Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, June 6, 2024

Official Report 717KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Proposed Revised Social Security Charter (SG/2024/96)

Our next item of business is consideration of a document that is subject to parliamentary control. The social security charter sets out what the social security principles mean in practice and lists around 50 commitments to be delivered by the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. The proposed revision to the charter is included in annex A of paper 4.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the document at its meeting on 28 May 2024 and made no recommendations in relation to it.

Today, we will have an evidence session on the document with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. The committee will then be invited, under the subsequent agenda item, to consider a motion to approve it.

I welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice; David Wallace, the chief executive of Social Security Scotland; and Kyle Murray, the procedural and international policy team leader in the Scottish Government. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate that follows.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the proposed revised social security charter, which was laid in Parliament on 16 May.

In 2019, following an in-depth co-design process with people who had lived experience of the United Kingdom benefits system, the social security charter was published. The charter sets the standards for the performance of Social Security Scotland. The charter measurement framework, which is published annually, assesses how Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government are delivering on commitments, and identifies areas for improvement.

In effect, the charter took the social security principles in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 from high-level ambitions to more detailed commitments, thereby underpinning everything that we do with dignity, fairness and respect.

It is a requirement that the charter be reviewed every five years, so this is the first review since it was made in 2019. A significant difference since then is that we now have a maturing social security system that is delivering to the people of Scotland 14 benefits, seven of which are available only in Scotland. Whereas the original charter was co-designed by people who had experience of the UK benefits system, the revisions have been co-produced with people who have experience of engaging with the new Scottish system. I extend my sincere thanks to all the individuals and organisations who supported the review process.

It is important that the committee appreciates that one of the key findings of the process was that the charter as it exists is already held in high regard by all parties who were consulted. That is evidenced in the limited number of proposed changes. The changes and restructuring largely reflect a social security system that is now operational, while adopting more inclusive and consistent use of language. Fundamentally, the revised charter continues to uphold the eight Scottish social security principles that were set out in the 2018 act, thereby reinforcing the Scottish Government’s strongly held view that social security is a human right.

I recently visited Motherwell and Grangemouth, among other places, and met a number of clients who shared positive experiences that they had had with the social security system. Some highlighted that they finally felt listened to and treated as human beings, as opposed to how they felt under the previous system. I am in no way saying that there are no improvements that we need to make, but that we are determined to make improvements. I remain proud of what we have achieved to date.

Similar views on the social security system were offered by clients during the charter review process. The committee should be reassured that the revised commitments are, therefore, truly reflective of the priorities that were identified by clients, social security colleagues and partner organisations and that they improve an already highly regarded document.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland will work to meet the revised commitments and ensure that the delivery of social security reflects the wishes of those who invested their time and effort in the review.

I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the charter.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will move to questions, which will be directed to you, but you are welcome to invite your officials to respond, should you wish to do so.

I invite Jeremy Balfour to ask some questions on the theme of the charter’s purpose.

I will start with a very basic question. Do you see the charter as an aspirational document, or does it reflect the reality today? Where does it sit on that spectrum?

When we look at the measurements in the charter, we see that clients largely feel that it reflects the service that they receive at the moment. However, as I said in my opening remarks, and as I often say in the chamber, it is still a very new system that we are keen to continuously improve. I am proud that there are very good results under the measurement framework, but we are determined to go further. The charter is a living, breathing document, as part of the agency, and we know that we can always, and will, do better in the future.

That is helpful. Despite it being in the original charter, was it ever Social Security Scotland’s intention to make referrals to other organisations that provide advice and information? Is that an example of a change from the charter being aspirational to it just describing current procedure?

On that aspect, we have got a bit sharper with our language, through the review. Colleagues will be aware that the term “referral” is often taken by public bodies to have a specific meaning around welfare rights and so on. In essence, it can mean the sharing of personal data—that is often what the word suggests or implies to people. Clearly, there are complications around sharing of personal data, which is not something that the agency can do on a whim, but we are working with the agency to improve such arrangements, when they would be helpful. More sensible and appropriate language is now used.

David Wallace might wish to give some details on what the agency already does to signpost people—through award letters, for example—to other services that are available. There is also the independent advocacy service, for example. This is one example in which we are trying, with the help of clients, to include in the charter words that explain what we actually do, but we always look at how we could go further in the future. David Wallace might wish to elaborate on that.

