 Ie, i-fawr, iawn, mae'n defnyddio'r cymdeithasol yn mynd i gael Cymru yma, a gennyn nhw'n gyd-in-gwysigol yma, a'n ddych chi'n gwybod hefyd, ac mae'n ddwych chi'n gwybod yn ei hunain o gyd-in-gwysigol, ond mae'n gwybod i chi'n gwybod i chi, ac mae'n ddwych chi'n gwybod i chi'n gwybod i chi, ac mae'n ddwych chi'n gwybod i chi, ac mae'n ddwych chi'n gwybod i chi, ac Mark Griffin, MSP, is hoping to be with us, but we are not done apologies, so we hope that we will have a full team here before the end of the session. We will now move to agenda item 2, which is a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to agree that item 5, a discussion on future work, is taking in private. Is the committee agreed? Agreed. Thank you. We now turn to agenda item 3, the draft social security charter. The committee will take evidence in the Scottish Government's draft social security charter. I welcome the cabinet secretary for social security, Shirley-Anne Somerville. Thank you very much for joining us this morning about the slight weight and getting to this point on the agenda. I can also welcome the cabinet secretary's officials, Stephen O'Neill, social security policy team leader, Julie Guy, principal social researcher, both from the Scottish Government and Chris Boyle in strategy, public policy and corporate assurance social security Scotland. Thank you all of you for coming here this morning. I invite the cabinet secretary to make our opening statement and then we'll move to some questions. Thank you, Gidevere and good morning. It's a pleasure to be able to hear the committee's views today on the social security charter, a piece of work that I believe that Scotland can be very proud of. The committee is aware that the Scottish Government is committed to a system on the recognition that social security is a human right, therefore all of us who need it. The charter was always about bringing that commitment to life, identifying the specific things that the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland must do to deliver a system that lived up to that aspiration, a system that translates the good intentions set out in the social security principles into real-life improvements to people's everyday experiences and who better to tell us how to do that than the people who know the system best, those with lived experience of it, who have relied on it and who understand the specific ways in which it must change. I'd want to reflect for a moment on the hard work and sacrifice of the people with lived experience who wrote this charter. It is no exaggeration to say that many of them have had experiences of the UK system that border on the inhumane. It took a great deal of courage and a deep personal commitment to build something better for them to place their trust in the Scottish Government. As one core group member put it in a powerful public statement, we all took a huge risk in taking part. Many of us have trauma responses to dealing with the DWP. For the first few sessions, we were afraid to talk about what we really needed because we were so used to anything we say being used against us. But people came out crying because it was the first time for many of us that we'd been believed and that people in authority were horrified at our experiences. They went on to say, We wrote it. Session after session we'd see our words, our fears and our hopes take form. I can point to bits in the charter which were my words. I will never be able to describe how important it is to us to be listened to and to be respected and believed. So I want to place on record my thanks to the core group for that trust and for their bravery and commitment to working with us to make things better for their fellow citizens. It's also important to remember that the process of involving people with lived experience ran wider and deeper than the core group, pivotal though they were. Additional focus groups were run with refugees, asylum seekers, BME women, islanders, Social Security Scotland staff, a broad range of LGBT people and women who have experienced violence. That was supplemented with a series of individual interviews with people unable to travel and a survey of all 2,400 experienced panel members. It should be noted that participants from these sessions were added to the core group, which is important given its status as a key decision maker. The findings from these sessions are strongly reflected in the charter before the committee, not least in the many commitments relating to equality and diversity. It's also important to acknowledge the key role played by stakeholders. They consistently acted as a valued critical friend to the core group and to the Scottish Government, offering advice, support and constructive challenge to the core group and to ministers over a series of drafts. I'm pleased that stakeholders were able to engage so positively in what was a new and very different model of policy development. And a special thanks is due here to the disability and carers benefit expert advisory group led by its vice chair, Dr Sally Witcher. From the very beginning, Dr Witcher has been an instrumental in advising ministers and officials on effective co-design and later helped to shape the charter to be as ambitious as it possibly could be. I know she believes in this charter and she is very intent on holding ministers to account for delivering on it. This process has demonstrated the power of what can be achieved when the Scottish Government, Civic Scotland and people with lived experience work together in the spirit of true collaboration. The charter that they have created runs the full breadth of the new system, making commitments across four key themes. A people service is about establishing a positive relationship between staff and the people they serve. Notable commitments including kindness and empathy, warm referrals to other services to improve finances and wellbeing, values-based recruitment and involving people with lived experience of social security and staff training. Processes that work is about the design, accessibility and quality of the processes and systems that people will engage with when using the service. Notable commitments include adapting processes and communications to meet needs and preferences, delivery of services in local communities, inclusive communication and on-going co-design with citizens. A