 Welcome everyone and welcome to the eighth meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Well, I always apologise this morning that the convener is unable to attend in person. I was hoping to follow the meeting online. We asked me to step ahead and share it in those circumstances, but I'm happy to assist in doing it. We moved to agenda item 1, which is a decision taking business and private. First item of business today is a decision to take agenda items 3, 4 and 5 in private. We also need to decide whether the committee's consideration of evidence heard on the Social Security Amendment Scotland Bill should be taken in private at future meetings. Are we all agreed? Yes, agreed. Okay, thank you for your assistance. On that, we move to agenda item 2. Our next agenda item is our second evidence session on the Social Security Amendment Scotland Bill, which is currently at stage 1. The bill amends the Social Security Scotland Act 2018 to make changes to the Scottish social security system. Last week, our evidence session provided a general overview of the bill. Today, we will focus on the concerns of specific groups of potentially vulnerable clients who would need support to navigate the system. Can I welcome, in the room this morning, Craig Smith, senior policy research officer, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, and Kirsty Henderson, policy officer, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, RNIB. Welcome to both of you this morning. Thank you for coming along, and can I also welcome online, Claire Andrews, legal rights officer, legal rights services, also RNIB, and Alan Fox, policy information officer, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, known as the Alliance. Thank you to both of our witnesses online for joining us as well. A few housekeeping matters, as we always do at this point in the meeting. Could witnesses wait until myself or a member of the committee asks a question before coming in? That would be helpful. Do feel free to obviously draw to the clerks' attention online that you do wish to come in or catch my eye if you're in the room. We're not trying to dissuade anyone from speaking at all, but if you want to make the exact same point that we've just heard from someone else, don't feel the need to do that, because there's time constraints, so there's no need for every witness to answer every question. And something I'm particularly bad at, to those asking questions and those answering it, please try to do so as concise as possible. So we'll now move straight to questions, and I'll open up if that's okay with witnesses. So the first thing that we're going to look at is part three of the bill on the ability to challenge decisions. What sorts of things should be considered exceptional circumstances that would justify a request for a redetermination or appeal being more than a year late? So that's that time bar of one year unless they're exceptional circumstances. So what should the bar be for that? What kind of examples would witnesses like to give? What would they like to see be deemed to be exceptional circumstances? So who would like to go first in relation to that? Kirsty Henderson? I don't mind going. Yeah. So we represent blind and partially sighted people, support them. So there has been research conducted by Loughborough University which looked at the barriers that blind and partially sighted people face when it comes to claiming uptake of benefits. Obviously a key one is lack of accessible information. So if information, letters, correspondence isn't in a suitable format for the claimant, then they may not know what kind of information is being requested. Another key factor is the availability of support services as well to enable the person to navigate the welfare system. Another thing that was noted is the stigma of claiming welfare. So I suppose for some of our customers if they've recently been diagnosed with a sight loss condition, then there may be a lot of emotional factors involved. They might need time to deal with that, come to terms with that and get support in place. So that again may delay the process of claiming benefits also and could be a reason. There may be other factors as well but there are some of the key ones for our clients. That's very helpful. Kirsty, Alan Falls would like to come in at this point. Good morning. Can I just, as a small correction, mark my job title now as a senior policy officer? So I think since the last time I came to the committee it's changed. Also just a small apology. I've got a lingering cough at the moment so if that interrupts my evidence I hope you'll bear with me. So in terms of some possible exceptional circumstances I think it's impossible to be exhaustive. Obviously it needs to be flexible to allow for sort of individual circumstances that can be very different for others but we would generally suggest that that might be things that would be disruptive to someone's life. So for example a health emergency that needs a significant hospital stay whether someone has moved at short notice from home to residential care. They perhaps experienced a bereavement or a change in provision of unpaid care either by or for themselves. Those are the kind of things that might create sort of a significant disruption in someone's life that unexpectedly prevents them from making a sort of appeal within that sort of period. I absolutely agree with everything that's been said so far. One small correction too. We are now the Scottish Action for Mental Health not the Scottish Association for Mental Health. I will be told off if I don't correct that. So for us we support people with mental health problems across Scotland. For one we welcome the exceptional circumstances clause being introduced and that people can will be able to ask for a redetermination or appeal after a year. I mean as a principal we'd like that to be seen while exceptional as generously as possible recognising the wide array of reasons why someone may not feel able due to psychological mental health reasons for asking for a redetermination within a year. Some particular examples would be as Alan has said periods of long stays in hospital but also in terms of mental health context people who are subject to compulsory treatment be that in hospital particularly in the community may be a big barrier for asking for a redetermination within a year. So as generous as possible it's what we'd like to see which obviously might not join very well with exceptional but just having that kind of empathetic compassionate approach to understanding the wide variety of kind of social or health considerations which may be a barrier for people making engaging with the system. And I suppose I want a quick additional point that would just be the general challenge of engaging with the system and accessing support which has been mentioned. So accessing independent advice and advocacy and people find it particular we've been told people mental health problems can find it really stressful to engage with the social security system even with safeguards in place. So actually taking that decision to challenge the decision which you feel may not be right to use like a redetermination can take a long time to actually just build up that confidence and emotional strength to engage with the system. Okay thank you that's all very clear and apologies for demoting one of our witnesses and misnaming the organisation of another. We're off to a champion start there but the answers were far superior to the introductions. I'll move on with my questioning. We've heard some concerns about clients perhaps feeling a bit pressurised into withdrawing a redetermination or an appeal. Does the policy memorandum offer sufficient reassurance