Time to review how the benefit payment system works - Susan Dalgety
So farewell, Sally Donald, the SNP “rising star” who has had to step down as the party’s candidate for Edinburgh Southern in May’s Holyrood elections, following revelations that she was being investigated by Social Security Scotland.
And only hours after she stepped down, our sister newspaper, The Scotsman, revealed that the wannabe politician has been told to pay back nearly £20,000 in Adult Disability Payment (ADP).
It seems she was not entitled to the in-work benefit, which is awarded to people who need help with everyday tasks such as eating, washing, managing toilet needs or engaging with people in person.
Quite how she managed to get the payments in the first place is surely a question that Social Security Scotland must now answer. Ms Donald has worked for a number of SNP politicians, and is currently a member of MP Graham Leadbitter’s team.
She is often on social media cheerfully engaging with all sorts of people, from the First Minister John Swinney to voters in her former constituency. My particular favourite Instagram post is of her doing a make-up tutorial as she gets ready for a recent SNP conference. Her self-confidence shines through.
While I have no reason to disbelieve her when she says she suffers from severe anxiety and autism, her very public persona suggests that her condition has not stopped her from carving out – until now – a hugely successful career in a very tough profession.
Only a few weeks ago, The Scotsman also revealed that less than one per cent of ADP payments are checked by a health and social care expert, unlike in England where claimants have to be assessed in person or by phone when making a claim.
The SNP government decided on self-reporting – that is taking someone’s word that their health issues are severe enough to merit financial support – because it wanted to put “dignity and respect” at the heart of Scotland’s social security system.
A laudable ambition, but in practice it means that someone can get thousands of pounds a year in benefits without ever having direct contact with staff, which must leave the process open to abuse.
In light of this high profile case, I think an urgent review of how payments are decided is in order.