learning system moves the charter beyond delivery to address the culture and the values of social security Scotland, for example that it encourages and values feedback, learns from it and strives to do better. Other notable commitments include involving those with lived experience and measuring performance and recruiting a diverse workforce. And a better future is about the Scottish Government's policymaking process and the wider exercise of devolved social security powers to improve people's lives. For example, through commitments to advancing a human rights-based approach, tackling stigma and using more positive language to describe social security and the people who access it. That is an ambitious and innovative document that sets a high bar for the Scottish Government and for social security Scotland. The committee will have noted that key stakeholders have universally welcomed the draft before it. As Professor Paul Spicker, a leading social security academic, said, there are a couple of days left to comment on the draft charter, but I am not going to do that for the simple reason it is excellent and I have no criticism to make. Can anyone spot the difference with the DWP? Convener, I will close by placing on record my personal commitment to making sure that those standards are met, showing through the evidence of what we do that this Government means what it says. This charter gives the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland its marching orders. We understand in far more detail what the people of Scotland want and need from our new system. It is my job to ensure that it is delivered in practice. That means new work in a whole range of areas, not least the development of a robust framework for measuring progress. Work on that framework is already under way, and I can confirm that it too will be co-designed with the people of Scotland and key stakeholders. As you would expect, Social Security Scotland's executive advisory body has been briefed extensively on the charter and understands that it goes to the heart of the culture values and behaviour of staff. Planning work has already commenced on embedding the charter into operational practice, including through staff training and specific commitments, such as involving stakeholders and people with lived experience in that process. If parliamentary approval is granted, plans are also in place to immediately trigger work on making the charter available in a range of accessible formats as quickly as possible. Similar work is taking place within the Scottish Government, and we shall of course keep the committee updated with progress. Convener, I hope that the committee will agree that this is an important and exciting milestone in our shared work to build a new system that truly delivers on our legislative principles. I know that many members of the committee have high ambitions for this charter and made substantial contributions to defining its scope and purpose through the bill process. It is my hope that this charter makes good on those ambitions and that the committee will feel able to recommend that it be approved by Parliament. I move the motion submitted in my name and would be pleased to answer questions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I listened carefully to that. Personally, having read through the charter, I find it very impressive as a draft document, as you say, written by those with direct lived experience, life at the cold face and living on benefits or entitlements, which is a better word to use in that context. I would like to put on record on the section of a people's service that should be referred to, cabinet secretary. Even just the first three points, I want to look at a wider point about this. Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government will, one, be patient, consider it and consider how you might feel to listen to you, trust you and treat you as an individual, treat everyone equally fairly and without discrimination. I am not going to read through the rest of those, but I just want the wider point that there are some real high-level aims in relation to getting it absolutely right every single time and the highest possible standard of service to everyone that engages with Social Security Scotland. That is as it should be as the organisation is freshly established and tries to progress. However, we do not always live in an ideal world. There are times when individuals, for whatever reason, get things wrong and drop the ball. For me, one of the most important things in the charter is not just that it was written by those with direct experience of the system, not just that the people's service section treats individuals with respect and dignity, but that it is at page 6 where it says—this is really where my question will come in—who can you tell if you do not think that our charter is being met? As for feedback, suggestions and complaints, it encourages them and encourages people to call a free phone number in relation to that. It encourages individuals that have issues with the policy or the level of entitlements to feed back in to the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland over that. My question, cabinet secretary, is a superb document that raises expectations sky-high. That is a really positive thing. However, the assurance that I would want is that, on the occasions where maybe we just do not get it perfect because we live in the real world, are you confident that the information in the charter in relation to how you feed in your concerns, when we do not get it 100 per cent, 100 per cent of the time, will be suitable, flexible, responsive and meaningful for those who would engage with the service on that basis? You are absolutely right to point to the fact that we are raising the bar exceptionally high and rightly so for the agency and for government on that. Much of that comes down to how the agency in particular will deal with feedback from individuals. Obviously, there is a process where people can feed that back directly. That is much improved on what people will have experienced at the present time because we are encouraging people to give not just complaints but suggestions and feedback on the service on general as well. For the staff member who receives that, to be able to have the culture and structure within the agency, to be able to