on that particular point? Again I know the default as you look to people in the room but Kirsty Henderson. We did say in our response to the call for views having a cooling off period possibly 14 days it may even be acceptable to extend that to 30 days. The reason being is that for a variety of reasons a claimant may be persuaded to withdraw or may find the process itself too stressful and becomes overwhelmed so may withdraw even if they've got a good chance of success. So the person may have not received independent advice or support. Again we always try and encourage our clients to speak to an advisor to get information about their entitlement. We've seen unfortunately cases with DWP whereby they've made phone calls to claimants to try and persuade them to withdraw a redetermination or a mandatory reconsideration under DWP because with their onious belief that they don't have a chance of success whereas that's not often found to be true. We do have a number of case studies which we can send in as a supplementary paper to that practice where it has occurred in the DWP system. Okay, Kirsty Henderson. Your ask is very clear about the cooling off period but that behaviour irrespective of the DWP or any other organisation that would seem highly inappropriate or unprofessional. Is that anecdotal or is that considered to be wrong either way anecdotal or widespread practices? I would suggest anecdotal. I don't know if it's fair to my colleague Claire if she would want to expand on that at all or not. If Claire wanted to come in and just reflect on that that would be very welcome also. Yes, thank you, I appreciate that. I think in theory this sounds like a positive move in terms of allowing people to withdraw a redetermination that request if they choose to do so. I would be interested to know whether any sort of stats have been collated as to why they want to withdraw it. I would just say that in general terms. I'm not sure the policy intent would necessarily be correctly implemented but in terms of the specific concern that Kirsty is raising there is a practice within some aspects of the DWP system where after somebody has requested a mandatory reconsideration that prompts a call a telephone call from the original decision maker to provide an explanation of that original decision which is not the same as carrying out a mandatory reconsideration which best practice guidance would suggest needs to be done by somebody else and that explanation call could be extremely confusing for our customers often ending up with that request for a mandatory reconsideration not being acted upon it being withdrawn and the customer not actually being aware that that is what's taken place and I think that's the concern that Kirsty is alluding to but I'm fairly reassured that Social Security Scotland wouldn't be putting in place such a practice so is that helpful? That's very, very helpful still consider that that practice may be on-going with DWP does any other witnesses want to come in before we move on? Yeah just really quickly so I mean I agree and I think we've had anecdotal accounts of similar practices but I don't have any particular evidence to share in that at the moment and I suppose for us in terms of we welcome the right for someone to withdraw a redetermination we think in the right space system that is correct that that powers with the individual to choose that but there does need to be no undue pressure put on the individual to withdraw so I think we'd like to see a real clear framework of contact between the agency and the individual we definitely have some free with a cooling off period and where someone is withdrawing a request for a redetermination or appeal that they're clearly signed posted to independent advice and advocacy and given that opportunity to access those independent advice services before making a final decision That's all very helpful thank you can we move on now to our next letter questioning can I bring in Katie Clark MSP Yes and I was wanting to ask whether you think lapsed appeals should be allowed even if what is offered is isn't the best possible award that could be achieved at Tribunal or if I may be ask Sam H maybe to come in first so on laps appeals so this is where the agency determines that there's there's been an error and makes a new determination while an appeal is on going I mean I think broadly in principle we agree that that is is a good thing that a new determination can happen and we welcome in the bill that there is some safeguard so at the consultation prior to the bill we had some concerns around this particularly where someone may not get the full amount that they could get at Tribunal so while that is still a concern for us we do welcome in the bill that the individual now needs to give kind of explicit consent that they're accepting the new determination and that the new determination has to be more advantageous kind of financially than the the initial determination so that is welcome I think in kind of principle we would still like someone to be able to continue if the original appeal if they want to so it's good that they need to provide consent and we do welcome that there's full challenge rights to the new determination so where the agency makes a determination and the appeal is lapsed that individual still can can ask a redetermination on the new determination and on subsequent appeal which does add quite a few steps into an already stressful process but I think those safeguards do give us some reassurance over it but I mean ultimately if someone wishes to go to tribunal to to achieve or or they believe that they will be entitled to the full benefit amount they should be able to do that yeah any words want to go in relation to that question I think really just to echo what's been said already I think yeah we would we would obviously argue that the person accepts what their full statutory entitlement is even if the redetermination is a better offer than what they've had subsequently as Craig said I think given the the personal opportunity to seek independent advice as to whether that is a good offer and again consent and then the individual agreeing to it so yeah thank you like Claire wanted to come in also just do you want to add to some of that yeah I just wanted to say that I think in in principle we we agree with this because we do know that our customers can find the thought of going forward to an appeal quite stressful and obviously there are you know protections to the public purse et cetera but really the the the the mention of robust guidance is going to be really crucial in this space because again there's been a lot of confusion within the DWP system as to how this is carried out and so I just wanted to sort of flag that that robust guidance is going to be absolutely fundamental you may come onto this in a minute so stop me but we do have an issue with the requirement to have a redetermination on a new determination before going forward to an appeal because that could create a kind of redetermination loop for a customer so just to put that out there at this point Alan falls what it's going as well yeah it's going to be just very briefly because a lot of what I was going to say has already been covered but just that it might seem a bit counterintuitive to some people that someone might not want to go through a process to push for the maximum possible but in a rights based system they might be happy with what they get offered and the redetermination and if they are happy with that and they can make sort of informed consent on that that they are able to access independent advice and advocacy if they are happy to take that then that should be respected and that's an important part of respecting individual choice and decision making within the system Katie, just before I bring you back Jeremy I'm just hold on to your supplementary for a moment I'll let Katie finish a line of questioning and then if you come into your supplementary then you've got the next team anyway that would be helpful okay and last week Erika Young from Citizens Advice argued that clients ought to be able to go straight to appeal without having to go to a redetermination first on the other hand however another witness Dan Connick from Stirling council thought that might be too daunting for people so I was wanting to ask witnesses their views and maybe have asked Claire first thank you I wasn't sure from this question whether you meant specifically in terms of what we've been talking about which is the sort of lapsed appeal or whether the question was in general terms should the redetermination route be removed from the system in its entirety I think probably in more general terms but obviously you could focus on the specific if that is something that you've got a view on well specifically I think the requirement for redetermination on a new determination that would lapse an appeal should be removed and they should go straight to the right to an appeal but in terms of the actual redetermination process itself we have mixed views on this and I think it's fair to say that one particular system isn't always going to be the best system for everybody we acknowledge an appeal could be off-putting and the redetermination might feel more approachable and to be in terms of how social security Scotland work you know provided that the system of redetermination is a robust system and it seems that it is looking at the percentages of cases that are that awards that are changed at the redetermination process and because of the time constraint on carrying out a redetermination our overarching view is that the redetermination process is working and should remain okay thank you I don't know of any other witnesses of indicated I think Kirsty Henson in the DGS yeah I mean to echo what said I think obviously the mandatory reconsideration process as introduced by DWP in around 2013 only served to delay decisions for a number of claimants the good thing with what social security Scotland have in places is the fact that there is a time limit in which the agency can make a decision that gives the claimants some protection and also you know if they choose they can if they've not done it within the particular time limit they can take it to an independent tribunal if they wish so I think that's a a good protective factor okay thank you Kirigsmar just kind of very briefly I suppose for us I mean the overarching principle being decisions should be correctly made as early as possible so I think him looking forward to how particular adult disability payment is operating in Scotland going forward I mean the principle needs to be there obviously we want to minimise mandatory reconsiderations and unappeals ultimately in a system that's operating properly decisions should be correctly made on application an initial assessment but in saying that there's always going to be people there's always going to be mistakes and also the system itself is subjective in terms of assessors do need to come to a decision on fairly complex criteria and evidence so for us I think it's a bit of a waiting game we do have some sympathy with that and kind of line of thinking that actually people should have the right to go directly to appeal because inherently challenging decisions is stressful particularly stressful well for everyone but particularly if there's a pre-existing or ongoing mental health concern but I think for us it's a bit of a waiting game to see how that the Scottish system is operating if we were in a position where the vast majority of mandatory reconsiderations are being overturned at appeal then I think there's a strong argument for a mandatory reconsideration isn't working because it's not making the correct decision go straight to appeal there would be more evidence but I don't think we're quite there in terms of evidence I was having a quick look at the stats yesterday and I think it's about 54% of ADP appeals are successful also about half of appeals are successful but numbers are fairly low because ADP is new so there's not that many appeals yet so I think it's something to look to to the future but in a functioning system I think our preference is to be retaining mandatory reconsideration and appeal but if we get to a position that I think if we look at the DWP system a few years ago where so many mandatory mandatory not reconsiderations yes mandatory reconsiderations get my terminology right were being overturned then there is a kind of strong argument for why you're making people going through this additional stage which isn't actually of working very well in practice okay thank you okay thanks Katie Jeremy Balfour just in regard to representation my understanding is that if the client or your client takes the box to have representation that only lasts for three months and then you have to go for consent again is that right and does that mean that you can't represent your clients fully should it be representation all the way through to whenever the first year tribunal makes a decision would that be easier for you as agencies working or my I'm misunderstanding that Christy I don't know oh anyone really I'm happy to to come in there em we yeah I'm not particularly involved as a welfare rights advisor now I think em it would obviously make sense that if a claimant has named an advice agency or any other person on their form that that person should you know that that gave consent that should last for the duration of the claim including when the decision is made as well I think three months it's a bit of an arbitrary kind of time frame to have it has been noted and I think welfare rights agencies in general would appreciate kind of escalation routes as well just to add in that escalation routes and getting through to speak to advisors within social security Scotland would be a big advantage I know that's not directly related to this but I think would ease the communication between advice agencies welfare rights officers and the agency and the claimant where that supports in place too thank you thank you if I can move us on one of the principles in the policy memorandum is that persons who benefited from the overpaid sums will ultimately be liable to repay them does this justify making individuals liable for overpayments called by the representatives and I'm happy for anyone to jump in on this one I can go first of this or something that was one of the areas of the bill that was most contentious for us when we were coming to our view on it I think ultimately we we agree with the proposals kind of in principle the person who benefits should be liable and that will be maybe the individual in vote might be an appointee or representative who is the one who's actually handled that claim I think there's a real danger of disincentivising people to take up appointeeships and that would be and they play such a vital and crucial safeguard for people including people without capacity or people in the Scottish system with capacity who decided they would like an appointee because they find engaging with the social security system challenging so I think ultimately we do agree with where the bill has landed but with some kind of caution because ultimately you're holding an individual responsible for something that they haven't necessarily done but they have benefited from it so yeah so it is it is a challenging one but we think the balances is kind of just about kind of right there particularly because that doesn't include where for example an