Seòmar agus comataidhean

I see where the member is coming from. However, the way to test out what the DWP will do is not by putting provisions in primary legislation, which is exceptionally difficult to unpick. We do not want to find out what the DWP will do if what it does will adversely affect clients, because undoing primary legislation is exceptionally challenging. Although I understand the member’s point, I strongly urge him not to use primary legislation to attempt to force the DWP’s hand or to find out what it thinks.

The Scottish Government does not support amendment 8, which seeks to make local authorities disregard military compensation as income when deciding whether to provide a discretionary housing payment. That is not because we think that military compensation should be counted as income in those circumstances, but because there are potential issues with Mr Balfour’s amendment and, in any case, we do not consider the bill to be an appropriate place for the policy.

Although the Government is keen to encourage consistency across different parts of the country, it is important to retain a level of discretion that allows for applications to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Discretion is baked into that design. That said, my officials will soon be undertaking a review. Given that, in the debates on other groups of amendments, Mr Balfour has expressed concerns about timeframes, I reassure him that that review is due next month, so there is not too long to wait. Officials will undertake a review of the statutory discretionary housing payment guidance, which we consider to be a more appropriate place for the policy than primary legislation.

We have concerns that the amendment would leave out recipients of other forms of compensation, which we may, when we undertake the review, also wish to include in addition to military compensation. We are more than happy to work broadly with all stakeholders, including, of course, Poppyscotland and Mr Balfour directly, to ensure that the intent behind the amendment is integral to the work that is undertaken as part of that review.

I recommend that the committee does not support the amendment if Mr Balfour presses it, not because it is wrong in principle but because the policy does not belong in primary legislation and because we want to ensure that any approach does not leave out other people who may be awarded other types of compensation.

I will do so very briefly. Again, I thank Jeremy Balfour for our discussions on those issues, because an important point has been raised. As he pointed out, his conversations with stakeholders have suggested that the third sector does not understand that area. It is the responsibility of the agency, not the third sector, to make sure that we do something about that. I confirm to Mr Balfour that I will speak to the agency and ask it to carry out further work with the third sector and engage with wider stakeholders to ensure that the guidance is understood.

Mr Balfour asked for further reassurances about changes in guidance. Again, that is an important point, not just on this issue but on others. If the agency makes significant changes to guidance, there should be a process to alert stakeholders and the committee to that. I will take his point away and reflect with the agency’s senior team on how best to do that. I give my assurances that we will work to provide reassurance on the future proofing of that process.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendments 16 to 23 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

The Scottish Government supports Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111. We consider that the definition of “error” in proposed new section 49A is very broad and that the bill as drafted will allow a new determination to be made and an appeal stopped in a wide range of scenarios, including where a decision maker reaches a different conclusion on the same facts. However, I am content that amendments 109 to 111 as drafted meet the policy intention that a decision maker should be able to make a more favourable determination for the client during an appeal. On that basis, the Scottish Government is happy to support those amendments. We may lodge amendments at stage 3 to make small technical changes to the provisions, but I assure Mr Balfour that such amendments would not alter the policy.

The Scottish Government does not support amendment 112, which seeks to remove the definition of “error” in the bill as far as it relates to allowing Social Security Scotland to make a new determination and an appeal to stop as a result. Although we are supportive of that, and support Mr Balfour’s other amendments that seek to remove the need for error in the process, amendment 112 also seeks to remove the need for any new determination to be advantageous for the client.

We believe that an important aspect of the process is that a client be offered an advantageous award only in order to stop an appeal. That has been the intention behind the proposal since it was first introduced through the bill, and it remains an important aspect of the offer that would be made to a client. Removing it might result in Social Security Scotland contacting a client to offer them a lower award than that which they were challenging in the first place.

Therefore, the Government does not support amendment 112, and I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move it. However, if amendments 109 to 111 are agreed to, we will, at stage 3, remove the unnecessary definition of error that amendment 112 identifies.

The Scottish Government also cannot support amendments 106 to 108 or 113 to 115, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The amendments seek to remove the requirement for a client to request a redetermination of the determination that stopped the appeal.

Our focus is on getting the decisions right first time. However, if a client disagrees with the determination that stopped the appeal, a right of redetermination provides the opportunity to correct any mistakes at an early stage through an independent rerun. Giving people redetermination and appeal rights in that scenario gives people the same range of challenge rights that are given to people who challenge all other determinations that are made under the 2018 act.

Some clients might find a tribunal process intimidating and stressful, and might prefer the opportunity to have Social Security Scotland look at their case again rather than having to appeal to the tribunal. In addition, not everyone who has lodged an appeal will have had a previous redetermination outcome. Some people might have appealed because their redetermination was not concluded by Social Security Scotland within the timescale that is set out in the regulations.

It should be noted that, even if the Government agreed in principle with the amendments, they would not, as currently drafted, achieve the intended purpose. Some references to redeterminations have not been removed and, therefore, the legislation would not work properly.

For those reasons, I urge the committee to support Mr Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111 but not to support amendments 106 to 108 or 112 to 115. I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move the latter amendments.

I agree with Mr Balfour’s point that we have broad agreement about the policy intent. It is important to ensure that what was designed in 2018 is fit for purpose and that we review what we have learned during this period.

I thank CPAG for its work on amendment 105 and Paul O’Kane for lodging it, because it demonstrates that there are different ways of achieving the same policy intent. However, for the reasons that I have given, I think that the Government’s approach is better. Mr O’Kane pointed to the wide range of circumstances that we are trying to encapsulate; it is important that we do that through the regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose for each type of benefit and payment. For those reasons, I request that Mr O’Kane does not move his amendment.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

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.