take that on board and see what can be done with that. There is an empowering of staff to act upon suggestions, comments and complaints from the very small to the perhaps large. Obviously, there is the ability for individuals to go through the more official process within the agency if they are not happy and then to go to the ombudsman should they wish to do so. What we are determined to do as we go through this is to ensure that the staff are empowered to be able to have that relationship with people when they are on the phone or meeting them face to face, and that individuals feel comfortable with giving that information over to their agency because many currently do not with the system at present. Because of the way that the agency designs the suggestions and complaints handling process, people can feel much more at ease about giving information over to the agency. There is a great deal that goes on at that level to ensure that we are picking up on everything that happens. Obviously, everyone who has an interaction with the agency can also give their feedback on how they felt. We are already building up information about how they felt that service has been for them and creating that feedback mechanism. We will develop that on going. That sounds like a strange conversation to be having given what I have said about how positive the charter is, but it is one of those things where there could be 300 complaints, but they could be positive things because the charter and Social Security Scotland are asking people to feed in where they would like to see service improvement. You look at a raw figure and you go, look at all those complaints, but there is a charter there. What is being aimed at is constructive suggestions for when we do not meet the high standards that we are setting for Social Security Scotland. How will that be monitored? That is again an important point. It is a discussion that I have had when I have met that team over in Glasgow where we are encouraging people to come forward with things because feedback is a good thing. The fact that people are given feedback or that I have made a complaint about a service means that they are interacting with the service and getting us the information that we require to make things better. There needs to be a culture within the agency of encouraging that type of feedback from people because it is the only way that we are going to learn. That can be challenging sometimes. I can imagine that the committee and Parliament will quite rightly want to scrutinise the feedback that we are getting and to complain about numbers, but then there is the mature discussion about what types of feedback we are getting and then how the agency has dealt with that as well, which is the very important aspect about have we learned and have we been open to change. This is a new process, but it has to be one where we are encouraging people if they are not happy with the service. I should say that the initial feedback from internal work that we have done within the agency has shown that people are exceptionally happy with the level of service and the way that they have been treated and their engagement with the agency. Every single one of the feedback mechanisms that have been used has been seriously looked at to see what else we can improve on even at this very early stage. It is very helpful and quite a significant culture change from what has went before and totally non-defensive, so I would like to put that on the record. Our deputy convener wants to follow up on some of that. Thank you. Good morning, minister. I think that it goes without saying that it is something exciting for this Parliament to develop something completely different. That is accepted. I have three points to make. First, when you say who created our charter, I thought that there should be the inclusion of the Scottish Parliament Social Security Committee, which seems to be missing, or even the Parliament because, as you know, the Parliament, at least, will confirm the social security charter. My second question relates to, broadly speaking, the tone of it is absolutely right and the language of respect. It is important that the charter conveys information as much as it can. Under processes that work and under part A, explain how you can appeal if you do not think that the right decision has been made after a redetermination. I think that this is a very significant aspect of the bill act, one that I took an interest in, and I had some amendments that were not accepted about the appeals process. One of the things that we settled on is that, after a redetermination, if you appeal—and I think that this is really important—the paperwork, although it would be a fresh redetermination, will work its way to the appeal charter. There is a very important concession that is made by the Scottish Government on this. I feel quite strongly that it should be conveyed to people. You might argue that it is not appropriate to put it in the charter, but I would ask you to consider how it could be expanded to convey that information, because knowing that will allow people to think that the process is not a simple one, but a more straightforward one. Lastly, on the question of language, there has been a bit of exchange with Mark Griffin, my colleague, parliamentary questions about the use of the term benefits versus the use of the term entitlements. I know that you have changed your view on that based on what you have heard. I just wanted to ask you absolutely certain that, in changing the language and social security, that benefits is the one that you want to settle on rather than entitlements. I will try to deal with each of those in term. I should point out that, when I got this document up from the final core group discussions and stakeholders, I did not change a word of it. What is in the different sections is what came from the core group and stakeholders. It is certainly not a slight on the committee that they have not been mentioned in that. I recognise my opening statements—the enormous work that went on in the bill process to make that something that the committee and Parliament can be very proud of. The reason that it was not in there is because that did not come through the process with the core group and the stakeholders. On the redetermination point, is that challenge of what you put in the charter and