appointee has financially exploited an individual or something this is in terms of where there's kind of good faith errors in the system that someone has made and we do welcome that where the agency has made the error in terms of overpayments that there will be no liability kind of on anyone but where there is a good faith error ultimately it should be who has benefited but we do recognise that can be really difficult to determine particularly where you may have a family member who's appointee and some of this money may be going to shared budgeting so I think there needs to be really kind of clear guidance and a framework about how liability in these cases is is determined and kind of as principal throughout we really people with lived experience of disability need to be kind of involved in developing any kind of guidance and framework around these kind of questions yes excuse me similar way we do recognise there's quite a difficult balance to strike here and we do agree with the rationale of you don't want to penalise people who've made errors in good faith as that may discourage people from providing this supportive role and we do need to recognise throughout this process that you know everyone is only human we do make mistakes and as a bit of a tangent that also applies to those administering the system which is why we have been determinations and appeals so addressing those mistakes in a fair and dignified manner is important I do think it makes sense in this context that they overpaid summons recovered from the person who received the payment as it was an overpayment for them rather than recovering it from the person responsible for the error you know if it's not a good faith error they won't have had any benefit from the payment we do think caution needs to be taken that this doesn't cause any financial hardship for people so it needs to be reclaimed appropriately perhaps in small sums over a period of many months and obviously where there has been actual fraud or abuse in the part of the third party that's a different matter and they should be liable and I would agree with Craig that I think the bill does strike sort of the right balance in that area that what is a difficult balance to strike thank you I mean I think just going back to you briefly Craig and maybe you've already how do you think which is actually work in practice so you know obviously and what are your views can it work in practice and how do you think do we need more guidance around it how would actually work in practice I probably don't have a very straight forward answer to that and because I think it is very difficult for it to work out in practice so the guidance will be really key and taking time to get that right and having how these things are investigated and determined in terms of liability will be really key but I mean it isn't straight forward particularly as I say in consideration square there may be a pointy who's a family member or a close friend where there may be joint budgeting in terms of joint travel joint food bills and things that that benefit may have gone towards contributing so while we agree the principle I think there does need to be a lot of time taken to think about how it will work in practice and how these things are decided on a case-by-case basis and absolutely agree with Alan's point about in terms of repayment or overpayments that needs to be done very much on an individual basis ensuring that no one is forced into financial destitution or indeed that their health is negatively impacted by repaying I mean just finally I mean I think you've drawn a distinction between something done innocently around financial abuse and do you think these provisions will tackle incidents of financial abuse? I mean I think the bill gets it right in terms of liability around financial abuse in terms of where an appointee has financially abused and the individual who's claiming benefit that they will be held liable and I think that is a entirely separate situation so yes we absolutely agree they need to be held held liable in those cases and determining that and determining if financial abuse or it's been an honest mistake can be quite challenging as well so there needs to be a real clear framework for gathering evidence around that in a sensitive way for all parties involved but absolutely we agree that there needs to be liability on an individual who has financial abuse someone and they need to be removed as an appointee ship and there's provisions in the bill not in the bill witness system to allow that to happen Thank you convener and thank you and this has already been alluded to by yourself Craig so I'm going to ask this question of others if that's okay do you think that making representatives liable in this way for overpayments and the misuse of money will actually affect people's willingness to become a representative and I would say Craig's already highlighted that concern but if I could go to Claire first maybe and get the women to come in and see if we can get a different view because it's already been highlighted so clear can you give me what you think on that and do you think it's actually going to sort of stop people putting themselves forward to represent Firstly I'd just like to say that I appreciate the clarification as to what we mean by representative in this situation that we're not looking at advice agencies and I agree with pretty much what everybody else has been said here in terms of that this is a really hard balanced act to juggle and I think you have tried to kind of accommodate a variety of circumstances and situations I do think it will be hard to implement and practice I think potentially it could be off-putting to a small number of people but I think that's probably a risk worth taking in the round Thank you because yeah I appreciate that I think a lot of people for example will take a position of authority in a legal sense over a loved one not really understanding the full ramifications of what that actually means power of attorney for example can very easily be taken because you're helping somebody and wanting to care for somebody but actually not knowing what the ramifications of that power of attorney actually means so I think there is a a very important point on this Kirsty could you give me your opinion on whether you think this will stop people from actually putting themselves forward in that position or even that understanding that they might not actually know what it is that put themselves forward for yeah they may not know a blind partially sighted person might have a family member who's helping them with banking and whatnot and money matters I think but when it comes to sort of representative roles and responsibilities it may be helpful to have that information clearly set out and made available in accessible formats for the representative as well as for the claimant as well just so they understand the nature of what could you know what the responsibility and role entails I appreciate it could be slightly different but just I suppose an overview may be helpful That's helpful, thank you I can move on to the next question Will these provisions help tackle instances of financial abuse? Again, this has been touched upon but I'd like to tell a little bit more information if that's possible so in your opinion and again I want to go back to Claire again first Will these provisions help tackle instances of financial abuse in your opinion? I'm going to be very honest to say we don't have a huge amount of experience of this area line and party sighted people typically don't need appointees as long as you know documents are provided in accessible formats that's not necessarily a requirement so I don't give this response from any kind of