Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not aware of the UK system having an independent advocacy system that clients are advised to use. If there is one, I am happy to clarify that in writing.

The way that we ensure that our mechanisms are working is, again, by asking people who are going through the system how they are experiencing it and whether it works for them. That approach was a key part of the way in which we developed the system initially, and, now that we have our own system, we will continue to ask what people think of it, whether it is working for them and whether further improvements need to be made to it.

That is a key point. We need to ensure that we are working with stakeholders. It is great that we have a local delivery system with various aspects in place, and we are also conscious that there are trusted organisations and people that folk will be working with in their family setting who they may wish to go to for support and guidance. That is why, as with all the work that the Government and the agency undertake, a great deal of stakeholder work goes on to explain the differences that regulations will make and the impact that they will have, and also the support that is available to people.

We are now getting to the point at which the process that takes people from CDP to ADP has been in place for a reasonable amount of time, and we are seeing a good level of feedback from the third sector about the support that is provided. However, there is no complacency in that, because the process is very difficult.

If the committee recommends that Parliament should pass the regulations, one of the key things that we will do is go back out to stakeholders to explain any changes and differences and to reassure people around some of those areas.

I am unsure whether that is included in the official statistics. I will get back to the committee on that, but I am sure that we will be able to provide that information.

It is very important to support people through the system—that is why we have, for example, local delivery within it—and through the application process. The application then goes through the decision-making process, in which it analysed against the eligibility criteria.

The other important aspect is to point to the number of appeals, which is very small, and the number of reconsiderations, which is also very small. That points to there being a great difference between what happens in the DWP and what happens in Social Security Scotland in relation to the latter agency getting the decision right the first time.

If anyone who has had a refusal has concerns about that and wishes to seek redetermination or to make an appeal, they are given that information directly when they get their letter. Of course, we must have a system that supports people. We must have a system that makes a strong eligibility-based decision, and then we support people to go through the appeals process if that is required. The committee can take heart from the fact that the number of redeterminations and appeals is exceptionally low compared with the figures for the DWP, which once again demonstrates that we are getting the decision right first time in many more cases than was the case with the DWP.

Of course, because it is a new system, there will inevitably be monitoring and evaluation to ensure that we have a system that is fair and that decisions are being made. I understand that the committee has had an invitation—it has been outstanding for some time—to go to Social Security Scotland’s headquarters. I am sure that the agency would be delighted to take you through the monitoring and evaluation process in greater detail when the committee finds time to visit.

It involves working as part of a cohesive team, as I hope the committee would expect. You are quite right that some of those responsibilities will lie with the Scottish Government and some will lie with the agencies, but we are not sitting in two different meetings having two different discussions—we are working together, in a collegiate way, looking at where things need to be done.

For example, things may need to be done in-programme, which technically sits within the Scottish Government, and will involve changes to the systems, or changes to the guidance that is used by staff may be required, which would be delivered within the agency. That is why we are all working together as one team on this, rather than it being either an agency issue or a Government issue.

Of course, within that, each action point has lead officials who are looking at it, but it will vary depending on what the action is.

I have perhaps mentioned some of this in previous answers, so I will try not to repeat myself for the sake of time, because I have probably talked for too long already.

One of the key differences is the ability to receive CDP up until the age of 18. That is a hugely important change, which we brought in—as I said in my opening remarks—because it was recognised as a key stressful time for individuals.

In some ways, that complicates the system, because there is not a hard cut-off point and people can make a decision to move to ADP earlier. It is important, however, that that is because it is the right decision for them rather than for the system. As I mentioned earlier, a number of pieces of correspondence will go out to an individual to let them know about the transition phase, and, importantly, to give them the details of where they can seek support.

Another key difference is the local delivery staff that we have in Social Security Scotland, who provide support in filling out application forms. That support mechanism, which is important, is not available within the DWP system.

We also have an independent advocacy service that is available to people who are in receipt of CDP and ADP, and more widely. It is important to ensure that advocacy is provided, because that is clearly very different from support with filling in applications. We also have signposting to independent welfare rights and advice services, which reassure individuals that they are not alone in what can be a difficult time for them, when they are also transitioning into adult services in a number of different ways.

I hope that that gives examples of how the approach is different and of how we can provide support at different points in an individual’s journey from CDP to ADP.

The point about what we can automate and what we can make easier is important, because they are not necessarily the same thing. The challenge with making the move from CDP to ADP a fully automated process is that the eligibility criteria are completely different. It is impossible to make an assumption about a CDP case and immediately transfer that to ADP, so we cannot automate that.

What, then, can we do to make the transition easier for that individual and as simple as possible? There will still need to be a transition from one benefit to the other, and the eligibility criteria will be different—that has been embedded since we agreed the regulations for CDP and ADP.

We are making it easier in a number of ways, but we are very keen to ensure that we do everything that we can, should anything come through as a result of lived experience now that the systems are in place, whether that is in the regulations or in the way that we work, to make it easier for people. We are at that stage rather than full automation.

Again, that points to one of the challenges for people in transition. The difficulty is the complexity of any benefits system—that is not a dig at the DWP, as any benefits system is complex—to ensure that people are at least cognisant of the fact that a change from CDP to ADP may mean changes to other benefit entitlements, such as to passported benefits and so on, which vary so much from individual to individual.

As I said, there is a role for the agency, as the letters go out, in signposting to independent services so that those services can advise individuals. For example, someone might receive a higher award on CDP than they would on ADP, but the position could be vice versa for somebody else. It has to be person centred. As I hope the committee will understand, that has to be done outwith the agency, because, once someone applies for a benefit, the process has begun—and once the agency makes a decision on somebody’s application, that decision is made. That is why it is important that, before people make an application, they know what support and advice services are out there and can work with those services so that they are guided through the challenges, implications and complexities that they might not be aware of—particularly if they are going through the process of moving on to the adult benefit system for the first time.

I do not think that there is an issue with data collection there, because management information is able to link people who have moved from CDP to ADP. We will be able to see, for example, differences in award levels or gaps in payments, which would mean that we have not got the system quite right.

The data collection and monitoring evaluation that is in place will be able to point to the concerns that you have raised, and will allow us to identify what needs to be done to rectify such situations. I am confident that that data collection is in place.

Yes, I do think that we have made progress. The case transfer process was always going to be one of the most challenging aspects, but it needs to work for every single person as we go through it. That is why a great deal of work is going on not just within the agency but very closely and collegiately with the DWP. It might be that the issue has not been handled correctly either within the agency or by the DWP, and they need to work together—and are working together—to ensure that such situations do not happen.