³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

—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.

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.