professional experience of it but I think potentially but it all comes back to what you've just said in terms of people really understanding what their role as an appointee is and what that entails and how liable they could be in certain circumstances and then how that is followed up police monitored and implemented so the answer is potentially but I really don't know we'd have to see how it would play out sorry No, Claire, thank you very much indeed for a very open and honest answer I appreciate it Maybe Alan could come in then Yes, just specifically on financial abuse I would say I don't think it's really possible for social security legislation by itself to sort of disinvent, incentivise financial abuse it's hopefully very, very rare but it strikes me such extreme behaviour that if someone is going to do it they're probably going to do it regardless and it's instead of making sure that the consequences for that abuse sort of fall on the person who's responsible for it in the first place and just a very brief point about the sort of putting people off just the previous points of putting Aaron in that just to say that I think that so few people would misuse the money or act in a bad way I think that I don't think people are going to be put off by the sense that if they commit wrong doing they'll be held liable I think most people would expect that if they do wrong they get held liable so I wouldn't see it as sort of being too discouraging in this scenario That's very, very helpful thank you I'm moving on to appointees now so slightly different shift and Craig this is very much for you Sam H were instrumental in shaping the social security Scotland provisions for authorising appointees Can they explain the problems excuse me can they explain the problems with the DWP process and how the Scottish process differs in that? So yes we were quite instrumental in terms of the social security administration and tribunals bell I always get the name wrong in terms of changes to the appointees appointees in Scotland and kind of in a couple there so it's not so much necessarily that the problems with the DWP system there are some problems in terms of particularly challenging appointees having appointees changed but I suppose the additional safeguards in Scotland which we feel are kind of key particularly in regards to people who have capacity but who would like an appointee so in Scotland there's now third party certification in that circumstances so where someone would like an appointee but they do have capacity so they're not getting an appointee shift because they fall under adults with incapacity you have that right in Scotland now to have an appointee and that appointee goes through a process where there's third party certification which involves ensuring they understand the role of being an appointee the individual themselves understand the role of having an appointee and they can withdraw their consent for having an appointee at any time and ensuring that the individual hasn't been placed under undue influence and agreeing to an appointee shift and that the person is designated kind of suitable so there's that additional safeguard the Scottish system I believe is also a bit more rigorous in terms of challenging appointee shifts so it's written into legislation that Scottish ministers and the agency basically need to take the views of people who have the individual themselves where that's appropriate and proportionate but also any other individuals that have a financial or welfare concern about that individual so if someone another family member or someone who knows the individual is concerned that an appointee is maybe not acting in the interests of an individual they can raise that and they can trigger a review of the appointee shift so there's some additional safeguards built into the Scottish system that we that we really welcome okay thank you Does anybody else want to come in on that question? I didn't think so I really disagree for checking his can't thank you convener okay thank you rose Paul O'Kane thank you very much convener and good morning to the panel I suppose following on from that point I'm interested in how the current process is working particularly in terms of you know transferring the people from PIP into either adult disability payment or child disability payment and really how quickly I suppose the authorisation process is actually working for those people who are being transferred so I don't know if anyone has any views or insight into into that current process Kirsty going to say at the end we've actually had contact and we will be hosting a number of focus groups with blind and partially sighted people at the end of the month it's just a shame that they haven't taken place beforehand so we will have I hope some really good evidence I think just the the kind of original principles with the whole idea of transferring from ADP to sorry DLA to ADP and PIP to ADP was that the process would be as light touch as possible particularly where a person may have been registered as site impaired or severely site impaired for some time we wouldn't expect them to have to go through too arduous a process I appreciate that in some instances the agency might ask for supporting information we were kind of informed that the responsibility should lie with the agency for collecting that and obviously for blind and partially sighted people there could be additional barriers to sending in supporting information should it not be in an accessible format more than happy to send in kind of feedback once we have more feedback from people who've gone through that process Yeah, I think that would be helpful to committee if there is further information I'm not sure if anyone else has a view in terms of the work that they're doing with other groups if you like I mean just very similar to to Custi we're happy to send in any additional information we have we are trying to do some work obviously ahead of the independent review of ADP which will be coming up but we recognise many of our the people that we support through services at SAMH are still in receipt of PIP and haven't transferred yet or in the process of transferring so actually we're still on the stage of trying to really kind of gathering information on people's experience of transfer or making a new claim to ADP but we're happy to share any additional information when we when we have it That's maybe an appropriate point I would normally say at the end of the meeting but you know if there is other evidence you want to sort of pay attention where this is on-going because this is not your one opportunity to put on the record what you believe is important so Custi and I thank you for that offer and likewise Craig Smith that's all witnesses just it's an iterative process any other information that you want to draw to for attention please do that on an on-going basis I'll bring in John Mason now Thank you Cunir Yes, the area I want to ask about is audit and the idea that information can be required and there could be penalties if people do not provide the right information the government talks about they have to get information so that they can establish estimates of error and fraud so my first question is do witnesses agree with suspending a person's benefit payments if they repeatedly fail to provide information to social security Scotland and maybe I think RNIB have views on this Custi is Henderson Yes Thank you Yeah, we do have major concerns about suspension of a person's benefit the consequences of any suspension of a benefit could be very harmful to a claimant particularly if they only become aware of it due to lack of funds available for example on a bank account it could have other repercussions as well some of