I emphasise that the issue is language. The word “referral” would imply to the sector that we would be actively sharing data, which would require data-sharing arrangements and the building of platforms, because we would not want that to be a manual process. We have some work to do on that.

We absolutely signpost people. As the cabinet secretary said, people are signposted when they receive letters, and we also signpost them through the local delivery service that we operate. We have some really good pilot examples. For example, in Dundee, we are working with partners to ensure that we can provide hot hand-offs, if you like, rather than just signposting people.

We definitely want to do more work in that area, but we should not underestimate the amount of effort and resources that it will take to get us fully over the line. Indeed, as the cabinet secretary said, it is not directly in our gift to share such information: we need to work with other organisations, in that regard.

Perhaps I have been sitting next to Mr Mason for too long, but how much did the very full review that you carried out cost? Is the cost being covered by the Scottish Government or by Social Security Scotland?

I will answer that, although I should say that I do not have an answer on the exact cost. I imagine that the cost was covered by my team’s resources and the research team’s resources. The research was all done within the Scottish Government. I do not think that there is a specific budget line just for that.

I am sorry, but I have forgotten the second part of your question.

You have answered it. Thank you.

The next theme is awareness of the charter. I invite John Mason to come in.

I will start with a supplementary question to Mr Balfour’s. Some of the changes are pretty small, are they not? For example, “we will” becomes “we’ll”. That is surely a question of taste or grammar—although I prefer “we will” because I think that it is clearer. Has the exercise been worth your while, given the number of changes that have been made?

I think that it has been a very worthwhile exercise. For one thing, we are obligated to do it, so it is worth our while on that basis. However, if the system had not been working effectively—although, as I say, it is not the case that there is no room for improvement—and we did not have an effective system that people felt had dignity, fairness and respect at its heart, we would have seen an entirely different process. We would have had many more stakeholders wishing to be involved, and the feedback from clients would be in a completely different ballpark.

As you said, some of the changes are very small. It was important that the charter was gone through with a fine-toothed comb by clients of the service and our key stakeholders, as well as by staff. It was important for the charter to be tested in that way. We could otherwise have been in an entirely different place and this could have been a much more uncomfortable session. The fact that the charter is well regarded is demonstrated by the fact that the changes are, as you say, relatively very small, although they are not just stylistic—there are some important changes.

You say that the charter is appreciated, but I wonder how widely people are aware of it. There is a suggestion that among the users—the clients—and the staff, are people who are not terribly familiar with it.

I will bring in David Wallace to talk about some of the specifics, but it is important to bear in mind that the charter is the foundation, or cornerstone, of not just what happens in Social Security Scotland but of how we approach social security in the Scottish Government. It is embedded in everything that we do. We do not start off every meeting by quoting parts of the charter, but, in essence, it is built into everything that we do. That is why the staff training is delivered in the way that it is and it is the reason why the system is set up as it is. It reflects the policy decisions that are made in Government. In essence, it is embedded in everything.

David Wallace can point to some of the specifics, because it is important that people know that there is a charter and take cognisance of it.

I saw some internal agency comments about staff’s awareness of the charter, although there are also counter-comments about people’s awareness.

However, as the cabinet secretary said, the charter underpins all our activity. There will be stuff that we do that is not necessarily because there is a charter, although the charter influences the culture and approach of the organisation.

For example, we have done a lot of work on intelligent kindness, which, I think, we have spoken to the committee about before. For people joining the organisation, the brilliant Tommy Whitelaw has been doing sessions on what it means to be treated with kindness. The charter absolutely underpins that but, as the cabinet secretary said, we do not start all those sessions by saying, “We’re doing this because of the charter.”

We will raise awareness of the charter; the refresh gives us a good opportunity to emphasise it. Back in 2019, it was aspirational in a way, because we were not doing all the things that we knew we were about to do, whereas we now are doing them.

We can use the refresh as a communication tool. If you walk round our offices now, you will see on our digital signage quotes from the charter and messages saying what the charter means. The refresh is an opportunity to hammer home that message.

I worry when people say that they do not understand or do not recognise the charter, although that does not necessarily mean that they are not operating within the framework that it sets.

We will now focus on the co-design process. I invite Katy Clark to come in.

10:30  

Cabinet secretary, you said something about the co-design process in your opening remarks, but perhaps you could give us a bit more information about it and say how clients’ priorities have been reflected in the revised charter. I understand that there was a core client group of 16 participants. Perhaps you could expand on that and on how you attempted to capture other claimants’ experiences.

