Disability assistance in Scotland: analysis of consultation responses

3 Disability Assistance in Scotland

3.1 Disability Assistance for Children and Young people

The consultation document stated that the Scottish Government intends to replace assistance currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions in the form of Child Disability Living Allowance (Child DLA), with a form of assistance to be called Disability Assistance for Children and Young People (DACYP). Questions 1 and 2 asked:

Q1: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to name Disability Assistance for clients aged 0-18 years old with Disability Assistance for Children and Young People (DACYP)?

Q2: If you disagreed please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents agreed with this proposal, although of the organisations who responded to this question, almost equal numbers agreed and disagreed.

Table 3: Q1

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	4	6	1	2
Local authority (14)	5	7	-	2
Third sector (40)	14	10	4	12
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	25	24	5	20
Individuals (189)	142	18	18	10
Total respondents (263)	167	42	23	30

A total of 51 respondents, across all sub-groups, opted to provide commentary in response to Q2.

A number of themes emerged. The key theme was dislike of the word ‘disability’ and a number of reasons were provided for this. Some respondents felt that this is viewed as potentially divisive or discriminatory in that it can segregate people, particularly young people who do not like the ‘disability’ label. There were some requests for this to focus less on a medical model and more on a social or rights-based model. Linked to this, a small number of respondents felt that the language used is not inclusive and / or that it is inconsistent with a rights-based approach.

"Including the term ‘disabled’ in the title for all three Disability Assistances may be a disincentive to take up by groups who do not consider themselves disabled, including many people with mental health problems. If the proposed names are retained the Scottish Government must ensure those potentially eligible who do not consider themselves disabled are targeted during future take up campaigns. Evidence from a Department for Work and Pensions ad-hoc study in 2013 found that only 25.9% of people who fit the DWP’s definition of disability described themselves as ‘disabled’ with a further 11.4% describing themselves as ‘sometimes disabled’. In regards to mental health we know that not everyone with a mental health problem consider themselves disabled. These issues also apply to the naming on Disability Assistance for Working-Age People (DAWAP) and Disability Assistance for Older People (DAOP)." (Third sector organisation)

Some respondents felt that this name is too long and suggested it needs shortening, while some others noted that the initials DACYP do not make for an easy abbreviation or acronym. A few respondents gave the example of PIP, which was felt to be a good acronym. A few respondents also felt that this suggested name is too complicated or confusing.

Some respondents noted their dislike of the word ‘assistance’, and suggested using the word ‘support’ instead. The reasoning for this was primarily that this would be in line with a focus on support and independent living rather than a focus on disability. A small number of respondents felt the suggested name could create a barrier to claiming this benefit as not all individuals would describe themselves as disabled. Allied to this, there were a small number of suggestions that the name needs to emphasis entitlement, for example, involving the use of the words ‘benefit’ or ‘allowance’.

Other comments made by small numbers of respondents included:

• Some requests for a generic name which is inclusive; and some suggestions for the collective name of Disability Assistance, with only the application forms referring to age e.g. DA (CYP), DA (WAP), DA (OP).
• It is not necessary to change the name; DLA is easier to say.
• The definition of a young person can be subjective; a child can be considered an adult at the age of 16.
• The Scottish Government should delay naming until the switch from the Department for Work and Pensions, so as to avoid future confusion.

Some respondents made suggestions for an alternative name and these are listed below:

• Disability Assistance (DA).
• Child Disability Assistance (CDA).
• Disability Social Security.
• Independence Assistance for children and young people aged 18 and under.
• Ability Support.
• DAY.
• Disability Support Allowance.
• Independence and Equality Payment for Children and Young People.
• Personal Assistance for Children and Young People (PACYP).
• Scottish Disability Living Allowance.
• Living Assistance.
• Personal Support and Living Payment.
• Independence Assistance / Payment.
• Disability Payment.
• Disability Benefit.
• Disability Living Allowance.
• Disabled Assistance for Children.
• Equality Assistance / Payment for Children and Young People.

3.2 Disability Assistance for Working Age People

The Scottish Government intends to replace the current delivery by Department for Work and Pensions in the form of Personal Independence Payment with a form of assistance to be known as Disability Assistance for Working Age People (DAWAP). Questions 3 and 4 asked:

Q3: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to name Disability Assistance for clients aged 16 years old to state pension age Disability Assistance for Working-Age People (DAWAP)?

Q4: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents agreed with this proposal, although of the organisations who responded to this question and gave an answer, views were relatively split with 23 in agreement and 26 in disagreement.

Table 4: Q3

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	3	7	-	3
Local authority (14)	5	7	-	2
Third sector (40)	13	11	3	13
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	23	26	3	22
Individuals (189)	119	43	17	9
Total respondents (263)	142	69	20	31

A total of 79 respondents, across all sub-groups, opted to provide commentary in support of their response to Q3.

A key theme emerging in response to this question was a dislike of the word ‘working’ or ‘working-age people’ and various reasons were provided. This is seen as too emotive for some who cannot work and tends to centre human values around work. Furthermore, a third sector organisation commented that there is no clarity or consistency about what constitutes ‘working age’. A very small number of respondents suggested that this misrepresents the underlying purpose of Disability Assistance which is to pay for the additional costs of living with a disability or health condition.

A few respondents noted that many disabled individuals are unable to work and that this name implies a capacity to work.

A number of the themes cited echoed those made at Q2, and these are listed below:

• The name is too long, complicated or confusing and the initials do not allow for an easy acronym or readily recognisable shortened abbreviation.
• Dislike of the word ‘disability’. For example, this would introduce a barrier to claiming the benefit for some eligible individuals.
• The need for a more social model to naming the new benefits.
• A need for a lifelong Disability Assistance.

