Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.