Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is important to include in an audit framework people who have lived experience of requiring such communication. I am sure that they are involved at some point in the process, but perhaps they could be involved in a more formal way to say whether something is working and why.

Thank you. That has helpfully touched on my final point. The East Renfrewshire Council submission spoke about

“capacity, resourcing, timing, practicality, and limited ... data about the range of ... requirements”

for people. The Scottish Women’s Convention said that public bodies will need to be properly resourced to do a lot of this work. I can see folk nodding. I get the sense that, alongside guidance, there will probably need to be a degree of increased resource. I am taking the nodding as meaning that that was a fair comment.

Would anyone who is appearing online like to add to that and talk about the experience of their own council?

Does anyone else want to come in on that point before I ask a final question?

I am quite interested in inclusive communication and the Government’s revised approach to assisting listed public authorities with embedding inclusive communication in what they are doing. What do you think about the Government’s revised approach? How do you feel it is progressing?

Good morning. I am particularly interested in the Scottish Government’s revised approach to inclusive communication and the embedding of inclusive communication within the listed public authorities. As an opening generic question, what are witnesses’ views of the duty, the revised focus on it and how it is progressing?

In the previous evidence session, we had a discussion about whether the Government could be clearer on what best practice and expectations should be. I referenced working with people who have a learning disability, where the challenge is often the agility of a public-facing service to provide what is required. For example, in the criminal justice system, interactions with police can often be very challenging, because it is a fast-moving environment. The interaction is very different, particularly when legal matters are involved. I appreciate that there are processes in place in law, such as for appropriate adult services and that sort of thing, but how do we become more agile, so that those things can be made available as standard?

In the public health space, the pandemic probably taught us a lot about agility in relation to getting information out to as wide a group as possible and not allowing people to fall through the gaps, but many people might feel that they were missed. Could I hear reflections on that from Nicky Page and John Dawson?

Nicky, do you have a view on that?

I have a question about automaticity—I can never quite say that word correctly, so I apologise if I get it wrong. Debbie Horne mentioned the issue, and the committee talks about it a lot in the context of UK and Scottish social security. Has work been done on how that might happen? I understand that it is a complex process. Are there international examples of where it works seamlessly? We always hear about Estonia’s digital Government systems, which allow the free flow of information, but can you point us to any other examples?

My amendments in this group seek to retain the current preliminary steps that the commission must take in respect of a complaint, specifically to determine whether it is

“frivolous, vexatious or without merit”,

and to reject it if so.

I will be clear at the outset that at this stage my amendments are largely probing, although I reserve the right to press them, depending on how our debate proceeds this morning. It is important that we have this debate, and I thank the SLCC and the Law Society of Scotland for their engagement on the issues and on my amendments.

The rationale behind my amendments relates to the efficiency of the complaints process and the system, in which, I think that we would all agree, we do not want there to be complaints that are not going to go anywhere. To speak plainly, complaints that are, by definition, vexatious or frivolous will jam up the system. Members will be aware that many complaints that are submitted fit that definition, and many of us would recognise that, from time to time, so are some of the messages in our inboxes.

It is important that such complaints are dealt with as early as possible and, if they meet the criteria, that they are disregarded to avoid causing an unnecessary backlog, additional work and bottlenecks downstream in the complaints process. That means that such complaints should be dealt with when they first hit the desk of the SLCC, rather than making their way through a longer process. I believe that it would be fairer to complainers and all parties involved in the complaints process to dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, vexatious or without merit at an earlier stage, rather than dragging it through a further onerous process, only for it to be dismissed for those reasons later.

If we accept the premise that we should keep the system efficient and deal with such complaints, the question becomes what test we should use to do that. I note the SLCC’s intent to achieve that aim by bringing forward its own criteria through the powers that it will be granted under the bill. However, I have some concerns that we have not seen the proposed rules and criteria, although I understand that they would largely replicate the current tests for establishing whether a complaint is frivolous, vexatious or without merit.

I have heard concerns about the legalistic nature of the terms that are used in the amendments, and have also heard that some people may find them offensive. I will deal with those criticisms in turn.

That the terms used are legalistic nature in nature can be a benefit, because they are well established and understood, backed up by case law and clear examples. Any new set of rules that used different terminology may not be backed up by case law and could be subject to legal challenge and, indeed, judicial review. That could be unnecessarily onerous on the commission and those who are involved in complaints.

I understand the concern that the terms are offensive. I also understand that, through the bill, we are trying to make the process more user friendly and to support the administration of natural justice. However, I suggest that individuals who are upset when they hear that their complaint has been determined to be without merit are likely to be upset anyway, regardless of what terminology is used at that point in the process, because their case has been dismissed. I again point to the well-established meanings of those terms. We should perhaps try to expand and explain those meanings rather than change them at the first stage.

From my engagement with the SLCC, it appears that it understands that argument and is leaning towards using the test for its own rules, for many of the reasons that I have outlined, although I am happy to stand corrected on that if I have misunderstood. If that is the case, it would be beneficial to keep the current rules in statute to give them backing in law as part of the complaints process.

I welcome the contributions of other committee members and the minister on the issue. As I said, depending on whether there are assurances and commitments to examine the issue further prior to stage 3, I might not press my amendments. However, changing the preliminary steps in the manner that is set out in the bill could have significant risks and unintended consequences, so there might be merit in keeping much of the preliminary tests as they are.

I move amendment 557.