Once again, some respondents made suggestions for alternative names that could be considered for this benefit. These included:

• Disability Assistance.
• Disability Assistance for People Aged 16 and over up to State Pension Age.
• Ability Assistance for over 16s.
• Disability Social Security.
• Independence Assistance for ….
• Assistance.
• Disability Allowance Working (DAW).
• Disability Support Allowance.
• Equality Assistance / Payment for Children and Young People.
• Independence and Equality Payment.
• Personal Assistance for Working Age People (PAWAP).
• Scottish Personal Independence Payments.
• Living Assistance.
• Independence Assistance / Payment.
• Disabled Assistance for Adults (DAA).

A small number of people noted they were happy with the proposed name but disliked the acronym.

3.3 Disability Assistance for Older People

The Scottish Government intends to replace current delivery by the Department for Work and Pensions in the form of Attendance Allowance, with a form of assistance to be known as Disability Assistance for Older People (DAOP). Questions 5 and 6 asked:

Q5: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to name Disability Assistance for clients who are state pension age or older Disability Assistance for Older People (DAOP)?

Q6: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents agreed with this proposal, although of the organisations who responded to this question and gave an answer, views were evenly split with 23 in agreement and 24 in disagreement.

Table 5: Q5

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	3	6	-	4
Local authority (14)	6	6	-	2
Third sector (40)	12	11	3	14
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	23	24	3	24
Individuals (189)	135	32	14	7
Total respondents (263)	158	56	17	31

A total of 65 respondents, across all sub-groups, opted to provide commentary in support of their response to Q5. Most of the themes raised in response to this question echoed those mentioned at the earlier questions. These included:

• This name is too long, too complicated or confusing and does not make an easy acronym.
• There should be one lifelong Disability Assistance, with no differentiation because of age.
• Dislike of the words ‘disability’ and ‘assistance’.
• The Scottish Government should hold back on a new name until responsibility for delivering the benefit switches from Department for Work and Pensions to avoid any confusion in the future.
• The suggested name could create a barrier to claiming this benefit as some individuals do not perceive or describe themselves as disabled.
• There is a need for a more social model or rights-based approach to naming the new benefits.

A small number of respondents noted their dislike of the word ‘older’ or ‘pension’ and felt this could be discriminatory. A third sector organisation also noted that there is confusion over what constitutes an ‘older person’.

Once again, a number of alternative names were suggested:

• Disability Social Security.
• Disability Assistance for Pensioners.
• Independence Assistance for ….
• Assistance.
• Disability Support Allowance.
• Independence Payment / Entitlement for Older People.
• Dignity Payment / Entitlement for Older People.
• Equality Payment / Entitlement for Older People.
• Financial Assistance for Newly Disabled Older People (FANCOP).
• Older People’s Disability Allowance (OPDA).
• Disability Assistance for Retirees.
• Attendance Allowance Scotland.
• Independence and Equality Payment for Older People.
• Personal Assistance for Older People (PAOP).
• Scottish Attendance Allowance.
• Independence Assistance / Payment.

3.4 Applying for the Benefit

The consultation paper noted that the current application process and guidance available to clients is complicated and lengthy. The Scottish Government intends to redesign the application process to make it more person-centred and to remove repetition and unnecessary complexity. It is also intended that applications for Disability Assistance can be made via a variety of channels (either online, by telephone, or using a paper form.) There will also be clear, transparent and accessible guidance available for each form of Disability Assistance.

Questions 7 and 8 of the consultation paper asked:

Q7: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to enable multiple application channels for Disability Assistance?

Q8: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, all organisations and most individuals who gave an answer agreed with this proposal. The only disagreement came from a small number of individuals.

Table 6: Q7

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	10	-	-	3
Local authority (14)	12	-	-	2
Third sector (40)	31	-	-	9
Other (7)	4	-	-	3
Total organisations (74)	57	-	-	17
Individuals (189)	151	7	23	7
Total respondents (263)	208	7	23	24

A total of 34 respondents, across all sub-groups, opted to provide commentary in support of their response to Q7.

The key theme emerging to this question was agreement of a choice in application channels as this would offer inclusivity and help to accommodate the varied needs of clients. Allied to this, there were also some comments that it is important to ensure that systems are fully accessible for all clients; with one third sector organisation pointing out the importance of these different elements being interconnected so that, for example, an individual can start to complete a form online and then print this off to send in the post alongside supporting information.

A few respondents, primarily in the third sector, agreed that the new system would require additional administration resources, that staff will require proper training and that they need to be helpful and empathetic to clients. These respondents also noted there is a need to ensure these aspects are fully implemented. There were also a few comments that clients will still need to be able to access independent support and guidance.

Some respondents referred to difficulties with the present system such as a lack of flexibility in the Department for Work and Pensions claim channels or reference to the current system for Universal Credit which is digital by default and does not suit all clients.

Other comments, each made by only one or two respondents included:

• Some clients who are vulnerable will need face-to-face assistance in their own home to complete the application process.
• External health professionals need to be able to access the application to help the client.
• Agreement that the Scottish Government should provide access to independent advocacy structures and access to specialists so that the new system will work well for all clients.
• A need to ensure there is a clear and transparent definition of the date of a claim.

There were a small number of requests for further detail in relation to this process. While members of Ill Health and Disability Benefits Stakeholder Reference Group (IHDBSRG) and Disability and Carers Benefits Expert Advisory Group (DACBEAG) have had input into the design process, a small number of third sector organisations suggested this process should be co-designed or noted they would like to be involved in the development process.

3.5 Conditions Relating to Residence and Presence

The consultation paper noted that the initial policy intention is for the Scottish system to broadly replicate the residency rules used by the Department for Work and Pensions. The current rules applicable to reserved disability benefits require the client to have been in Great Britain for 104 out of the past 156 weeks. It is intended to replicate this rule so that individuals can move freely within the United Kingdom without having to wait for two years as a result of a move from Scotland to the rest of the UK, or vice-versa. The rules relating to individuals subject to immigration control are a reserved matter (immigration law). There is also the intention to broadly replicate UK provisions in relation to temporary absences from Great Britain, which prevents the loss of eligibility for benefits as a result of short periods spent abroad. Questions 9 and 10 asked:

Q9: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to broadly replicate the current temporary absence rules?

Q10: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents agreed with this proposal.