which could be quite dire for claimants have already seen with the kind of sanctions appreciate that was a different process but it was effectively stopping payment because of lack of information from the claimant so we also feel that it should be a last resort and that the inherent vulnerability of a client should be considered beforehand and that might it may include the fact that they may have had a change in circumstances since the last time that the agency was in touch with them for example if they have had a deterioration in sight they may not be able to read letters or correspondence which is sent to them so mental ill health if people are experiencing a deterioration that could be another factor where responding to correspondence could be would not would put them under additional stress or pressure I think where possible a range of communication methods should be used so that you know it's not and there's various ways of trying to establish contact with the claimant so it's not just you know a letter or two and then there's the suspension so yeah that's that really all do you think I mean on that kind of theme that if perhaps somebody say their eyesight has deteriorated they might need more support than they needed previously I mean do you think there's some way that support can be provided or should be provided in that kind of situation yeah I suppose it might be difficult to ascertain whether the person has support in place or not already I think it should be it should be kind of proactively offered to people if they don't have support in place there is the independent advocacy service that's available through the agency and there's local delivery service as well should a person and that might be a suggestion even that if a person doesn't doesn't respond or fails to provide information that the local delivery service have a role in actually following up with that person locally okay that's helpful thanks mr smith do you have a view on this I mean on the principle kind of a original question is a clear no we don't think anyone's benefits should be ended or suspended because they don't provide information for audit we absolutely recognise that the system needs to be audited and needs to be clear information through audits and they play an important role but we're talking about individuals who are not suspected of fraud who are not suspected of making an error who are at risk of having their claim entirely ended or suspended if we're thinking about ADP adult disability payment we're considering people who may have a wide range of vulnerabilities including mental health problems including suicidal ideation including real challenges in general engaging with the system so to be asking to take part in an audit process is inherently it could just be inherently very challenging for them so I mean we do welcome that there is some safeguards built into the bill around the right of advocacy independent advocacy being really key the right to have a supporter with someone when they're involved in any kind of interviews around audit purposes and gathering of information for audit so we do welcome those but ultimately we don't feel that it's proportionate to have even as a last resort someone's benefit mean ended because they don't want to take part or they're not compliant with audit requests I think this really does conflate fraud and error and audit to get together and the consequences just don't seem proportionate for us and on the principle there was no consultation on this aspect as well in the consultation ahead of the bill or I mean obviously it wasn't in the call for views so we would like to see much more consultation and if these have to go ahead and if that is going to be ultimately ending someone's benefit does remain we need to have really clear co-produced guidance with people with mental health problems and other disabilities and a wide variety of stakeholders involved in producing kind of the framework and guidance about how that would work in practice and what additional safeguards could be built into the system but yeah ultimately we don't think it's proportionate that anyone's benefit would be should be ended because they don't wish to or don't comply with requests for audit yeah I mean I mean people witnesses we've had previously have made the same point that's yourself about you know audits one thing but you know chasing up fraud and error is slightly different sorry apologize to cut across but I think it's quite a significant question and we're two witnesses online also want to go and put some thoughts on this as well if that's okay I'll come to him so I'll kind of follow up with Mr Smith first and then I'll come back to the people who are on as long as you do that's fine is that okay? yes yeah so I think yeah so what we're going to ask you was the way you've just described it you know some people will be fine providing the information and others won't do you think there should be certain people should just be totally exempt from this? I think we need a really generous interpretation of kind of good reason for people being exempt so for us we would see particularly anyone who's subject to compulsory treatments mental health treatment and our mental health order should be exempt but more generally where engaging in the process we could be deemed as potentially harmful to someone's health which think that should be exempt so I think there needs to be kind of a co-produced kind of approach to sort of developing that guidance about which groups of people would be exempt and on what grounds but generally as a principle where engaging with the process would have an extra mental impact to someone's health we we believe they should be excluded from it that's great thanks right Mr Faults what have you got thoughts on this? yeah and just to sort of add to one of Craig's points that this wasn't obviously consulted on an original pre-legislative phase I think that's resulted in a little bit of confusion I think we hadn't appreciated in our call for views response that the audit process would be at random and we would therefore be very concerned about suspending payments for failure to comply with information requests shouldn't be treated like fraud or actually identified fraud and error and there is a significant risk to financial and mental health and wellbeing of individual in question especially given and we need to bear in mind with social security more generally that a lot of people already have a lot of distrust and trauma because of what is often a very punitive system at UK level and that for all social security Scotland's good intentions that can carry over to the devolved benefits as well and we need to be very careful how we sort of communicate and approach people with these kinds of things also have a bit of a question on what further information is going to be necessary for audit purposes separate from that which was already provided to demonstrate eligibility for the payment in the first place if we're talking about a random sample a lot of people might just provide exactly the same information again and again it feels like a very harsh step to suspend someone's payment for not providing information that they may already have provided so just a lot of concern about how this would work in practice and yet just to echo that we really don't think that people's payment should be suspended for failure simply to provide information once they've already established a valid claim Miss Andrews any further thoughts on that point? It's largely been covered I just very brief you would say that you know the barriers to blind and partially sighted people around a lack of clear information accessing support to comply the amount of input that's required