Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would be very concerned if public authorities stopped taking a children’s rights approach when delivering their duties just because they are not in scope of the compatibility duty. As I said in my opening remarks, a real desire has been expressed by the Parliament and, more importantly, by children and young people for that approach to be taken regardless of whether the legal compatibility duty comes into effect.

Regardless of the scope of the legal duties in the bill, UNCRC is already at the heart of getting it right for every child, as the convener will be well aware, and it is important that we consider that in its entirety. We are keen to work with local authorities to take a children’s human rights approach in the delivery of their services, regardless of the source of their powers. I know that children and young people want us to do that as legislators, and it is important that our services are delivered in that way. We were speaking earlier about the funding that is in place, and we should not differentiate here: it should not be a matter of just taking that approach when the legal compatibility duty arises while somehow leaving aside the rights of children and young people, as if they are lesser rights, when they are impacted by a UK act, for example.

We are keen to work with public bodies to ensure that we are still considering that approach in the round, regardless of the legal compatibility duty, because it is the right thing to do. As I stressed in my opening remarks, although we are disappointed about the changes that we have had to make, there is still a lot in the bill that requires that wider look to be taken, rather than just considering whether something will end up in court.

Thank you very much, and good morning, convener.

As with all our social security benefits, dignity, fairness and respect have been embedded throughout the process of developing both child and adult disability payment. The journey between the benefits is already well established, and the regulations before the committee today will further improve the client experience of it.

We have extended the eligibility for child disability payment to age 18 to ensure continuity for young disabled people and their families. Given that, as we have been told, this can be a difficult transition period in a young person’s life, we have introduced what is a key point of difference from the Department for Work and Pensions system.

The regulations also build on the existing improvements by protecting payment dates for young people moving to adult disability payment. That provides financial continuity, reduces the risk of gaps in payment or overpayments and eases the transition from one form of assistance to another. It is worth noting that no such protection of payment dates is currently available in the DWP system.

We are also making sure that, where people will get more money when they move to adult disability payment, the process is fully aligned with the policy intent while delivering consistency and fairness across different client groups. We have safely and securely transferred the disability benefit awards of well over 97,000 people living in Scotland, and we are continuing to do so in line with our case transfer principles. No one has to reapply; people continue to be paid the right amount at the right time; and, since the launch of adult disability payment, no one has been required to start a process that would subject them to a DWP-style face-to-face assessment. We will complete the transfer as soon as we can while ensuring that the process remains safe and secure, and we are communicating clearly with people throughout so that they know what is happening with their benefit and when.

We are taking this opportunity to clarify and improve some of the case transfer provisions that support the process. For example, where a person’s award is transferred from the DWP, we recognise any existing appointee pending a review by Social Security Scotland. We are clarifying that a separate review does not need to take place if the person has already been appointed by Social Security Scotland for the purposes of a different Scottish benefit.

We are also clarifying that Social Security Scotland can stop the transfer process if someone moves out of Scotland to another part of the United Kingdom after their case has been selected for transfer but before the transfer completes. That means that they can stay on their existing award and they do not have to reapply to the DWP after they move.

Finally, people whose awards transferred to the child disability payment currently continue to be eligible until they are 19. That approach was meant to ensure that young people who turned 18 close to the time that the adult disability payment launched had enough time to apply. The proposed amendments limit that extension to those turning 18 before the end of the year, which is fairer and a better prioritisation of resources.

We have engaged with the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which has confirmed that it anticipates no material financial implications for Scottish Government spending as a result of the regulations. That confirmation is particularly welcome in this challenging fiscal period, given that the regulations offer further improvements for the people of Scotland at no increased cost.

I am committed to continually improving public services for the people of Scotland, and the regulations allow us to provide clarity and further improve people’s experiences. Taking such opportunities is a founding principle of social security in Scotland, and the regulations that are before the committee today evidence my unending commitment to continuous improvement.

I want to extend my thanks to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its formal scrutiny of the draft amendments earlier this year and its recommendations, which have strengthened the detail of the regulations that are before us today.

I welcome this opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations and I am happy to provide any additional information as required.

I urge some caution when making comparisons. I will give one example of why the situation is different. Members of the committee will be well aware that, when people apply for PIP under the DWP, the customer—as they are called down south—is obligated to find their supporting information and present it, which is one of the greatest stressors and the greatest area of concern around the system that the DWP has. In Social Security Scotland, there is no obligation for the client to do that; it is the agency that will take that obligation on board, which means that it will take time for the agency to get that supporting information from a professional—a general practitioner, a supporting nurse or someone outwith the health sector. However, if we are comparing, it is important to recognise the amount of work that the client has to put in before applying to PIP to get that supporting information, whereas that is not the case under Social Security Scotland. That process takes time—for example, letters have to go out to a GP, and then that information comes back in.

I am well aware that people are waiting too long for child and adult disability payments, which is why a number of measures have been put in place through the client journey to see what can be done to improve that, and I am satisfied that the improvements are making a difference. That difference will have to show up in the statistics as they are published, but a great deal of work is happening and I believe that David Wallace has spoken to the committee about some of the detail of it. I could go on with more examples about how the process has changed, from what is in an application form to our work with stakeholders about how the supporting information is gathered, to the ability for our client advisers to look at that in the system and work within Social Security Scotland to try to bring things to a resolution quickly.

