Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In essence, the financial impact will be in terms of the extended eligibility. There will be a financial impact in that sense, which, I think, we discussed in greater detail when we took through the original regulations for the pilot area. Also, as I heard when I was in Motherwell, there could be an increase in the number of people who come forward for benefits because they are entitled to them and they are being encouraged and feel that the system is supportive.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission will present its forecasts as best it can with the information that we have, and, as we go on, it and we will learn how that eligibility has made an impact and about particular aspects such as how many more people are being encouraged to come forward for their entitlement who may not have done so under the previous system. It is exceptionally challenging to forecast that, but I think that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been cognisant of that to date and will continue to be. Those discussions were already baked in when we took through the regulations for the original pilot.

Good morning, convener. The carer support payment launched in November last year in Dundee City, Perth and Kinross and the Western Isles. It is a key step in our work to transform financial support for unpaid carers and to build a different system that is based on dignity, fairness and respect, recognising the value of unpaid care and providing greater stability and support for carers.

The carer support payment is already delivering an improved service, which was developed through work with carers and those who support them, and it extends support to many full-time students who are unable to get carers allowance.

Those improvements are in addition to the extra support that is already available to carers through our carers allowance supplement. That supplement is available only in Scotland. In fact, our three Scotland-only carer benefits—the carer support payment, the young carer grant and the carers allowance supplement—mean that, in 2024-25, we are investing £60 million more than the UK Government in carer benefits.

Carers allowance is the most complex benefit that we are replacing, as it links with a range of other support. The pilot and our planned roll-out approach have been designed to allow us to ensure that robust systems are in place between Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions, so that carers continue to get all of the support to which they are entitled.

In February this year, we also began the automatic transfer of carers allowance awards to the carer support payment. That process is taking place across Scotland, with no need for carers to re-apply for support and no gaps in entitlement. I am grateful to officials from across the UK for their continued support in that work.

We are now ready to expand the benefit to more carers and the regulations that you are considering today will, if approved, make the carer support payment available in a further 10 local authorities this summer, starting with Angus and North and South Lanarkshire in June, and across Scotland from November 2024.

The draft regulations also include special backdating rules to ensure that carers do not lose out on support because they live in areas that are in later phases of the roll-out, and they will introduce, from October to June, a further extension of eligibility to carers aged 16 to 19 in full-time, non-advanced education, with certain exceptional circumstances.

I extend my thanks to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its scrutiny of the draft amendment regulations. I am pleased to note that each of its recommendations has been accepted.

We know that clear communication of the roll-out approach will be key to its success. We are working with the DWP to ensure that both it and Social Security Scotland are providing clear information to carers on the approach, to ensure that carers continue to access all the support to which they are entitled through the carer support payment and any linked benefits.

I appreciate this opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations, and I am happy to take any questions.

Yes, and my thanks should go not just to this committee and SCOSS but to the DPLRC for its work on this. We appreciate very much the feedback on the regulations. We have laid out in correspondence to the committee that the carer support regulations on breaks in care have been drafted to mirror the carers allowance legislation, which has been in force since the mid-1970s, I think. Therefore, those who need to interpret the regulations have an understanding of the language and how it has been interpreted, and that has been the case for some time.

If we were starting from scratch, with absolutely nothing in place, we might have approached the drafting and the wording slightly differently. However, the instrument has been drafted in a way that is well recognised within the system and well understood by those who use it—those involved in welfare rights and those who will be supporting carers. Importantly for carers, the policy intent behind the instrument is well understood by Social Security Scotland, and that understanding will be used in how it is interpreted.