It is important that we hear from as many people as possible and from a broad range of people, both directly from clients and through stakeholders that represent clients—especially those who are seldom heard in these types of activities. Surveys were given to clients and there was a series of workshops. As you would expect, the workshops allowed people to go into much more detail than they would be able to go into in a simple survey. There was, as a priority, engagement with people from seldom-heard groups because we need to look specifically at the barriers that they face when engaging with public services. That has given us a wealth of evidence about how clients’ priorities are already reflected in the charter and about how they could be reflected slightly better.

I do not know whether Kyle Murray wants to add anything on the specifics.

Section 18 of the 2018 act prescribes certain groups that have to be consulted as part of the process. As you can see in the evidence, we have consulted all those groups, but we have gone further than that. I have the specific numbers here. We had over 850 client panel members take part in the online survey. The number that Katy Clark mentioned in relation to the core group is the number of people who wanted and were able to take part in the more in-depth workshops.

How were those 16 people selected?

They were selected based on the benefits that they have received from Social Security Scotland. A diverse mix of benefits was involved, rather than only disability benefits, for instance, and there was a demographic mix. I am not the researcher, so I cannot speak specifically to the methodology, but I know that the group was deliberately diverse. I know that a range of views were expressed, because I was part of the workshops and was able to hear them.

I understand that only seven stakeholder organisations responded to the survey. How do you know that stakeholders’ priorities are reflected in the revised charter?

It was not for a lack of trying that there were only seven. There is a stakeholder newsletter that goes out monthly, which is distributed to literally thousands of organisations, and the review was directly promoted to welfare rights organisations. There were, absolutely, opportunities for a large number of people to take part. The partner organisations were invited to take part in the survey and in one-to-one interviews and so on. I think that the number of responses reflects the fact that they did not feel that there was much to say on the charter, rather than that they did not know that the review was going on.

To ensure that the matter was looked at in detail, there was another opportunity to steer the research and to contribute to the work through the research advisory group that includes Glasgow Disability Alliance, Carers Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group and others.

We will move on to the application process. I invite Paul O’Kane to come in.

Good morning. The cabinet secretary knows, because we have had many exchanges on it, that I have been particularly interested in the lengthy processing times. Mr Wallace will be aware of that as well.

Generally, we have heard calls for target processing times to be set to give clients an expectation of when their claims will be processed. There might be a view that we are watering down our commitment in that space in the wording of the charter, given that we are changing the language around handling applications from

“as quickly as we can”.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary will probably say about lived experience—that that phrase felt vague and perhaps could have had more detail behind it—but I am keen to get her sense of whether we are moving in the opposite direction in respect of clients having clearer timescales. What does she feel the impact will be of removing the commitment to handle applications

“as quickly as we can”?

That is one of the areas that I am very pleased that the committee has given me and David Wallace an opportunity to talk about, because the change was very much driven by what came back from clients. Everybody here might have a different definition of “quickly”. We quite rightly got feedback that there is no point in having a word in there that could be interpreted in lots of different ways to mean many things. The word “quickly” might mean something different to me, David Wallace, you and someone who is going through the process. It then becomes rather meaningless.

Clients have asked to be updated on what is happening with their claim and to get that information through so that they have something that is much more specific to the type of benefit that they are on and the expectation of where that is in the system. That is much more useful and more meaningful to clients than the phrase

“as quickly as we can”.

The challenge that came back from the work was to ensure that what is in the charter means something to clients who are going through the process. That did not by any means come from the Government as a wish to water down the issue; it came from the clients. Terminology in the original charter could be interpreted in too many different ways.

We have ended up with a more stringent measure for the Government and the agency than what we had before. I am sure that we will continue to have discussions about processing times. The committee has heard from me and David Wallace directly that we know that processing times were too long. They are coming down. We are very satisfied that that work is continuing, and more is being put in place to ensure that we are on that journey. However, that is separate from the fact that there has been a change in the terminology in the document.

I hope that that demonstrates that the charter is separate and has been through a process that is not impacted by what is happening on processing times in the agency.

I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the framework document and more detail. The charter is a foundational document, and we would not want to see a sense that improving those times is not foundational to Social Security Scotland, but I caution that we have to be aware that it could be read like that. It would therefore be useful if the cabinet secretary said what detail will go into the charter measurement framework about waiting times, call times and those sorts of issues.