of them and welfare stigma that's all part of the barriers and I think this audit process will absolutely feed into that particularly the sense of welfare stigma and a kind of constant feeling of having to demonstrate and prove entitlement and so we absolutely would not support suspension of benefits in this scenario and you have to remember that people may already be having deductions from other means tested benefits as a part of a sort of debt recovery you could leave people in great financial hardship and I think a test and learn approach to this audit would be a much better system where suspension is just not part of it initially and forever ideally but certainly not initially Didn't quite catch what you said just now what would be better than doing it this way? I honestly think the audit process needs to embark on a test and learn approach and therefore that there is no suspension during that test and learn approach and so we look at compliance within this space we look at the problems that people have in terms of engaging and put measures in to support them and that there is no suspension of benefits during that period I mean ideally not until forever but if it were to go ahead Yeah I think you're starting on what I was going to ask next because I mean the government's I mean the government's argument is if they just make it all voluntary and don't actually go back to the recipients of the payments then it's all going to be too vague and they wouldn't be able to find out if there had been error or whatever I mean is your feeling that it can be done in other ways do you think the test and learn system could do that? We're talking about potentially two different things that the audit model itself should allow for the fact that some people aren't going to respond to it and I think also we're not talking about an opt out either necessarily we're talking about a generous acceptance of good reason and then the second part of that being which I've just completely forgotten what I was going to say so apologies and we'll come back to it Come back to you if you want Mr Falls did you want to come back in it at this point as to what else we could know you're shaking your head are you that's okay I don't know if either of the ones in the room want to see you know what else could the government do I'll come back to you just in a minute Mrs John sorry they're called witnesses witnesses what do I say people they're the ones the way people in the rooms witnesses right would I Mr Smith or Ms Henderson have you any thoughts about what the government could do other than this or what social security Scotland could do other than this is there a better way of auditing I mean I would just reiterate kind of what Alan had said about I think we need to really what the purpose of what additional information are we looking for so I absolutely don't have a kind of model for auditing kind of in my head but I'm thinking about from the claim data from from redetermination data and appeals data and can we not make some determinations on rates of error from that information from those information sources I'm certainly not an auditor so I'm sure there's lots of very good reasons why you would want to do a kind of whole independent audit and process but um yes I mean we just reiterate what I said that I don't think that it would be proportionate that people could risk their benefits for for not taking part in that for so yeah I mean I kind of agree with you I mean auditing as I understand it on the whole we don't always have to go to the customers we're auditing a shop we don't go speak to all the customers we audit what's in the shop did you have anything else Ms Henderson no I think I was going to come back to you Ms Andrews you were at another point sorry it was just to kind of say that I was trying to make a second point was that they're two separate things that the audit model itself but specifically in terms of the test and learn I think what I was referring to then is is actually looking at how people do engage with this process and what's the best way of trying to engage people with this process and what support is needed to help people engage with this process so they're two things really the audit model itself and then the test and learn in terms of engagement and that there should be no suspension during that period thank you okay I think that's me convener thank you okay is that that's very brief for you Mr Meist in relation to audit purposes but there we are where do you make it will move on to its line of question and where do you make near thank you convener and good morning panel in the room and online much appreciate your time this morning I wanted to ask does anyone have any any comments on specific measures in the bill not already discussed and I'll just pop it out to those that are in the room first Craig would you mind coming in you got anything yeah I mean just briefly I keep saying that and then not being very brief at all I suppose in part one not on the bill we broadly welcome moving the opportunity to move the framework for child additional child payment not additional child payment pardon me when I get my actual please for the Scottish child payment moving that away from from the use of top-up benefits we do think that provides the opportunity to decouple from the reserve benefit system so if there was any tightening or restrictions around universal credit or other qualifying benefits that eligibility for the Scottish child payment could be protected and it does provide the opportunity to look at how we may want to kind of redesign Scottish child benefit as well and to to extend the eligibility with the caveat that one of the one of the kind of key positives of the Scottish child benefit is the simplicity of the application as kind of assessment process and if we entirely decouple and have to create a whole new process of assessing someone's eligibility there would be some kind of concerns around that and that would need a lot of thought but kind of principally we're kind of we'd like to see that protected from any potential retrenchment of UK level wide benefits so that's welcome so that's kind of one additional area thanks group anyone else Alan yeah certainly I was going to make the similar point about the putting the Scottish child payment on its own footing that's very welcome and it prevents anyone sort of being excluded from the payment that it's not the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament's policy intention to exclude so that's good the other thing I'd wanted to highlight on this specific front is the proposal for a care leaver payment and I think that's a very positive suggestion and we certainly responded to the separate consultation on that very very positively and it's a good opportunity to provide further support to a group of people who face quite unique challenges compared to others in society and it does show the kind of positive change that's possible even with the devolution of social security powers so we think that both of those things are a very positive step thank you Alan and move then on to my next question to what extent is the bill as a whole aligned with the social security principles and I'll stay with yourself Alan just then you want to come back in if not a move on so in general we consider the bill to align quite well with those principles so we're talking about the improvements particularly around choice and redetermination appeals processes those align quite well with the principles around human rights and dignity processes that will allow for redeterminations and people to get higher payments aligned quite well with the principle of investment and people of Scotland but going back to the previous theme of