Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, September 30, 2021

Official Report 602KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [Draft]

Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on the draft Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021. As this is the committee’s first consideration of affirmative regulations, I will quickly summarise the process.

We will start with an evidence session with the minister, which will be followed by a formal debate on the motion. The minister will be given the opportunity to move the motion and to respond at the end of the debate. The committee will be asked to make a recommendation to Parliament on whether we consider that the regulations should be approved. That recommendation will be made via a report.

Before we begin, I thank the minister for sharing the draft amended advocacy service standards with the committee to allow us to make a more informed decision on the regulations that we are considering. I remind colleagues that the draft standards were shared in confidence. Therefore, I encourage members with any questions on the regulations to refer to the draft standards in general terms.

I again welcome to the meeting—his appearing before us is becoming a bit of a habit—Ben Macpherson, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and Dr Ruari Sutherland, supporting access to social security team leader in the Government’s social security policy division. We are also joined, online, by Colin Armstrong, sponsorship and delivery manager in the social security policy division, and James Clelland, a solicitor in the Scottish Government legal directorate.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement on the regulations.

I am pleased to be here to talk about our new social security advocacy service standards. I am also pleased to confirm—as I have done in writing to the committee—that, following a regulated procurement process, we have now awarded the first four-year contract for the provision of an independent advocacy service, as required by the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. I will provide a little more detail on that shortly.

First, I will give a brief overview of the amendment that is sought by the Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021. The social security advocacy service standards set out the standard of service that independent third-party organisations are required to provide on behalf of the Scottish Government.

The current advocacy service standards, which were published in January 2020, restrict providers to the use of individual instructed advocacy. Such advocacy is where the individual is able to directly communicate to the advocacy worker what outcomes they want, as well as the actions that they would like to be taken. Through extensive consultation with stakeholders on our advocacy short-life working group, which included the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, Citizens Advice Scotland and several independent advocacy providers, it became clear to us that removing the restriction to instructed advocacy in the service standards would increase the scope of the service and build on our human rights-based approach by making the service more widely accessible.

Such an amendment to the service standards was therefore suggested by stakeholders in the advocacy sector, and it enjoys the unanimous support of the members of the advocacy short-life working group. We are pleased to respond to that suggestion by bringing the proposed amendment before the committee today. Crucially, it will allow providers to offer non-instructed advocacy, which is an holistic approach whereby the advocate combines alternative methods of communication with observations of the client and their situation, and information from significant others in the client’s life.

That leads to a more person-centred approach in which providers are able to offer the forms of advocacy that are most appropriate to each client according to their circumstances. That will increase the scope of the service, reduce any potential for confusion and avoid potentially inconsistent outcomes. I am sure that the committee agrees that that is a positive step towards providing a more inclusive service and helping disabled people to access social security.

The service standards are designed to be applied in practice. I wrote to the committee yesterday to provide an update on delivery of the independent advocacy service and the organisation that will be responsible for implementing the standards. As I mentioned, we have now concluded the regulated procurement process to appoint a national supplier, and I am delighted to say that we will work with VoiceAbility to fulfil that vital role. VoiceAbility is a charity with 40 years’ experience of delivering independent advocacy services. It brings a deep knowledge of the sector and a wealth of experience in supporting people with disabilities to get the outcomes that they deserve.

VoiceAbility’s delivery model promises a number of positive impacts for the people of Scotland, including commitments to establish a new base and bespoke training centre in Glasgow; create up to 100 new jobs and three apprenticeships as devolved benefits are introduced; have a clear presence in all health boards at launch; recruit 75 per cent of its workforce from people who are long-term unemployed or economically inactive; sign the Scottish business pledge; and pay at least the real living wage.

That is an important step in the delivery of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and a substantial contract award, with the Scottish Government committing to investing £20 million in the service over the next four years.

I am happy to provide any further information on the matter that would be of value to members.