Table 7: Q9

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	4	1	1	7
Local authority (14)	12	-	-	2
Third sector (40)	16	2	4	18
Other (7)	3	-	1	3
Total organisations (74)	35	3	6	30
Individuals (189)	97	10	72	9
Total respondents (263)	132	13	78	39

A total of 27 respondents, across most sub-groups, opted to provide commentary in support of their response to Q9.

The key theme emerging was of a need to ensure that clients do not lose their benefits if they live with their family abroad or that they should have the right to go travelling without losing access to their benefit, with some suggestions that more cover for temporary absence is needed. A small number of respondents suggested a need to broaden out the definition to include a wide range of circumstances; for example, opportunities to allow more discretion to decision-makers for assessing an application under unusual circumstances, or for consideration to be given to people who have been granted refugee status but who have not lived in Scotland for two years.

Once again, a small number of respondents were critical of the current system.

3.6 Making Decisions about Entitlement

The consultation paper noted that a holistic approach would be adopted to enable all information about a client to be considered so that sound judgements can be made about the functional impact of a condition. Social Security Scotland will staff three particular roles to make decisions about entitlement to Disability Assistance. These are Case Managers, Specialist Advisors and Assessors. Questions 11 and 12 asked:

Q11: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to implement a person-centred approach to making decisions about entitlement for Disability Assistance?

Q12: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, there was broad consensus for this proposal, with only a small number of respondents disagreeing:

Table 8: Q11

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	10	1	-	2
Local authority (14)	12	-	-	2
Third sector (40)	25	-	2	13
Other (7)	4	-	-	3
Total organisations (74)	51	1	2	20
Individuals (189)	167	9	5	7
Total respondents (263)	218	10	7	27

A total of 41 respondents, across all sub-groups, opted to provide commentary in support of their response to Q11.

One key theme, cited by around half the respondents who answered Q12, reiterated their support for a person-centred approach, with a small number of additional comments that there is a need to adopt a social model of disability to all aspects of social security. A few respondents noted that the current system should be person-centred but were critical that this is not actually the case, particularly when there is a need for face-to-face assessments, and this can contribute to distress and anxiety for clients.

Other issues raised by respondents who answered this question tended to focus on qualifying comments. A key theme, mentioned by around half the respondents, was agreement that all staff are properly trained and work at the same level of competence so that any decisions made are consistent, as well as being provided with updated training on a regular basis. There was also agreement of a need for the provision of clear guidance and an understanding of how a disability can impact on a client.

Some respondents also commented that this will need to be well resourced for the implementation of this proposal to be effective.

Other comments raised by small numbers of respondents included:

• Any assessments should be carried out by a GP who knows the client.
• Medical information should be of primary importance in any assessment.
• There is a need to use objective science-based evidence for decision-making.
• More information is needed on what training will be provided to assessors.
• There should be some exceptions, for example, automatic entitlement for some long term conditions such as Motor Neurone Disease.
• A need to ensure the client is consulted at all stages of the decision-making process.
• Disagreement with the implied assumption that supporting information would be required in order for a case manager to make a robust decision.

"While we agree that a holistic person-centred approach which treats individuals with dignity and respect is a positive necessity, we also recognise that the balance between person-centred and subjective is a difficult one with the potential to become discriminatory. It will be essential that training, including gender competence, for advisors addresses biases, stereotypes, and assumptions to ensure that assessors take into account the reality of women’s lives. Additionally it is crucial that there are accessible and practical forms of challenges where individuals feel decisions have penalised them unfairly."
(Campaigning / advocacy organisation)

The consultation notes that for Disability Assistance for Children and Young People and Disability Assistance for Older People, it is the Scottish Government’s intention to make decisions about entitlement using existing sources of information only and not through face-to-face assessments. Case Managers will have access to information and advice provided by Specialist Advisors who have professional experience in the provision of health and social care. These Specialist Advisors will provide information and advice on a broad range of matters. Question 13 and 14 asked:

Q13: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to the involvement of Specialist Advisors in Decision-Making?

Q14: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

The following table shows that a large majority of respondents agreed with this proposal; only a small number of respondents disagreed with the proposed approach to the involvement of Specialist Advisors in decision-making.

Table 9: Q13

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	5	1	2	5
Local authority (14)	11	-	1	2
Third sector (40)	14	2	5	19
Other (7)	4	-	-	3
Total organisations (74)	34	3	8	29
Individuals (189)	141	14	25	8
Total respondents (263)	175	17	33	37

Forty-nine respondents went onto provide commentary in support of their response. Health professionals are clearly perceived to be important in decision-making and a number of respondents commented on the need for decisions to be made by specialist consultants or healthcare professionals who know the client, with some of these respondents noting that the health professional’s opinion should override that of the Specialist Advisor. A similar number of respondents also felt the client and / or their carer should be involved in any decisions as they know best about their functionality; furthermore, not all conditions affect all clients in the same way.

Some respondents had concerns that Specialist Advisors will not have the required skills and knowledge to provide information on all conditions and thus will not be qualified to make some decisions. To help overcome this, there was support for the proposals that Specialist Advisors should have condition-specific training and experience of working in the third sector or the medical profession so they have the necessary knowledge and understanding to be able to make decisions.

Some respondents requested additional information: for example, what training or medical qualifications Specialist Advisors will hold, how they will develop and maintain expertise on conditions (particularly rare conditions), or what responsibilities they will take on. One respondent requested a definition of what would constitute ‘appropriate understanding’.

There were also some suggestions of the need to work closely with third sector organisations who will have the necessary knowledge and experience of specific conditions and who are experts on specific health and disability issues. Examples provided included the provision of training and the updating of skills and monitoring of skills gaps. There was also reference by a small number of respondents to the need for statutory guidance for Specialist Advisors.

Other comments made, each by small numbers of respondents included:

• The need for a balanced approach and consultation with a client’s representatives; personal testimony or evidence from family members and carers is an important element.
• Queries on whether the Specialist Advisors will be independent and who will employ them to carry out decision-making.
• The need for disabled people to be able to have access to any information about them.