discussion we would be concerned about some of the provisions around those randomly selected audits which could result on individuals losing payments purely due to not submitting information when asked for it rather than any actual wrongdoing that perhaps seems a bit at odds with those principles of fairness and human rights and dignity and investment and it appears to sort of elevate value for money through our random random error sampling for statistical purposes it sort of elevates that principle above the other principles and we're a bit sort of concerned about that but overall we would say that yes the bill does align quite well with those social security principles Thanks for that Alan anyone else want to come in? Kirsty Yeah quickly come in I think for blind and partially sighted people obviously the key is accessible information and inclusive communication which appreciates already in the primary legislation which was a is an amazing kind of thing for people with visual impairments and for the agencies a whole I think it's just key to ensure that that is is built in throughout any amendments also in works and practice that was really all I wanted to add in Thanks Kirsty Thank you No one else? I mean very briefly basically just to agree for Alan so overall we believe the bill as a whole aligns very well well fairly well I think we need to hear about works and practice in terms of the set of principles particularly dignity and human rights and continuous improvement in terms of rights for late late redeterminations being an example of that but we have bit concerns about the audit principles and I think that's not in tune with the principles particularly around human rights and it being treated with dignity and respect but overall we generally believe it's fairly in line with the social security principles Thank you Craig Finally in what way would the bill improve the client experience? Are there any provisions that would make client experience worse? And is there anything that you think is missing? Might be gathered in the thoughts just now cos being asked a question that includes what else would you have in the bill? Yep I'm sure as you absolutely should do many em there's something to say but who was who was used to go that wasn't the only part of the question of course who was who was used to go first go to clear Andrews Thanks Craig Thank you I think you know in terms of this sort of flexibility and claim of choice being built into the sort of be determinations and appeals process that's going to improve the client experience as long as those robust guidelines are robust enough and we're always making keeping an eye on the fact that that is an informed decision and an informed choice provisions that would make the client experience worse I think that comes no surprise to anybody in the room cos we've all said it really which is the proposed audit I think that's going to be the difficult one for people to stomach I just wanted to say very quickly that it hasn't come up in this session but there is a section about process appeals and there is something in that that needs looking at in terms of a process appeal loop where somebody can be sent back to Social Security Scotland after a process appeal because further information is required and if that further information isn't provided there is then a further possibility to go to a process appeal and you end up in this system of never getting out of a process appeal and I just think that that's something that if that plays out how it's read then that could be quite difficult from a client experience perspective and it just probably needs a bit of scrutiny but other than that you know it I think the bill is fairly uncontentious apart from in respect of the audit process so that clear anyone else want to come in before I hand back to the convener nope I've got that all wrong many many everyone didn't want to come in to my apologies I know we've got some supplementaries in oh Mr Balfour what's happening here so we have no further questions but I'll just give that appeal because we'll do a wee bit of time if there's something that you kind of wanted to say but where line of question has been down the kind of pathway to allow you to put on the record what you wish to put on the record we'll get a wee bit of time or just a final comment I'll maybe just get out of our witnesses to provide that opportunity when we start with the witnesses online first of all Alan Fogg is there anything you want to to add before we close this evidence session do you want us perhaps I think I've covered all the points I would have wanted to make during the discussion anyway so I'm quite happy to to leave it there that may be a theme clear just in terms of part two the repeal of section 52B of the 2018 acts I just think that there's an opportunity for Social Security Scotland to look at back dating rules allowing for late applications of benefits beyond obviously by getting rid of the COVID restriction but it would seem that exceptional circumstances is being considered elsewhere but they seem to be absent from that area so that's something that might be what's the opportunity to rise thank you Christy Henderson anything you want to add before we close the evidence session no as I said I think the key point was that accessible communication inclusive communication accessible information is fundamental for our clients the other point is just around the fact that Social Security Scotland have set up and delivered a very, you know, a system which is for people of Scotland we're about to see that ramp up considerably this year with the introduction of pension age winter heating payment and eventual replacement of a attendance allowance of pension age disability payment you know it's going to increase the caseload hugely so we'd hope that these principles are just embedded it's just a a general point on that and that the focus on claimants isn't lost in that huge operation that needs to happen thank you for putting that on the record Creeksmouth I suppose I think I've said most that I would have liked to say but I suppose just to kind of emphasise where the bill on it and there's many places where it and it's welcome that it does so that there's good reason provisions or exceptional circumstance provisions particularly around kind of late applications late redetermination requests or good reasons around laps appeals just to kind of emphasise that the guidance built around that is going to be absolutely key and we'd always be arguing for that guidance to be designed and preferably co-designed and co-produced with people with lived experience of mental health problems and disabilities more generally and kind of a wide array of stakeholders just to ensure that we get those provisions right so it generally is in good reasons and we'd as I think I've said a few times throughout the session we'd always be arguing for those to be generously understood by Social Security Scotland and generously applied to ensure that we are safeguarding people's financial but particularly their mental health when engaging with the system while recognising that you do need to balance having a fair objective system with accounting for individual circumstances I'm just trying to get that balance right and it'll be key to involve people with lived experience to do that Okay, can I thank all quarter witnesses for a very informative and helpful evidence session today next week we'll continue to take evidence in the bill with a panel focusing on the concerns of carers of potentially vulnerable clients as well as concerns of clients who have a carer but that for the moment does include or conclude rather our public business on a move into private session thank you again