has been considered with SCOSS and was considered a number of years ago during the passage of the bill that became the Social Security Administration and Tribunal Membership (Scotland) Act 2020. At that time, as members will be aware, almost all stakeholders expressed the view that there must be consideration of hardship when a decision is made to suspend assistance. We, of course, agreed with that. If an individual self-assesses that suspending payment would cause them hardship, stakeholders strongly believe—rightly, in our view—that ministers should not suspend assistance when requested information is not provided.

All that considered, the benefit of the self-assessment approach is that suspension decisions will be straightforward for Social Security Scotland to process and should result in very few requests for a review of the decision to suspend. We are not convinced that a proportionate approach would be for Social Security Scotland to objectively assess hardship, given the added complexity that that would introduce. Assessing hardship would take longer, and that delay could lead to more overpayments accruing in some cases. That links back to Miles Briggs’s important question.

As I said, an objective test would be more onerous on individuals and would be less satisfactory for them as clients. Compared with the self-assessment approach, an objective test would also be more administratively complex for Social Security Scotland.

All that considered, we believe that objectively assessing hardship would cause delays, which would lead to overpayments accruing. Therefore, the self-assessment approach is the best one to take on such matters.

There are a number of variables in how an individual responds to the request for information. If they respond within 28 days stating that assistance being suspended would place them in hardship or that they are not able to provide the information, that would of course initiate a further process of engagement with the individual on their circumstances.

To be clear, suspension will be used as a last resort by Social Security Scotland and it will be used only when an individual fails to engage for a minimum period of 28 days. When assistance is suspended, Social Security Scotland will issue the individual with a notice explaining that their entitlement to assistance might be ended if the requested information is not provided within 28 days of the notice. As I said, ending an individual’s benefit will be a last resort and will be done only if all alternative means of obtaining the requested information, which is needed to accurately determine entitlement, have been exhausted.