The amendment is welcome. It will open lots of avenues for everybody who offers advice to the most vulnerable, so I support it totally.

I have a few questions about how the advocacy service will develop. If I give you three questions, minister, I hope that I will not have to come back.

My first question relates to funding. Is the funding that will be paid to the service new? Other organisations already provide advocacy services that get Scottish Government money. Is it new money or will the money be taken from advocacy services that already operate?

Secondly, how will parents and others know about the service? How will it be advertised so that people will be able to make use of it?

Thirdly, how will the changes fit into providing advocacy services for tribunals? Citizens advice bureaux, advice shops and other organisations already do that. Will the VoiceAbility service be exclusive or will people still be able to choose to go to another organisation and get funding for it?

The funding is new. As I said, it is an investment of £20 million in a new service to fulfil the obligations in the 2018 act. We will make that investment over four years.

We will work with VoiceAbility on raising awareness. I will be pleased to keep the committee updated on our engagement with the charity as it develops its presence in Scotland and creates the networks that are needed to deliver its service effectively. That will involve working with a range of partners, which is what VoiceAbility has done in other parts of the United Kingdom, to raise awareness of the service. As part of the 2018 act, there is an obligation on us in that regard. As ministers, we are focused on raising awareness of what social security support in the round is available to people, as are Social Security Scotland and the wider Government.

On the point about the service being exclusive, when people request advocacy support with devolved benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland, that will be delivered exclusively by VoiceAbility. However, if people want advice, they will still be able to go to a citizens advice bureau or through other organisations.

Of course, the distinction between advocacy and advice is important. Mr Balfour will recall that we discussed it at length during the progress of the 2018 act.

Ruari Sutherland might want to come in.

Can I just seek clarification on my point? If I go to a tribunal for a hearing on my personal independence payment, which is going to be run by Social Security Scotland, and I am looking for an advocate to represent me, at the moment, I have the choice of advocating for myself or having a CAB, the advice shop in Edinburgh or other organisations across Scotland to do that. Are you saying that the only people who will be allowed to advocate at a tribunal will be from the organisation that you are paying for? Are we closing the door for other organisations to be able to provide a service of advice at tribunal? Is it an exclusive contract?

Yes, it is, in terms of what the Scottish Government will fund. I ask Ruari Sutherland to talk about what happens if people act on a preference.

The minister is absolutely correct about the exclusivity of the Scottish Government-funded service. Clients will be able to choose whichever service they want in terms of the support that they receive but, as the minister has said, the funding will now be exclusively for VoiceAbility advocacy services.

Does that mean that funding for citizens advice bureaux and other organisations will be cut? The advice shop in Edinburgh gets money from the City of Edinburgh Council or the Scottish Government to offer advice and assistance at tribunals. Will that funding be reduced in due course because such organisations are no longer able to give advocacy services?

We cannot speak on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council when it comes to the choices that it will make—

I am talking about the Scottish Government funding.

Currently, advocacy services and advice services—of course, there is a distinction between them—provide advocacy and advice on a range of social security benefits, many of which are reserved. If people are looking for support with reserved or other benefits, some of those services will still be available to them if funding choices are made in that regard.

I must emphasise that we went through a regulated procurement process. Bidders were encouraged, as you will appreciate and as was appropriate. We have gone through the process and that is the outcome.

There is a need to avoid double funding. That is a question of prudence in public finance that the Government always has to consider.

Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying that you expect that citizens advice bureaux or, for instance, CABIA in my constituency, will still be able to represent constituents at Social Security Scotland tribunals, but it is just that they would not be funded by the Scottish Government?

That is correct.

I have questions on the procurement process and on the points that have been made about funding. You said that a significant procurement process has been gone through. That is excellent and is what we would expect. I might have expected that an organisation that already has jurisdiction and works in Scotland would end up providing the service. Were there any applications from organisations that already deliver advocacy in Scotland? I am keen to know a bit about that, particularly given that you said that funding will be provided for the purpose of advocacy relating to Social Security Scotland benefits to one organisation only, and that that organisation is not yet based here.

09:15  

The convener’s point about representation at tribunals and during assessments is important, because it is important that people have the option to take a person with whom they have a relationship as an advocate and to have a bit of choice in that. Notwithstanding the fact that funding only one agency to do that limits choice, will people still be able to go to their assessment with someone else as their advocate? Will it be the case that that advocate’s views will not be disregarded because they do not work for VoiceAbility?

On your last question, the answer is yes. I will bring in Colin Armstrong to speak about the procurement process. The procurement process was undertaken twice—once in 2019-20, when an award was not made because of the pandemic, and then again more recently. Throughout the process, Scottish Government officials engaged with current providers to give them all the awareness and information that they would need if they wanted to, for example, make a collective bid. However, that was not undertaken.

I will let Colin Armstrong come in on that.

This is the second procurement process. I am afraid that we cannot announce here what other organisations bid, but three did so. It was a regulated procurement process. It was done under the most—what is the word I am looking for? [Inaudible.]—within Scotland.

Thanks, Colin. I will say a bit more. Consortium bids were welcome, but were not made. Two organisations with a presence in Scotland—Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Matters—made applications but, through the regulated procurement process and following an assessment under the appropriate law and criteria, VoiceAbility was assessed to have made the strongest bid and therefore was awarded the contract, as is appropriate.

I echo what we have heard already, which is that the regulations are welcome. They will open up opportunities for advocacy for other people.

My final point is about training for the advocacy providers. Have you given thought to the sort of training that they might get in relation to disabled people or carers, for example? In the past—not here, but in other jurisdictions—some providers have not necessarily had the training or support required to give clients the full support that they need. Will the training take into account the range of conditions that the people who they will be supporting might have?

Pam Duncan-Glancy makes an important set of points, which we took seriously throughout the consideration of the process. In a moment, I will bring in Ruari Sutherland, who has had a lot of engagement with VoiceAbility in the lead-up to, and since, the award of the contract. Those are important considerations, which VoiceAbility has included in its service delivery elsewhere in the UK, and they are important considerations for the organisation now as it builds the service in Scotland.

Ruari, can you say more on that?

It is clear from meetings that we have already had with VoiceAbility that it is absolutely committed to working with the Scottish Government on developing its programme of training as well as with Social Security Scotland, which has a training programme on working with disabled people and various parts of the population. VoiceAbility has committed to setting up a bespoke training centre, based in Glasgow, which will deliver the training to all its advocates. We have already had discussions with VoiceAbility about using some resource from Social Security Scotland to support the delivery of the training.

It is important to add to the minister’s point about VoiceAbility’s previous experience in the rest of the UK. It already supports up to 30,000 people a year, and 80 per cent of the clients whom it supported last year had a disability of some description.

Thank you—that is helpful.

I have one quick question. For the benefit of potential service users who are watching today, can the minister please outline how we can guarantee that VoiceAbility will be independent and that it will be willing and able to criticise Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government if necessary?

That is absolutely the focus of the amending regulations. If the committee agrees to recommend approval of the instrument, the amended advocacy service standards will ensure that the quality of advocacy is appropriate and regulated, and that its independence is absolutely assured. That has been the case with the interim service, too.

When we considered the Social Security (Scotland) Bill in 2018, there was a determination and commitment to ensure that independent advocacy was available, and we are now delivering that. The advocacy will not be provided directly by anyone who works for the Scottish ministers, including staff of Social Security Scotland; it will be provided by people working for another organisation, VoiceAbility. The advocacy workers will support social security advocacy rights and needs, and they will work for and on behalf of the individual in a way that is as free from conflicts of interest as possible. That is all set out in the service standards.

It is important to emphasise that, under the terms of the award, VoiceAbility will deliver only advocacy and not advice. It is specifically contracted to deliver the advocacy commitments in the 2018 act, and to be there for clients when they need it.

