Adult Disability Payment: Independent Review Minutes - August 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Edel Harris OBE, Chair of the Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment
• David George, Head of Secretariat, Independent Review of ADP
• Samantha Cooper, Secretariat, Independent Review osf ADP
• Craig Smith, SAMH
• Lucy Mulvagh, The ALLIANCE
• Emily Mann, Independent Member

Items and actions

Opening

The Chair welcomed the attendees and shared apologies from those who could not attend.

The group said they were happy with the note of the last meeting.

The Chair gave a brief update on the stakeholders and organisations she had met with since the previous meeting. The group discussed if there are any organisations or people the Review should engage with, particularly those serving seldom-heard groups. Some members of the group identified useful contacts.

Action: Secretariat to contact members of Advisory Group regarding these useful contacts.

Update on Review Business

The Chair and secretariat discussed the consultation events that had taken place so far, noting that the conversations at the events have been rich and insightful. The Secretariat also updated the group on the number of responses to the Consultation and Call for Evidence at this stage. The Chair highlighted that this would not be the only opportunity for people to be involved with the Review.

The group talked about some themes that had emerged from the consultation events. This included people not being aware of the Local Delivery or VoiceAbility services as well as a very limited awareness of the Social Security Charter, meaning that people are not able to use it to support their rights in their applications.

Action: Secretariat to check whether information about the Charter is included within the decision notice sent to clients.

The group discussed that it did not seem to be possible for people to save and return to the change of circumstances review for ADP, meaning it had to be completed in one sitting if it is completed online. It was suggested that the form should be available to download as a Word document so people can save and edit it on the computer, as currently it seems to be only in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format.

Action: Secretariat to enquire with Scottish Government colleagues whether the review form should allow people to save progress.

Action: Secretariat to enquire with Scottish Government colleagues if there reasons why a Word equivalent is not provided.

Other suggestions from the group included a benefit-specific take up strategy for Adult Disability Payment, informing people of their nearest Local Delivery service as part of their application, and Social Security Scotland making a commitment to answering the phone within a certain amount of time.

Action: The Chair will consider the group’s suggestions when writing the interim report and final recommendations.

Daily living component activities and descriptors discussion  

The group looked at two daily living component activities and descriptors and asked:

• Are they easy to understand?
• What changes, if any, would you propose?

Activity 3: Managing Therapy or Monitory a Health Condition

The group mentioned that the definition of “therapy” in this context is not clear and seems to focus on physical conditions, and so it was difficult for people to understand if they met this descriptor. They also discussed that it can be challenging for someone to quantify their support needs in this area over a certain period, particularly for mental health conditions, as the levels of support needed can be very variable and difficult to quantify.

Action: Secretariat to check whether the application form provides a definition of therapy of treatment.

The group also discussed that there does not seem to be a way for the system to capture unmet need for those unable to access the support they require to live more independently due to limited public budget, as people cannot evidence care they are not receiving. The group felt that being on a waiting list for a treatment or therapy indicates an unmet need that has been identified and should therefore “count” as part of an application. One member of the group pointed out that while a person’s level of functionality may not change, support can still be withdrawn (such as physiotherapy being stopped if there is not likely to be any improvement in the person’s conditions), resulting in there being considerably less supporting information to provide for ADP applications.

Activity 4: Washing and Bathing

The Chair reported that there have been good conversations on this descriptor during consultation events.

The group discussed that the logic of specific breakdowns into “above the waist” and “below the waist” are not clear, and the purpose is unclear to a layperson. They felt it is not in keeping with the social and human rights models of disability and can give the impression that the system is attempting to withhold money rather than to maximise an applicant’s ability to get what is needed.

The group also pointed out the points score is much lower for those needing support/prompting than someone with a physical impairment, when the hygiene outcome for both is the same.

Activity 5: Managing Toilet Needs or Incontinence

The group discussed that reliability criteria for this descriptor are key and should be made clearer to applicants. They said that while advisers may be aware of the “safely and to a reasonable standard” criteria and help people to navigate this, someone applying without an advisor may not be aware of this.

One member of the group also pointed out that the qualifying time periods for each descriptor are not always well understood.

Any Other Business

The Chair closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their time.

Next Meeting

22 October 2024 from 14:00 to 16:00 at St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh.