Good morning, and thank you for inviting us.
We have had discussions about who handles complaints and what legislation is required to ensure that complaints are handled at the appropriate time and in the right way. We have also spoken to the Government about the wider issue of learning from complaints to bring about improvement and the role that complaints have in terms of scrutiny. If all we ever do is answer individual complaints, nothing much will ever change.
The Social Security (Scotland) Bill is not just new legislation; it is fairly fundamental in the sense that it represents an opportunity to do something different in a different way. We have consistently made the point that, although legislation and standards are important, we need to keep sight of the person. That is important in the context of complaints, because we are talking about assisting individuals who are likely to be going through a stressful and vulnerable time and we need to keep the process as simple and straightforward as we can for them.
In our discussions with the Government, in considering the proposed changes, we have looked at whether there should be a complaints process in relation to rights. We have discussed the concept of oversight, because there are other issues that flow out of complaints. We learn many things, and consideration needs to be given to what we do with what we learn and with the information that we identify about systemic issues, because such information is likely to give an indication of how well the charter and the bill as enacted are working.
In that context, our discussions have included the issue of information sharing. We think that it is crucial that we can share information with the commission—I will pick up on why I think that that is so important later on. We also think that it is crucial that we can get access to Department for Work and Pensions information. We say that largely on the basis of our experience as reviewer for the Scottish welfare fund. Time is critical when it comes to assistance.
I am conscious that complex complaints come to us that can take a year to look at, not because anybody is doing anything wrong but because they are so complex. Complaints about assistance, such as reviews of the welfare fund, have to be done virtually in real time because somebody is depending on that money.
09:45
Information sharing, which is the other area that we have talked about, is also crucial in terms of complaints and oversight. There is one other thing that the committee might want to consider. We focused on information sharing between us, the Government, the DWP and the commission. However, when you consider the breadth of what the charter will look at in terms of rights, other organisations in the public sector are also likely to have information that tells you about how those rights are working in practice. The context in which information can be made available to look at systemic issues becomes very important.
That brings me to a point about the commission itself. There was discussion earlier about questions such as whether it should be able to look at complaints about the charter, whether it should be able to look at complaints about rights and whether it should have an oversight function. I think that, to an extent, the semantics are getting in the way here.
We can look at this from the perspective of a service user. If somebody who wants assistance applies for it but does not get what they have applied for, there is an appeal tribunal route in relation to the decision on their money. However, what happens if, in the process of that decision, officers are busy? We all have bad days—what if officers are rude to a service user, or do not respond to correspondence, or do not take account of essential information because something went wrong in the post room?
Those are service issues and they will come to the SPSO. However, from the individual’s perspective, they are unlikely to say, “You breached my right under the charter.” They are likely to say, “I didn’t get my money in time and it is because of a delay,” for example. That is why the SPSO is important, because everything comes back to the charter. I completely agree with Jim McCormick. The wording of the charter is crucial because what flows from that are processes, procedures, timescales, and policies, which should embed the charter in the day-to-day delivery of assistance.
The average person should not need to know that they have a right to this or that. They have a right to a benefit and they have a right to a good service and they have a right to be treated as a human being, with respect and dignity. If those rights are embedded in how the service is delivered, that charter is met.
If the service is not delivered because of how those policies and procedures are implemented or even written, the SPSO is likely to pick up on that at an individual level. Almost by definition, if there is maladministration in the delivery of the service, there should be a way of translating that back over time to systemic issues or even personal issues about how individuals are treated. Used in that way, the charter almost becomes a set of service standards in relation to how we look at complaints. That is very much in keeping with the current complaints process anyway.
It may well be that a particular individual applies for a couple of different types of assistance and they get the money that they are entitled to but it is a long-drawn-out process—one would hope not, but I am thinking of a worst-case scenario. The complaint to us may well be, “I applied for this benefit and that assistance and, although ultimately I got what I was entitled to, the experience was appalling—it was awful.”
We monitor those issues over time, as we do with complaints. We have found that well over half of our recommendations are about making service-based improvements. For a new function, service improvement is even more critical, because that tells us how well that service is being designed and bedded in.
As Jim McCormick said, it will not go perfectly from the start, but we must ensure that we have a way of picking that up quickly. What do we do then? I come back to the point about semantics getting in the way. There is a difference between the oversight of the effectiveness of a charter and complaints about that charter. Complaints will predominantly be about service issues, but other groups, such as advocacy or third sector groups, will find through their stakeholders and users that there seem to be flaws in aspects of the charter. That is not so much about complaints as it is about concerns, issues and comments. It is important that the commission is able to take those matters and look at them in a more abstract and holistic way.
I will give you an example. We gather information from our complaints about health, and that intelligence is used by Health Improvement Scotland. We share the information so that there can be a holistic look at performance. That does not exist for social security so, in a way, we must create it. If we share our intelligence with the commission and it also has the powers to look at other concerns, that will give a very good basis for challenging—but, more important—improving the system and feeding back to this committee and to ministers. It will also give you a different lens through which to look at regulation. When you are considering new regulations—I will leave aside the debates about space and time—we could tell you the experiences that are being fed back to us and whether we think that the regulation will fix those issues.
By having an SPSO complaints process and a commission that has the ability to look at concerns and wider issues—which are not necessarily couched in terms of complaint—you will build a way of looking at the wider and the particular and the bridge between them. The feedback route will then be about the scrutiny and the development of the regulations and performance over time.
Issues might not emerge for six months, or possibly longer. My experience of having been in organisations when new regulation comes in is that you would probably be better with less detail than more detail, because as soon is there is specific detail on, for example, who to send a complaint to, you are stuck with that approach. However, if you gave an oversight function to the commission—we have such a function under our own act—you would provide the flexibility to look at the things that you do not expect, because you cannot foresee what the issues are likely to be.
The other fundamental point is that that approach will open up the scrutiny of the system to a wider number of stakeholders, so you would get different perspectives on the effectiveness of different things.
I will also pick up a point that Jim McCormick made about the charter. My understanding after speaking to the Government is that the charter will be co-produced. It will involve citizens who will use the service, which is a good way to go. However, the scrutiny of it is the really important thing, because charters tend to be written in broad terms. That is great, and it is very good in terms of the principles, but if we do not reassure ourselves at every level that those principles have translated into somebody getting their assistance in their bank account when they need it, they are empty words.
It is good that service complaints come to the SPSO—I am not just saying that because I am the SPSO; I have a very good team around me and we are good at looking at these things. However, the fundamental thing, beyond that, is the ability to share intelligence that can be collected in a central place so that a holistic view can be taken and there can be effective feedback and reporting to Government and this committee.