To go back to the point that Mr Balfour made, I think that he is confusing advocacy services with advice and professional services. Surely an advocate is not expected to make welfare rights points during a tribunal. We need to be careful about the different roles.

I certainly welcome the regulations. As the minister will know, the assistance that people need often covers many entitlements to a range of social security benefits. Is it the case that some people will need advocacy with regard to devolved and reserved benefits at the same time? Do you envisage that overlap getting in the way of the overall advocacy that a person needs?

The point about the difference between advocacy and advice is well made. Advocacy involves the provision of support that helps someone to express their rights, views and wishes and what they want to achieve, whereas advice involves imparting guidance or recommendations to someone with regard to a future action or decision. The focus of VoiceAbility’s service will be on advocacy when it comes to social security benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland.

I have a couple of questions, but first I put on record that, like everyone round the table, I welcome the move to independent advocacy.

However, there are concerns about the organisation that will deliver the service not having a footprint in Scotland and institutional knowledge. What assurances have you had, beyond those that you refer to in your letter to the committee, that it will genuinely be a national service? Setting up a centre in Glasgow is one thing, but Glasgow is not Scotland. I apologise to Glasgow members, but it is important that we make sure that the service is a national one and that some of the barriers that we have had previously will not be put up by the new service.

In addition, could you outline what level of funding is currently provided to other organisations in Scotland to provide advocacy?

The questions that Mr Briggs has raised are important ones that we obviously considered in the award process. The VoiceAbility delivery model is built around home-based staff and an existing network of more than 100 accessible co-location venues in local communities across the country. VoiceAbility has already been engaged in such work, and it will continue to engage in it as it delivers the contract.

The organisation used that approach before Covid-19, so it was ahead of the game with its move to digital and accessibility in communities. That has allowed it to be flexible and responsive to fluctuating demand and to have a clear presence in all health boards at launch. As a result, the geographical presence that Mr Briggs rightly asked about will be there.

As you would expect, the organisation is very committed to creating that presence and working in collaboration with others. I look forward to seeing that happen, and I am sure that the committee, too, will look forward to engaging with it as it expands into Scotland from a strong position of delivering in the rest of the United Kingdom. With its Scottish base and bespoke training centre in Glasgow, the organisation will ensure that advocates and volunteers are equipped with the knowledge and skills that we have talked about to deliver the service to a high standard, as set out in the standards that we are discussing.

It is also important to point out that the organisation will scale up in line with demand. We do not necessarily know what the demand will be—in fact, we will see that only when the service is rolled out.

As far as I can recall, I made this point in my letter, but I should emphasise that there will be a working group that the service will engage with, which will include not only key stakeholders, who will be able to have an input to and to engage with VoiceAbility, but, crucially, people with lived experiences, to ensure that we have a connection between the new service and those who use it.

We are excited about what the organisation is going to do and how it will perform under the contract, and we look forward to working with it as it rolls things out. Of course, as I have emphasised to members, any such advocacy will be independent.

On the issue of costs, I do not have those figures just now, but I undertake to come back to the committee on that.

With regard to commitments, you touched on the issue of digital barriers. We have seen some improvements in that respect, but not for those who might be at a further remove from such technology. Perhaps some consideration should be given to making commitments with regard to people who do not have such access. Moreover, have there been any commitments in relation to British Sign Language translation services and advocacy?

I will let Ruari Sutherland talk about engagement with VoiceAbility on that matter, but I can say that it is committed to providing an accessible service, as it has done previously.

The Government is committed to providing accessibility in general when it comes to social security. Indeed, we have introduced local delivery teams in Social Security Scotland to help and encourage people to apply for benefits, and the same considerations, as you would expect, have been an important aspect of what we are doing here.