As at previous questions, a few respondents were critical of the current system and wanted to ensure that this proposal would not simply replicate the existing system.

The consultation paper noted that Case Managers working on all forms of Disability Assistance will have access to information and advice provided by Specialist Advisors within Social Security Scotland who have professional experience in the provision of health and social care, which may include experience gained within the third sector. The consultation paper proposed that Case Managers will take into account a number of factors when deciding whether to refer a case to a Specialist Advisor. Question 15 then went onto ask:

Q15: What factors should Case Managers take into account in deciding when a Specialist Advisor should be involved?

A total of 196 respondents provided an answer to this question, with many noting their support for referring a case to a Specialist Advisor in instances where the Case Manager does not have the required knowledge or expertise. A wide range of other factors were noted. These included:

Factors relevant to condition

• Complex / rare conditions. Some respondents cited specific conditions including Epilepsy, Lymphedema, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Sclerosis, Cancer, Head Injuries.
• Multiple illnesses / comorbidities.
• Fluctuating conditions.
• Conditions where symptoms vary from person to person.
• Where there are hidden or invisible disabilities.
• Where a client has a mental health condition or learning difficulty, or where they may not be able to understand and take part in the process.

Factors relevant to Case Managers

• In instances where there is contradictory evidence or inconsistencies in the evidence being presented or any doubt over the information being provided and a second opinion is needed.
• Where existing information is deficient and / or there is a lack of evidence.
• Where there are medical reports or advice from medical practitioners / health professionals.

Other factors

• In instances where a decision is negative.
• Dependent on a client’s history or family background.
• If requested by a client.

There were a small number of comments seeking further details of training and / or skills that would be needed for Assessors, Case Managers or Specialist Advisors. A third sector organisation emphasised the importance of Case Managers taking into account the interconnectedness of all information.

Questions 16 and 17 then went onto ask:

Q16: Do you agree or disagree that the decision-making process for Disability Assistance for Children and Young People, and for Older People should use existing supporting information and not through face-to-face assessments?

Q17: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

The following table shows a large majority of respondents agreed with this proposal.

Table 10: Q16

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	5	3	2	3
Local authority (14)	10	2	-	2
Third sector (40)	21	4	3	12
Other (7)	3	-	-	4
Total organisations (74)	39	9	5	21
Individuals (189)	136	32	13	7
Total respondents (263)	175	41	18	28

A total of 72 respondents provided commentary in support of their response at Q16, although most comments were made by relatively small numbers. Some of these respondents echoed what was noted in the consultation paper and welcomed the commitment to reduce the number of face-to-face assessments. Some respondents used their own experience as either a client or a carer to illustrate their response.

The key comment was agreement with the consultation paper in that existing supporting information might be insufficient in terms of lacking detail or being out of date, which could make it difficult to make a decision without a face-to-face assessment. Allied to this a few respondents also commented that some conditions might need a face-to-face assessment or that a face-to-face assessment will be needed for first time applicants. Conversely, a similar number of respondents felt that a face-to-face assessment should not be used for some conditions such as autism where an individual is likely to have communication difficulties, sensory issues, poor levels of social interaction or suffer extreme anxiety. Respondents suggested individuals with some other conditions may not require a face-to-face assessment, for example, individuals with a diagnosis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Parkinson’s disease or hearing loss.

Some respondents were critical of the age boundaries being suggested and noted that being younger or older does not make a client more reliable. These respondents felt the same criteria should apply to people of working age as the condition(s) from which they suffer will not vary according to their age.

The issue of client choice was mentioned by some respondents who suggested clients should be offered a choice of attending a face-to-face assessment if the Case Manager would otherwise be likely to make an adverse decision on an application based on the application form alone.

Other comments made by small numbers of respondents included:

• Agreement of a presumption against face-to-face assessments.
• Information or evidence from general practitioners or NHS specialists should negate the need for a face-to-face assessment.
• The use of supporting evidence is unintrusive to clients and enables dignity, fairness and respect.
• Face-to-face assessments can cause acute anxiety, stress and confusion to clients.
• Agreement that Social Security Scotland should collate evidence through the application process and specialists who are involved in their care to ensure the process is as unobtrusive and straightforward as possible.
• Agreement that Assessors should take a proactive, holistic approach to gathering information, using other channels in order to ensure a person-centred approach.
• Agreement that face-to-face assessments should only be used in instances where medical details do not provide full information or if there is a change in circumstances.
• Face-to-face assessments are necessary to avoid fraudulent claims being made.

3.7 Approach to Supporting Information

The consultation paper outlined that the intention is for Case Managers to use existing information where possible to support decision-making and, where possible, Social Security Scotland will assume responsibility for gathering information. Case Managers will give equal weight to supporting information that is most relevant for each case. Where individuals choose to gather information, Social Security Scotland will provide clear and transparent guidance about what information will be helpful in supporting an application and what information is not as useful. Question 18 went on to ask:

Q18: What types of supporting information would be relevant in assessing an application for Disability Assistance e.g. social work report, medical report?

A total of 228 respondents answered this question and a wide range of supporting information was cited. This included evidence from those within the medical profession, those who are in close contact with clients and those involved in other forms of care provided to clients. Suggestions provided by respondents included:

• Medical reports / information from health professionals.
• Social work reports.
• Reports from GPs.
• Reports from consultants, specialists, specialist nurses or any professional involved in the client’s care.
• Reports from Occupational Therapists, Occupational Health or physiotherapists.
• Reports from psychiatrists or educational psychologists.
• Information from carers, family or friends or someone who knows the client well.
• Information from support workers.
• Information from care packages, care plans and support plans or school / nursery / college educational support plans.
• Information from the client themselves or their diaries outlining the impact of a condition on their day-to-day living.
• Evidence from Speech and Language Therapists (SALT).
• Third sector, voluntary or charity reports.
• Evidence from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

Small numbers of respondents noted concerns that some clients have little contact with clinical services and may not have ready access to supporting information, or had concerns that there may be a charge for a clinical report or that it can take a while for a healthcare professional to supply the required supporting evidence. One organisation noted concerns around patient confidentiality; another that individuals should be able to see the supporting information so they can check its accuracy.