elsewhere? There was a great deal of discussion about that within the core group and stakeholders about what could go in here and elsewhere, because that should not be seen as having to contain everything, but it needs to be able to contain the core information that people want. I can certainly give reassurances that, when people receive decision letters, they are getting very clear information about redetermination and the agency's role in that, and we would be happy to provide some examples of how that happens on an operational basis if that would help the committee to get more reassurance on that. In all of those aspects, we could look at it and think that we could have added another sub-clause, we could have added more detail in here, and the challenge was to keep it tight, to keep it as simple as possible, but to contain all the information that we possibly needed in a very complex system. As I say, we can hopefully provide reassurance on what we are doing to be able to give people further information and stakeholders further information on the redetermined process. The issue of languages is such an important one as we go through this, and it touches on this aspect that is in the charter around tackling stigma within benefits. I use the word benefits because it came back from work that we have done with experience panels about that it is the most understood, it is the aspect that people use themselves, and there is a challenge for us to turn this around and ensure that we are tackling the stigma about being on a social security benefit rather than trying to use words that the people were not using themselves to explain their current situation. I suppose that it is a different way of tackling it. Yes, we did consider and have obviously considered the use of the word entitlements more. It is simply not what people use themselves. I think that that is the kind of issue about going forward, is about why we are looking to change it. If it is because there is a negative attachment to that, then we should challenge that negative attachment rather than having another word for that. However, I take the point that the language is exceptionally important on this aspect. I agree with some of what the deputy convener and convener have said. At the start, I am in the seat of PIP and look forward to working with a new agency in due course. I think that your final comment is absolutely right, but words matter. I would like to explore a few of the comments in this to see what we mean, but I suppose that my overriding point is, and maybe you could expand slightly more, I think that you said towards the end of your opening statement about a framework of how this is going to be measured. I suppose that, for me, as I read the document, was the issue that was missing here. We have a commitment, because I think that it is a really welcome commitment, that a number of people that work for the new agency will have lived experience of disability of other areas, but there is no clear definition of how many. Is that a divasency ticker box if you have one person? That is the thing that we would like to measure. How do we measure this in regard to the commitments that you made? If I can go down to two specifics to explore a wee bit in regard to the one on page 10 of the draft charter paragraph 12, it says, make sure that face-to-face assessments are carried out by qualified staff who understand your condition and the impact it is having on you. You read that and think, absolutely, that sounds really something that we would all want to synapt to. I do not think that you, which you respect, or anyone in this room, knows the impact of my disability has. Probably only my family has that. What does that mean to acclaimant? I can go in and have my assessment that whoever it is, however well trained we are, however qualified we are, they do not know what it means when I go home or when I wake up in the morning, what my disability means. I think that the danger is, and I think that the community is right, that we have set a very high standard here, and I totally applaud that. However, what does that mean to me? If I have to go for a reassessment at some point in the next few years, how do they know the impact it is having on me? I am not trying to be nitpity, but I am trying to work right. I suppose that the other issue is on page 6. Again, it is just an example of what you can tell us if you do not think that our charter is set being met. The final paragraph can complain about matters relating to policy discussions to Scottish Government ministers. The absolutely great thing is the level of payment and eligibility rules. However, let us just say that I do not think that the eligibility rules are right, and I take the time and effort, perhaps quite difficult, to try to put that down in an email. Practically what does that mean? Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament are not suddenly going to change their policy. I wonder what is the expectation that somebody should have if they take the time to set the emails. I think that you have been quite critical of DWP, I do not totally agree with everything that you have said, but DWP has a charter. It is out there, and it is something that people stand up to. You might want to argue that that charter has not been followed through on. My concern is that, if we raise those expectations, but I do not feel that they are being met, there is a danger that people become disillusioned again. It is just another document. That is very long, but hopefully you can pick something out of it. I shall never do so. You are absolutely right that we are raising expectations and the committee and others will be aware of other charters that are out there for public agencies that have not met expectations or have been quickly forgotten about. That is different because of the work that the committee and Parliament put into the bill process. The act now ensures that ministers will report to Parliament on what is happening with the new commission, and that that can be fed in. The measurement framework is at a very early stage and I would be happy to keep the committee up to date with that as it goes on. As I touched on in my opening remarks, it will be built with people with lived experience of the social security system, including people from the initial core group to keep some of that