There is information in “Measuring our Charter”, and there is the information that is published separately through official statistics. Mr O’Kane said that things could be read in that way. You have heard from me, and David Wallace can speak on behalf of the agency on this. I assure you that, if there was a stakeholder organisation out there that felt that we were somehow gerrymandering the charter to make things easier for the agency, you would have heard from it by now.

The fact that organisations are comfortable with the changes that are being made is a reflection that those who are either impacted directly by the system or work with those who are feel comfortable with the changes that are being made. I sincerely hope that no one makes any mischief by misinterpreting that, because we are satisfied that the stakeholders are satisfied with what we have done. I hope that that is of reassurance.

To go back to your question, it is important to say that it is not just about what is being measured in the charter but about what is in the official statistics on processing times and so on. There are two ways to ensure that we are held to account for processing times; it is not just through the charter measurements directly.

That is why that scrutiny is important, as people will want to ensure that those processing times are improving. I do not know whether Mr Wallace wants to add anything from the agency’s point of view.

I am conscious of the time, so I would ask for any response to be quick and concise.

Sure. I am happy just to hear from Mr Wallace.

I will be quick. I am in danger of simply agreeing with the cabinet secretary on lots of those points. From my operational perspective, we did not push to take out the word “quickly” at this point in time, but it is a relatively easy but meaningless thing to sign up to. Although we are losing that word, from my perspective, and as the cabinet secretary said, we have a far more challenging set of measures than we had previously.

There is also an issue around trying to apply that generically in a document such as the charter. For example, our low-income benefits and our disability benefits are very different, and the gauge in respect of what is acceptable, quick or speedy for a low-income benefit is entirely different from that of a disability benefit. We are trying to ensure that the charter is the underpinning framework rather than setting those specifics around it.

I know that this was not particularly the question that was being asked, but we see all the measures as important. The charter is the thing that matters to us, because it is about how people are treated. If I go way back to all the client research, the parts that came across strongly were about how people were feeling and being treated and about the removal of assessments. If the strength of feeling had been around purely the speed of application processing, we would have designed something differently. There will be a danger if we try to focus solely on that aspect. The whole suite of measures is really important for us operationally.

Okay. Thank you very much. We will move on to our last theme, which is on the local delivery service. I invite Marie McNair to come in.

Why has the commitment to deliver “face-to-face services” changed to a commitment to delivery “in person if necessary”? Is that just because the reality—the experience—is that not everyone needs that? Will all clients be given the choice to have local support provided in person?

Again, that is just a tightening up of the language. Support is available to people face to face should they wish that. The client’s preference about how their needs are met is still integral. It has been right from the start and will continue to be so.

Face-to-face support is very much part of the service. Anyone can have that—it is not just for someone who is housebound, for example, or on a disability benefit. The change is a recognition of the fact that, particularly over the past couple of years, people are much more relaxed about using a video call and so on. It is simply a change in language to reflect the fact that we have all changed the way in which we deal with public services. For many people—not all—that will not be face to face. The face-to-face local delivery service is unique to the social security system in Scotland and is a very important and integral part of it, which we will not be losing.

Thanks for that.

That concludes our question session. Moving on to agenda—

Is there time for an extra question, convener?

Yes.

Thank you. Cabinet secretary, when the original charter was being scrutinised, there were lots of discussions about what status it should have and whether it should have legal status. The Parliament came to the view that it should remain as was proposed rather than have legal status. The Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to make changes to the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, is going through Parliament at the moment. As part of your work on that, has any thought been given to whether the charter has the right status or whether it should have a higher status?

The fact that that issue has not been raised with us suggests that—this more important than what I think about it—others are relaxed about its status. I would again take from the fact that no feedback has come from stakeholders that they wish to see a change that they are satisfied with that. Obviously, if there is a view on that that has not come through as part of the review process, I would be happy to hear from stakeholders on the issue, but I am not aware that anyone is calling for that.

Thank you. That is helpful.

10:45  

That concludes our question session. Agenda item 5 is formal consideration of motion S6M-13481.

Motion moved,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Proposed Revised Social Security Charter (SG/2024/96) be approved.—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]

Motion agreed to.

Following today’s proceedings, the clerks will prepare a draft report. The committee is invited to decide whether to consider the draft report in private at a meeting in the coming weeks. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the cabinet secretary and officials for their evidence. That concludes our public business for today.

10:46 Meeting continued in public until 11:05.