3.8 Duration of Awards

The consultation paper noted that the Scottish Government has taken advice from Experience Panels, a short-life working group and the Disability and Carers Benefits Expert Advisory Group and is committed to introducing longer-term disability benefit awards in the form of rolling awards where the client’s condition is unlikely to change. These awards will be allocated a review point rather than a set end point and payments will continue during the review period. For a person with a condition that is unlikely to change it is proposed that Case Manager’s Guidance will recommend that an award review date is set between 5 and 10 years from the initial date of award. Questions 19 and 20 asked:

Q19: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to have no set award durations but to set an award review date when a decision on a Disability Assistance application is made?

Q20: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

The following table shows a much higher level of agreement with this proposal than disagreement, across all sub-groups:

Table 11: Q19

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	4	2	5
Local authority (14)	8	2	1	3
Third sector (40)	18	4	5	13
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	30	11	8	25
Individuals (189)	122	40	18	8
Total respondents (263)	152	51	26	33

A total of 83 respondents provided commentary in support of their response at Q19. These comments were also echoed in responses to question 21, so comments for both questions are reported after Table 12.

Questions 21 and 22 went on to ask:

Q21: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to set an award review date 5-10 years in the future for a person with a condition unlikely to change?

Q22: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a higher number of respondents agreed than disagreed with this proposal. However, the views of organisations were relatively polarised, with 26 in agreement and 23 in opposition to the proposal. Higher numbers of local authorities agreed than disagreed; and higher numbers of campaigning / advocacy organisations disagreed than agreed.

Table 12: Q21

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	1	8	-	4
Local authority (14)	9	2	-	3
Third sector (40)	14	12	1	13
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	26	23	1	24
Individuals (189)	108	62	9	9
Total respondents (263)	134	85	10	33

A total of 106 respondents provided commentary in response to Q21.

Key themes emerging across these two questions were agreement that if initial assessment advises there will be no improvement in the applicant’s health or if their condition is unlikely to change, this should prevent further reassessment in the future. There was also agreement from some respondents that if a condition is likely to change, it would be appropriate to have an award for a limited period of time. There were requests from over half of those respondents commenting at Q21 that there should be indefinite lifetime awards if an individual has a long term condition that is unlikely to change, or where there is unlikely to be any significant change in the foreseeable future; a small number of respondents suggested there could be a light touch review rather than a full review in instances where circumstances do not improve.

A few respondents made suggestions as to the appropriate timescale for reviews but there was no consistency in these suggestions; suggestions included for more than two years, a minimum of three years, a minimum of seven years or five to ten years. There were also a small number of comments that review periods should be as long as possible rather than as short as possible. Some respondents made suggestions for specific review periods, and these ranged from five to fifteen years, with the most opting for a minimum of ten years.

Small numbers of respondents noted benefits to the proposal to have no set award durations but to set an award review date when a decision on the Disability Assistance application is made, although one third sector organisation commented that this could still be interpreted by many recipients as being an award duration. The main benefits for clients would be the introduction of a system suited to the long term nature of their condition and removing the anxiety associated with having to undergo a reassessment, which can in turn worsen the client’s condition. The key benefit to Social Security Scotland staff would be that claims could be handled less frequently which would mean greater efficiency and a reduction in Social Security Scotland’s administration and overheads.

The consultation paper then went on to note that a change of circumstances should be considered as a change which has an impact on the level of assistance a person already receives. For example, there would be no need for a review where there has been any change in employment status or a change of personal details is reported. Questions 23 and 24 asked:

Q23: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that a change of circumstances should be defined as a change which has an impact on the level of assistance a person receives?

Q24: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a large majority of respondents agreed with the proposal that a change of circumstances should be defined as a change which has an impact on the level of assistance a person receives.

Table 13: Q23

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	4	2	-	7
Local authority (14)	11	-	-	3
Third sector (40)	20	2	5	13
Other (7)	3	-	-	4
Total organisations (74)	38	4	5	27
Individuals (189)	135	30	16	7
Total respondents (263)	173	34	21	34

Two key themes emerged in response to this question. First, that the consultation paper provided too limited a definition of a change of circumstances and that cases can be more complex than this suggests, with some comments that some clients are unsure what constitutes a relevant change of circumstances; so at the least there needs to be a clear definition or guidance of a change of circumstances that will require changes in the level of support.

The second key theme was that what constitutes a relevant change of circumstances would depend on what the change – and the scale of change – is to warrant a review. For example, if there is an improvement in someone’s condition, this would constitute a relevant change of circumstances and therefore require a reassessment but a change of address would not.

Some respondents also commented that the definition should not say ‘how much assistance a person receives’ but how much assistance a person requires, with a suggestion that change should be defined as ‘a major change in their condition which impacts on their ability to carry out tasks’.

A few respondents noted a concern that most conditions do not have a strict, constant and precise relationship with functional capacity or daily activity and are likely to fluctuate to a degree. In addition, a small number of respondents noted that there may be a need for more care because an existing carer can no longer provide the same level of care to a client.

Relatively small numbers of respondents noted specific points and these included:

• Agreement that Social Security Scotland will not treat taking up employment as a relevant change of circumstances.
• There is a need for clear statutory guidance which outlines what constitutes a change in circumstances.
• Agreement that requests for supporting evidence would be in line with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect.
• Agreement that there will be flexibility within the system, and examination of the issues on a case-by-case basis.

3.9 Redetermination and Appeal

The consultation paper explained that the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 provides a right for an individual to challenge a decision made by Social Security Scotland if they believe it is not correct. The Scottish Government is proposing that a redetermination request relating to Disability Assistance should be made within 31 calendar days of being notified of the determination. If there is good reason for a request being made late, a request for a redetermination can be considered at any point up to a year after being notified of the original determination. Questions 25 and 26 asked:

Q25: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that clients have 31 days to request a redetermination?