VoiceAbility has already given a clear commitment to providing a fully accessible service, and the service standards that it will have to adhere to also make it clear that advocacy services and workers will communicate using the methods and forms that the client needs and prefers in all cases.

09:30  

Mr Balfour has a brief supplementary.

I reassure Marie McNair that, as someone who has drafted amendments on advocacy, I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the difference between advocacy services and advice and professional services.

I want to go back to a point that was made by my colleague Miles Briggs. What would happen if I lived in Orkney or Shetland and I was looking for an advocate to come to a tribunal with me? I presume that VoiceAbility has no presence in those areas. How will it provide services there or in, say, Stornoway or more rural Highland areas? How many people will it have working in those areas, given that there might be tribunals in Inverness and Stornoway on the same day? Can I be guaranteed that the advocacy that I need will be there on the day?

I have already mentioned the 100 co-location venues, full accessibility and a presence in all health boards, and the combination of utilising those venues, being present in those health boards and the collaboration that will arise means that support will be available to people, no matter their geographical location in Scotland.

I must push you on this, minister, because there is a difference between having a presence in a health board and having a presence on the day of a tribunal. Is there an absolute guarantee that if I need someone to advocate for me in Stornoway on a Tuesday morning, there will be enough people to cover that and provide that service?

The service commits to giving people the advocacy support that they need, where and when they need it. That is in the contract.

I call Evelyn Tweed, and then I think Miles Briggs has another supplementary.

Independent advocacy is absolutely to be welcomed, but I am interested in the outcomes of the service and what it will achieve for people. How are you going to report on those?

To Parliament, do you mean?

Yes.

We will continually review the service as part of the contract. There will be no formal process of parliamentary updates, but I will, of course, keep the committee updated and the committee, on behalf of Parliament, will be able to make inquiries of VoiceAbility about its performance. I can assure you that, as with any contract that is procured for services, we will continually review the contract, consider performance and ensure that the service provider—in this case, VoiceAbility—is not only fulfilling what needs to be met in our contract but meeting the standards.

Do you want to say anything more about that, Ruari? The contract contains some significant reporting aspects.

As the minister has said, the contract sets out a number of significant reporting requirements on VoiceAbility. As for how that gets reported to Parliament, I guess that the minister can consider that issue and write to the committee on it in the coming days. However, there are significant reporting requirements, and they will feed into any contract extension. The initial contract period is two years, with an optional extension of two 12-month periods beyond that, which takes us to the full four years. All the reporting in the first two years will feed into decisions on extending the contract.

The milestones in the contract relate to assessing performance and provision. As for outcomes, the Government and the Parliament will be watching to ensure that the standards are being met and the service is being effective for people, and that will happen in due course.

Listening to this morning’s conversation, I have a question about the rationale behind using the health board model. I fully understand that as far as patient advocacy is concerned, but would it not make more sense to use a local government model, given that a lot of advocacy is already provided for people in that area?

The fact that VoiceAbility will be present in all health boards is an illustration of its comprehensive geographical engagement across the country. There are wider considerations, such as collaboration with different organisations and the wider engagement on awareness that Jeremy Balfour rightly highlighted, and local government will need to be kept informed about and included in the awareness-raising process. We will, of course, engage on that. However, I highlighted the issue of a presence in all health boards as part of the considerations around the contract to illustrate the geographical availability and the fact that there will be a comprehensive service throughout Scotland.

As there are no more questions, we will move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of motion S6M-00996. I remind the committee that only members and the minister may take part in the formal debate.

I invite the minister to formally move the motion.

I hope that today’s discussion has been helpful and that it is clear that the new service, along with the regulations under consideration, is another step towards delivering a social security system that works for people and which has fairness, dignity and respect at its heart.

I move,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.

Motion agreed to.

I thank the minister and his supporting officials very much for their evidence—it is very much appreciated.

We will have a brief suspension to allow for a changeover of officials.

09:37 Meeting suspended.  

09:39 On resuming—