Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for your opening statement. A number of our members are attending the meeting online, as you can see, and they will join in and ask some questions.

You have talked about your priorities and given an overview of where you think you are. As you have worked in other parts of the United Kingdom, it would be good to hear whether you think that the office can learn from any of the processes in which you have been involved elsewhere. Is there scope within the organisation for development and perhaps more cohesion?

As you identified, you need the resource to manage the increase. That might involve more staff or more financial input, so where do you see that coming into the budget process that you have to deal with?

As previously agreed, we will take our remaining business in private.

Stephen, in your opening remarks, you talked about funding gaps and a demand-led budget and service. Around £320 million more is likely to be spent on ADP than the Scottish Government receives in PIP block grant adjustment. You have touched on that this morning. We have also touched on the likelihood of the forecast gap of £770 million being closer to £400 million by 2029-30. It would be good to get a flavour of Audit Scotland’s conclusions on how the Scottish Government is managing the funding gap. You have given us a flavour of when you look at the figures and how you manage that, but it is a considerable sum of money and it is probably going to continue to grow.

Good morning, Edel. The independent review reported clients’ positive views on consultations. Would greater use of consultations improve decision making? Are poor experiences of PIP assessments preventing the use of what could be a useful part of the decision-making process?

The idea about the process being personalised comes out quite strongly in the review, which found that people wanted more personalised and accessible communication from Social Security Scotland. They saw that as an advantage. How important is that for people and how can it be achieved? That is a goal, but it is also something that Social Security Scotland is attempting to do.

It is important to note that the Scottish Government’s choices, criteria and policy decisions are encouraging more people to come forward. There is no doubt about that, which must have a knock-on effect on how much this will cost. If people feel that dignity, respect and fairness are there, more will take up the opportunity to apply, as the system might not be seen as being as draconian or strict as it used to be. They might not have chosen to come forward in the past due to stigma and difficulties. The Government must take that into account and come to a conclusion about how this should be progressed and managed.

It might appear that, when councillors put some pressure on council officers or when there is a bit of tension, the officers feel that they need to rein in the councillors in some way and the code of conduct is a way of doing that.

I think back even to my time as a councillor, although I have been out of it now for 10 years. The code of conduct was used against me occasionally to say, “You know, if you do that, then we might have to go down that route”. When a councillor is trying to find out information about specifics, there has to be trust between them and the official, and if that trust breaks down in any way, the code could be used as a weapon.

Do you think that is the case? Is the code being used in some ways to stymie, stop or manage some actions or behaviours? Or is it just something for the official who thinks, “I am the professional in this process and you have a justification to inquire, but if you overstretch the mark, then my professionalism could be compromised”?

It would be good to know because the complaints are increasing. There is a tension between councillors and officials, with the councillor wanting or seeking information and the official feeling, “I can give you so much” or “I have to adhere to some levels”. The tension is obviously still there and, if there is a problem and an increasing number of complaints, there must be some kind of structure behind it.

From time to time, members of a council administration and members of a council opposition are not given the same information. A councillor may be seconded with an official who is there to support them but, in some cases, that is not available—opposition councillors are sometimes disadvantaged when trying to understand or be given information, and they have to find their own way through that process. That can be frustrating, and it can lead to a bit of distrust between the councillors and the officials.

There can also be conflict in a joint board involving people from both health boards and the council, with councillors trying to manage both. Officials from the health board and officials from the council do not always see eye-to-eye about what they want out of the process, and the councillor has to walk a tightrope between them and sort out the problems. I can, therefore, see that there might be opportunities for difficulties on other occasions within boards and in other locations. However, it has been good to have you explain where you are in that process, because I think that is the way forward.

My last question is about the reopening of previously closed cases. A number of cases have been reopened, as you touch on in your annual report. Could you provide some more information about why that has happened and what merits the reopening of a previously closed case?

How damaging is the negative publicity about the code? Does it have a reputational impact?