One of the other important aspects is that the agency has given clients many opportunities to, for example, provide us with the details of whom to get supporting information from, which gives the client many opportunities to be able to feed that into the system. That process also takes time if, for whatever reason, the client is not responding to information and requests that are coming out from the agencies.

I would urge caution about making direct comparisons, but I absolutely recognise that work needs to be done. That work is being done and it will continue to be done.

They are not double, because you cannot compare the two figures; they are not a like-for-like comparison.

Exactly, so I—

At every avenue, we have endeavoured to ensure that we are working with people with lived experience to provide a benefits system that is not simply fit for purpose but provides dignity, fairness and respect at every opportunity. That is an important aspect of what we are trying to do and, again, it is about seeing social security as a human right. It is important that we look not only at how we introduce our benefits but at how they work in practice. The regulations today are an example of how we can continue to improve.

I am pleased to see that the recent evidence through, for example, the client experience surveys that Social Security Scotland publishes, has shown a high level of satisfaction with the process of application and with the level of support that people get to fill in the application, which is why we are determined to continue to improve. We should take pride in the fact that people with experiences of the DWP have helped us to shape a system that is markedly different from the experiences that they have had previously.

—in my original remark that the waiting times are unacceptable, and that is exactly why a lot of work is going on.

Information for the case transfer process, including where to report changes of circumstance, is set out clearly in the letters to clients during the process, including the initial welcome letter. It is also discussed at stakeholder events, and the information is very much on the case transfer sheets that the agency’s staff use.

An important aspect of our transfer process is that, if clients who are in receipt of DLA and PIP report a change of circumstance, they are moved on to adult disability payment, so that they do not have to go through a DWP face-to-face assessment.

I recognise that some people have had the difficulties that Ms Callaghan mentioned. Some of that issue will, I hope, be assisted through the regulations that are going through today. In addition, work is already going on in the agency and in the DWP to make sure that every staff member, in both agencies, is absolutely cognisant of what should happen during the case transfer process and about how anything should be dealt with.

More than 97,000 people have had their awards transferred, so, overall, the case transfer process is successful. However, I recognise that there are issues around the management of some cases, examples of which you have given, which demonstrate that the process is not working for everybody. That is why some of the regs are here today and why work is going on not just within the agency but within the DWP.

It is important that, regardless of where you phone, you get the same information on how your change of circumstance is dealt with. A great deal of good work goes on between the agency and the DWP to ensure that the same information is given to clients.

As I have said, I am not taking anything away from the fact that there have been individual cases where the process has not worked as it should have. Indeed, that is why there is a lot both in the regulations and in the work that is being carried out with staff to ensure that, regardless of where you phone, you get the same information.

If you will forgive me, Mr Balfour, I do not quite understand the question, because of the point that I just made to Mr O’Kane about there being different eligibility criteria. You cannot exactly compare the two because of that. However, in saying that, I hope that I can reassure you that, even though there are differences in awards, Social Security Scotland has work in place to monitor and evaluate the individuals who move from CDP to ADP. Those individuals can be identified and tracked in the system, and any differences in awards or money can be monitored.

Although there will be differences because of eligibility, we are doing absolutely everything that we can to monitor and evaluate those individuals, and to compare the award that somebody got with CDP with the award that they get with ADP to see whether there are any fluctuations or changes, or anything of concern in that regard.

I will very gently push back, Mr Balfour. In no way did I say that everything is perfect and that people should back off from scrutiny. I have recognised on a number of occasions that the waiting times are unacceptable for processing, which is why a number of pieces of work have been done. Therefore, if you will forgive me, I will push back a wee bit on that part.

I am happy to look at the individual case, should Mr Balfour wish to pass that on. We are very keen to do that, to make sure that we are learning from particular cases.

Again, I urge the committee to take up the opportunity to go to Dundee to look at the situation in great detail, because an extraordinary amount of work has been done and continues to be done to improve the systems and handling processes that are in place. That work has been on-going for months, and we are seeing the benefits of it—I am confident of that. However, that will take time to find its way through, because we still have cases that have been waiting too long for a decision.

Sometimes, it will take time for processes to change, but a number of changes have already been made, such as to application forms and the way in which cases are dealt with in the agency. We have also seen an improvement in call waiting times, which the committee was very concerned about. I will give two examples of what we are doing. Mr Balfour has known me for long enough to know that I do not take anybody’s word at face value and that I will look into things very seriously. I meet senior leaders in the agency and within the programme very regularly to go through that, but I am also conscious of ensuring that we look at the client surveys, which are statistically sound, about people’s experiences.

It is also important that we speak directly to individuals and stakeholders, such as the Glasgow Disability Alliance. I have met with individuals affected by cancer, for example, who have had a poor experience with the agency. We are very keen to learn from that——all of us, from ministers all the way through to everyone working in Social Security Scotland, who are determined to deliver the type of service that we have spoken about wanting to provide.

I hope that I can provide the member with some reassurance that I take the matter very seriously. With the greatest respect to my officials, I do not just take their word for it. The work that we are doing with stakeholders is very important. A number of changes have already been put in place—we are seeing those changes.

I will never be complacent about the service; I know that a great deal of work still needs to be done. If the committee, after further investigation, visiting Dundee and having discussions with agency staff, feels that more could be done in this area, we will happily take further advice.

The examples that have been given today in relation to these regulations demonstrate how committed we are to looking at continuous improvement. The aspects of the regulations that we are discussing are technical, but we are also looking at continuous improvement in our systems and in the way in which we, as individuals, handle these matters both in Government and in the agency.