Q26: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, overall, a much higher number of respondents agreed than disagreed with the proposal that clients have 31 days to request a redetermination. However, the views of organisations were equally split, with almost equal numbers in agreement and disagreement with the proposal. Higher numbers of organisations within the third sector and campaigning / advocacy organisations were in disagreement with this proposal.

Table 14: Q25

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	3	5	2	3
Local authority (14)	7	4	1	2
Third sector (40)	10	14	3	13
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	22	24	6	22
Individuals (189)	112	50	18	8
Total respondents (263)	134	74	24	30

A total of 94 respondents opted to provide additional commentary in support of their response to Q25.

The key theme emerging – primarily from respondents who disagreed with this proposal – was that accessing professional or external services can be challenging and take a long time; even once a request is made for evidence to be provided, it can take time for professionals to then prepare this.

Another key theme was that clients may need longer than 31 days to submit their evidence because of personal circumstances such as being in hospital for some or all of the 31 days, or an individual with learning difficulties may find it challenging to gather any information and require external help.

There was also agreement from some respondents of a need for extensions to be allowed, providing a delay can be adequately explained and that there will be a need for flexibility for some clients because of their situation or the nature of their condition.

A number of respondents felt that the time limit could be longer. While some did not provide any further detail, others cited timescales of 6 weeks, 2-3 months, 3 months and 6 months. One organisation suggested there should be no time limit in cases where clients argue their original award was based on an error of law.

A small number of organisations were concerned that the time limit of 31 days could deter some clients; for example, people with mental health illnesses might not engage with the processes involved in challenging a decision. One organisation suggested the redetermination process should operate along the lines adopted for housing benefit appeals where a client completes an appeal letter and the local authority reconsiders the decision. Another organisation noted the need to communicate to clients their right to advocacy and support through the redetermination process. One third sector organisation felt that disabled people should have the option to go straight to appeal with no requirement to undergo redetermination.

The consultation paper then outlined that it is likely that additional evidence may need to be obtained during the redetermination stage and proposed a timescale of between 40-60 working days for a redetermination of Disability Assistance. Questions 27 and 28 asked:

Q27: We have proposed that Social Security Scotland have a period of between 40 and 60 days to consider a redetermination of Disability Assistance. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

Q28: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, overall, a higher number of respondents agreed than disagreed with the proposal that Social Security Scotland have a period of between 40 and 60 days to consider a redetermination of Disability Assistance. However, the views of organisations were markedly divergent, with almost equal numbers in agreement and disagreement with the proposal. Higher numbers of organisations within the third sector and campaigning / advocacy organisations were in disagreement with this proposal. Higher numbers of local authorities were in agreement with this proposal.

Table 15: Q27

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	6	1	4
Local authority (14)	9	3	-	2
Third sector (40)	10	12	3	15
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	23	22	4	25
Individuals (189)	114	48	17	9
Total respondents (263)	137	70	21	34

A total of 85 respondents opted to provide additional commentary in support of their response to Q27. The key theme, cited by respondents in all sub-groups other than local authorities, was that this timescale is too long and should be quicker. A number of respondents – again, across all sub-groups other than local authorities – cited concerns that the applicant should not be short of money during the redetermination period and others noted that this is a stressful time for clients^[1] (cited by respondents across all sub-groups).

Some respondents provided their own suggestions for a more suitable timescale and these ranged from 28 days or fewer, to as long as 60-90 days, although more of these respondents suggested a timescale of up to 30 days than over 30 days.

A third sector organisation disagreed with any mandatory redetermination process and suggested that all necessary information should be collected at application stage so that there is no need for redetermination.

3.10 Short-term Assistance

The consultation paper explained that the Scottish Government has committed to providing Short-term Assistance (STA) where Social Security Scotland has made a decision to reduce or stop an on-going benefit and that decision is subject to a request for redetermination or an appeal. Where there is a successful appeal, an individual’s entitlement would be adjusted from the point at which it was reduced or stopped or from the point as decided by the tribunal. Given that the principal assistance type will have required an individual to meet clearly stated residence requirements, the Scottish Government proposes that STA should not be available if the individual is no longer living or present in Scotland. Questions 29 and 30 asked:

Q29: Do you agree or disagree that STA should not be paid to people who are not living or present in Scotland?

Q30: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, overall, a large majority of respondents agreed with the proposal that STA should not be paid to people who are not living or present in Scotland. Across organisations, the highest levels of agreement came from third sector organisations and local authorities.

Table 16: Q29

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	2	2	7
Local authority (14)	11	1	-	2
Third sector (40)	15	3	4	18
Other (7)	2	-	-	5
Total organisations (74)	30	6	6	32
Individuals (189)	135	16	29	8
Total respondents (263)	165	22	35	40

Only 40 respondents opted to provide additional commentary in support of their response to Q29, and the largest single comment was that this should depend on individual circumstances. Examples included if someone has to live with their family elsewhere for their care needs to be supported for a short time or if there is a need to move for work for a period or that it depends on how long someone will be out of the country and whether they will be returning.

A small number of respondents felt that a refusal to pay STA in certain cases was discriminatory as it would place restrictions on the movement of disabled people not experienced by non-disabled people, that it would restrict personal mobility, or damage life chances. There were a small number of suggestions for exceptions to the proposal, for example, if someone has retired elsewhere but paid their taxes in Scotland, or for individuals who wish to go travelling.

A small number of respondents agreed with the proposal, noting that STA money should stay in Scotland and STA should only be available for those who are resident in Scotland.

A small number of respondents requested more detail or information, such as how STA might be rolled out in the future or how presence / living criteria will be defined.

3.10.1 Recovery of STA

The consultation paper explained that as the purpose of STA is to ensure an individual is not discouraged from challenging a decision or face hardship while doing so, the Scottish Government proposes that STA should not be recoverable. The exception to this would be where the principal assistance type was found to have been claimed fraudulently and Social Security Scotland was not aware of this at the time STA was awarded. Questions 31 and 32 asked:

Q31: Do you agree or disagree that STA should not be recoverable except where it is later established that the principal assistance type was claimed fraudulently when STA was awarded?