continuity going on it as well. We need to be able to measure people's experiences and how efficient and effective the systems are. That will be a process that will be on-going because we will be working with the core group against not just coming directly from Government on that aspect. As I mentioned earlier, performance measurement work is already being undertaken by Social Security Scotland to ensure that we are gathering information about the interactions as possible. That is on-going with that. I hope that that gives a flavour of what is in the measurement framework. More details are not included in the charter yet, because we will be developing them with members of the core group and others. I absolutely take your point about what is a qualified staff. It is taking that part of the charter and also seeing what is in the rest of the charter because we are currently consulting on what suitably qualified means, as defined in the act and the expert advisory group is looking at that. The other aspect of where it touches on the rest of the charter is about the culture. Rather than simply looking at perhaps what is on the form and in a particular line of somebody's application, it is about looking at an individual in the holistic sense and about trying to ensure that they are being encouraged to give information not just from medical professionals but from family and carers, for example. How are we gathering that information? Who are we gathering it from? That is one of the aspects that we need to look very seriously at when we move forward with consultation on disability. How can someone have faith when they are dealing with the agency that they really get it? Much of that, to touch on another part of the charter, is about training. Ensuring that the staff have been on training that has been delivered by third sector agencies representing those with lived experience, that has already gone on within the agency. It is about ensuring that the staff are as knowledgeable as they possibly can be, but I totally take your point that we are raising the bar very high. Complaints to Scottish Government ministers will be taken very seriously. It builds into the policy making section of the charter because you are looking at how we continue to make policy. It is about making policy with people with lived experience rather than for them. The issues that we have already been dealing with when we have been developing policy to date have very much been with people with lived experience. Whether it is complaints, feedback or positive comments, all of that will have to feed into our policy making. We will have to be able to demonstrate that through the measuring framework that we have achieved and done. Will every complaint be listened to and lead to a change? No, that is clearly not possible, but we have to demonstrate that it is fed into that policy making loop to be able to ensure that people can have faith that they should. Most definitely, we can put in those types of complaints and feedback to ministers. Thank you. Keith Brown, MSP. Thanks very much, cabinet secretary. A couple of quick comments on points that were made already in the question. On the last point raised by Jeremy Balfour, the idea of having, I think, what essentially is a Rolls Royce system whereby somebody's particular circumstances are fully understood by the person that they are talking to, I would fully support that. I welcome the comments that you have made. I would hope that everybody realises that as a resource intensive element of the system, and it has to be funded. I think that it is really important that we do not try and shoot for the moon and not provide the funding that is necessary. Separately, on the point that Pauline McNeill had made previously, I do have an issue with a concern about the benefits entitlements language. I understand the point that you make, and it can become a bit or welly in trying to change a word to try and change attitudes to understand that. It relates to the question that I have, which you mentioned that the charter gives you your standing orders. You also mentioned the different focus groups that were listed also in the forward to the charters that have not been consulted. One of the groups that were not consulted, the best that I can see at least, were veterans. I just wondered whether veterans are a group who, as far as you can generalise and you cannot really always do that, would find it difficult to engage with a system. You mentioned some very affecting experience of those involved in the core group who said that their experience of the DWP had been really bad, and to actually see their concerns aired and public and listened to was very gratifying. Certainly, my experience at my surgeries is that veterans have had appalling experiences with universal credit and with the DWP. How would you look to take forward or measure the impact or veterans of the charter as things move forward? You raised an important point, and I will perhaps bring in my colleagues on that. Quite rightly, I was not involved in the core group or in the research because that would not be appropriate for ministers, so I will perhaps bring in others to say a little bit about their much closer involvement. However, I can say that it is an area where the agencies already have contact with veterans' charities at an operational level and have ensured that those contacts have been made. As part of the wider stakeholder engagement of the agency, I know that they are already reaching out and having discussions with veterans' charities, but I do not know if you want to say something on that. I think that Mr Brown is right to say that I do not think that the people who have lived experience that we engage with included any veterans, and that was one of a couple of gaps that remained. For example, Gypsy Travellers, we found very difficult to get into those communities. What we would say is that we have a short list on when we go to deliver the measurement framework and how we are going to be taking forward staff training. Obviously, there is a whole lot in the charter about understanding the backgrounds that people come from and the impact that that has on them, as you have described with veterans. Veterans are one of a number of groups that we want to go out and do more engagement with as we start to look at the measurement framework, which