Q32: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a large majority of respondents agreed with this proposal; and all organisations agreed.

Table 17: Q31

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	8	-	-	5
Local authority (14)	12	-	-	2
Third sector (40)	21	-	2	17
Other (7)	2	-	-	5
Total organisations (74)	43	-	2	29
Individuals (189)	155	9	17	7
Total respondents (263)	198	9	19	36

Only 19 respondents opted to provide additional commentary in support of their response to Q31, and the largest single comment was that clients who have given fraudulent information should be liable to make repayment in full. That said, a small number of respondents felt that there needs to be a distinction drawn between deliberate fraudulent behaviour by clients, errors or mistakes made by clients, and mistakes made by Social Security Scotland.

[…. ] STA should not be recoverable except in cases of fraud. Any recovery beyond cases of fraud would undermine the purpose of STA in supporting someone financially, for example during appeal, as it would be a disincentive to challenge decisions regarding their Disability Assistance. Where someone has been found to have claimed their original Disability Assistance award fraudulently, we believe that the Agency in line with the principles of the Act should take a human rights and person centred approach to recovery of STA. Rates of recovery should be set to a level that would not leave the person destitute." (Third sector organisation)

3.10.2 Fraud Investigations

The consultation paper explained that during a fraud investigation, the overarching principle is a presumption of innocence and an individual’s payments will not be stopped or reduced unless Social Security Scotland has investigated and obtained evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, show that the assistance has been paid incorrectly. The Scottish Government proposes that in these circumstances, STA would not be payable even if the individual has requested a redetermination or an appeal. Questions 33 and 34 went on to ask:

Q33: Do you agree or disagree that STA should not be available where an investigation by Social Security Scotland has determined that the original payment was claimed fraudulently?

Q34: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents agreed with the proposal that STA should not be available where an investigation by Social Security Scotland has determined that the original payment was claimed fraudulently:

Table 18: Q33

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	2	1	8
Local authority (14)	11	1	-	2
Third sector (40)	12	2	5	21
Other (7)	2	-	-	5
Total organisations (74)	27	5	6	36
Individuals (189)	131	23	25	9
Total respondents (263)	158	28	31	45

A total of 38 respondents provided an answer to Q34. The majority of respondents’ views on the issue were supportive of the policy intent set out in the consultation paper, and the Scottish Government’s current plans are already intended to implement a policy that meets the respondent feedback.

As at the previous question, some respondents differentiated between genuine mistakes, errors on the part of Social Security Scotland, and fraud, with comments that if payment of STA is because of a genuine mistake in the initial application, or as a result of a mistake by Social Security Scotland, it should not be recoverable and the claimant should not be penalised.

"The consultation does not seem to make a clear distinction between fraud and error, referring both to an award being paid incorrectly and to fraud being identified. The rules for STA should make it clear whether it is not available in both situations or only in cases where there is evidence of an offence having been committed."

(Campaigning / advocacy organisation)

Other comments made, each by small numbers of respondents included:

• There is a need to consider the definition of fraud (as opposed to overpayments) and who is deciding if fraud has been committed.
• Clients are innocent until proven guilty.
• The decision should be made by the Court and not Social Security Scotland; there is a need to follow the correct legal process; and a need to clarify what types of recoverability exist.

3.10.3 Servicing an Overpayment Liability

The consultation paper explained that there may be situations where deductions are being made from an individual’s on-going assistance to service an overpayment liability and the Scottish Government proposes that these deductions should also apply to STA. Questions 35 and 36 asked:

Q35: Do you agree or disagree that any deductions being made from an on-going assistance type to service an overpayment liability should also be applied to STA?

Q36: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents agreed with this proposal:

Table 19: Q35

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	4	-	7
Local authority (14)	9	1	-	4
Third sector (40)	11	4	4	21
Other (7)	1	-	-	6
Total organisations (74)	23	9	4	38
Individuals (189)	84	33	61	10
Total respondents (263)	107	42	65	48

A total of 49 respondents provided commentary in response to Q36. The key theme emerging was that STA should never be reduced as it provides an essential safety-net, and that recovering overpayments of STA would defeat the purpose of paying it in the first place. Another key theme was that there is a need to take into account the risk of financial hardship as well as the negative impact on health and wellbeing of clients. Allied to this, a small number of respondents noted that recovery of STA can be unduly punitive.

"By definition, short term assistance is being paid at a point where Disability Assistance would otherwise be interrupted and may be about to cease. Further reducing the income for the person claiming the assistance (and their family) at this point undermines one of the stated objectives of this type of assistance, which is about removing barriers to challenging decisions. We know that even small ongoing reductions in household income can make it harder for people (especially people with disabilities or with caring responsibilities or both) to take on the extra tasks or costs associated with challenging decisions."
(Campaigning / advocacy organisation)

Some respondents suggested that a decision to make deductions from social security benefits should be done on a case-by-case basis based on affordability to repay the amount to be recovered, or that any repayment should be at a low level so that it will not affect the client’s quality of life.

A similar number of respondents also felt that overpayment should not be recovered if the overpayment is the fault of Social Security Scotland.

Other comments made, each by small numbers of respondents included:

• Requests for additional information such as what happens if someone relocates to England for six months.
• Agreement that Social Security Scotland staff will be fully trained.
• Agreement of a simple right of appeal against a determination.

3.10.4 Process Decision Appeals

The consultation paper noted that the 2018 Act provides appeal rights for what are termed as process decisions (where Social Security Scotland refuses a request for a redetermination, either because it views the request as not being validly made, or where a request is made outside of the time limits without a valid reason). Appeals against these decisions are not routed via Social Security Scotland and the individual is responsible for lodging an appeal themselves with the Tribunal within the timeframes set out in s. 61 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Questions 37 and 38 asked:

Q37: Do you agree or disagree that for successful process decision appeals where the tribunal has overturned Social Security Scotland’s decision, STA should become available at the point the decision is overturned rather than the date of the original request?

Q38: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, a majority of respondents, across all sub groups, disagreed with this proposal:

Table 20: Q37

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	1	4	1	7
Local authority (14)	2	9	1	2
Third sector (40)	4	16	4	18
Other (7)	1	1	-	5
Total organisations (74)	8	28	6	32
Individuals (189)	47	99	29	13
Total respondents (263)	55	127	35	45

A total of 132 respondents provided a response to Q38 and the key theme, cited by over half of those responding to this question, was that STA should become available from the date of the claim when eligibility started so that a client is not out of pocket because of an incorrect decision that is subsequently overturned. Around a third of respondents also noted that payments should be backdated to the date of the original decision that was then subsequently overturned. One organisation in the third sector noted that this proposal would create the potential for a client to be financially penalised for errors made by Social Security Scotland in adjudicating on their claim. An organisation highlighted issues in relation to devolved powers:

"The earliest date possible should be used under powers of STA or existing benefits but given we do not control all of this it will be difficult. We could use similar processes like when appealing ESA when this is re-instated at appeal.
As we may see individuals lose out we cannot risk this so the earliest date should be appropriate." (Representative organisation)

Once again, there were some references to the unfairness of penalising a client because of a mistake by Social Security Scotland and that this should not result in detriment or financial hardship to the client.

Other comments, each made by small numbers of respondents included:

• The proposal would cause unnecessary hardship anxiety and stress to clients.
• The appeals process is too lengthy.
• This proposal does not fit with the fairness, dignity and respect principles of the Scottish Government in the delivery of social security.

3.11 Breaks in Disability Assistance

The consultation paper stated that the Scottish Government proposes that breaks in Disability Assistance will continue to impact on eligibility so that where there is a break in a person’s eligibility to receive the benefit after 28 days, whether that is due to residency or other issues, they will cease to receive the benefit. Questions 39 and 40 asked:

Q39: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach that, generally, where there is a break in a client’s eligibility to receive the benefit, e.g. due to being in residential care, they will cease to receive the benefit?

Q40: If you disagreed, please could you explain why.

As shown in the following table, views across all respondents were relatively polarised, and 92 respondents agreed compared to 103 who disagreed. Among organisations specifically, a higher number of respondents disagreed (26) than agreed (17).

Table 21: Q39

	Number
	Agree	Disagree	Don’t know	No response
Campaigning / Advocacy (13)	2	7	1	3
Local authority (14)	7	5	-	2
Third sector (40)	6	13	5	16
Other (7)	2	1	-	4
Total organisations (74)	17	26	6	25
Individuals (189)	75	77	28	8
Total respondents (263)	92	103	34	33

A total of 121 respondents provided further commentary in support of their response at Q39.

The key theme which emerged was that there should always be financial support for those with a disability as they will still have everyday costs and removal of the benefit would leave people at risk of serious financial hardship. One organisation noted that the benefit is likely to be factored into a household’s overall income and thus the client and their family will be reliant on its payment. Linked to this, some respondents also noted that Disability Assistance should cover the additional costs of a client’s disability or health condition; and provided the leasing of adaptive equipment or the employment of a personal assistant as examples of costs that will still need to be met. Furthermore, some respondents also commented that there is a need to consider carers and that removal of the benefit should not impact negatively upon them, particularly if they are still providing support to the client.

Around a quarter of respondents agreed that there is a need to be able to pause payments and have quick reinstatement of these without a client having to reapply for the benefit; some of these respondents suggested there needs to be a fast track return to payment of the benefit, and some referred to the need for automatic reinstatement. A very small number suggested there could be a capacity for short-term suspensions.

A few respondents commented that it will depend upon the reason for a break in payments and decisions made on a case-by-case basis. While a relatively small number of respondents felt that the proposal is acceptable if a client will permanently be in residential care and will not require the benefit for the original purpose of its payment, a similar number noted that if the reason for eligibility to receive the benefit is temporary, perhaps for two months, then the client should still receive the benefit. Similarly, a small number also noted that sometimes the benefit will be needed to help pay for residential care and services needed while the client is in residential care^[2], while a similar number also commented that some people are unable to leave hospital because of a lack of a care package and should not lose the benefit in these instances.

A few respondents also noted their disagreement with Disability Assistance being stopped after 28 days in hospital, with suggestions that this needs to be extended to 56 days or three months, which would offer a more person-centred approach.

Finally, at this question, a few respondents requested further information or clarification on specific points such as how benefits would be reinstated or the circumstances for an adult in education, on remand or in prison.

3.12 Overpayments and Deductions

The consultation paper noted that policy on overpayments for Disability Assistance will follow wider policy for Social Security Scotland. Where an overpayment is made as a result of Social Security Scotland error, it will not be pursued unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a large and obvious overpayment. Where it is made as a result of client error, Social Security Scotland may seek to recover the overpaid assistance, but in doing so will have regard to the individual’s financial and other circumstances they consider relevant. Question 41 asked:

Q41: Please outline any comments or experience you would like to share with us about overpayment recovery and the current DWP approach to deductions.

To an extent, the responses to this question largely echoed many seen in responses to earlier questions. Three key themes emerged.

1. First, deductions are set far too high and are expected to be repaid too quickly, which is punitive for clients. Linked to this, some respondents commented that this causes ill health, anxiety, depression and stress to clients.

2. Second, the current system causes severe financial hardship, increased debt levels and can lead to increased reliance on food banks.

3. Third, the issue of repayments should be discussed with clients and set at a level that is affordable, with some suggestions that recovery of the overpayment should be means-tested and, if a client is suffering from financial hardship, the repayment should be deferred until such time as the client can afford it. A few respondents suggested there should be a maximum weekly amount that is recoverable, with some suggestions that this could be in line with Housing Benefit where a maximum of 10% of the total benefit entitlement is recovered. A small number of respondents noted a need to strike a balance between the interests of clients and the impact on their family, and the interests of the state.