gives us the opportunity to start to break down different types of people's experiences of the new system and to understand how things can work differently for those different types of people and whether approaches should be adapted. However, the overarching point that you make is right—that was one of the gaps—was veterans. When we go to the framework, talking about veterans, there were one or two veterans that were in the wider focus groups. It is impossible for us to report on them because we will—exactly which focus groups they were in—we might identify them, which is not allowed under the GDPR and research ethics. We are using the wider experience panels to look at the experience of people with veterans on the experience panels. As we move towards more and more benefits being delivered by the agency, the experience panels will turn into a client's insights regime, in which we will be asking all people what their experience of the system is and why it was good, why it was bad and feeding that back. The other thing is that we do break down who we are getting the information from. Veterans are one of the characteristics that we look for in people. The numbers are small, so we cannot report them as anything under 10, and we cannot report the number. However, be assured that it is on our radar and that, within the experience panels, we have veterans. If I understand Mr O'Neill's response right, there will be some future measurement, I am not sure, but I think that my view would be to be a mistake not to be able to quantify over time the impact that is had specifically on veterans as veterans. I am going to the point that we have very small samples that very often veterans do not identify as veterans, which provides more problems, I understand, but I think that it would be very useful over time. I am pretty sure that the Government will be asked this over time as well what has been the impact on veterans, so that was all. I think that just to follow up on that, this is an area where we are very keen to develop this process because this has been an exceptionally innovative way of developing policy, which is why, as well as the core group, when gaps were identified, further focus work was done, further focus group work was done, so absolutely take on board your point on that. It is difficult, particularly challenging if people do not identify themselves in that way coming forward, but that is our responsibility to try and make sure that there is a system in place to either encourage that or to ensure that we are dealing with that challenge in a different way. However, that goes down to the fact that we are open to learning as we go forward. If there have been areas where people think that we need to improve, we will try to do that through the measuring framework or we will try to do that continuously through the agency as well. Julie Gray, did you want to add anything before we move on? The point about people not identifying as veterans is a good one because we found out inadvertently that people who were giving us, working with us, were veterans rather than recruiting them as veterans. That was a learning point for us and veterans is certainly one of the groups that we have on our list of people that is important, that we engage in specifically as and with them being identified as veterans. Good morning. I was really pleased to see a reference to not conducting face-to-face disability benefit assessments where information needed to judge eligibility already exists. Can I just ask for a bit more detail on that? How will the system judge what information will be necessary and how will that be communicated to the applicant? The details of that will be part of the disability consultations that will move forward as we move to the next benefits. It is really important when we are looking at how we develop the system for decision making around disability benefits that we look at every single stage in that process to ensure that we get to the point that there will be face-to-face assessments only if there is another way of gathering information. Have we got the application form simple, very effective, the decision making process that goes on behind that around the guidance that is in front of a decision maker, for example? We will be taking a great deal of evidence and a great deal of consultation as we move forward to what that will mean in practice. To get to the point where we succeed in that one line in the charter, there are myriad of different steps that have to be in place to make sure that that happens. The details of that will obviously come through in the consultation, but it is very important that the regulations and the guidelines that decision makers will have have everything that they need to ensure that decisions can be taken without a face-to-face assessment if at all possible, and that will be through the gathering of information that is already available. The Social Security Scotland Act specifies groups that must be consulted in the production of the charter, and among other groups the act requires that consultation of DLA and PIP recipients should take place. Can I ask for a bit more information on that? How was that conducted? In particular, how many DLA and PIP recipients did take part? I can provide the information to committee about the specifics as much as we can break down, as Julie has already mentioned. Some of the aspects we cannot break down because it may identify a person, but we did look very seriously at the core group to ensure that individuals on that had experience of the different benefits that had physical disability and mental health, and areas in which they had a condition that may be changeable over time. Basically, in many of the types of people who feel that the current system does not work for them, so we try to look very carefully at not just age, sex and the different demographics of people within the group, but also their lived experience of the system as well. I can provide the further break down on that to the committee. Citizens advice has certainly been very welcoming about the launch of the strategy, but you have indicated—or rather the charter—that you want to be able to measure progress. I wonder if you can say a little bit more about what that progress would look like or how rather successive it would be measured. That is something that is in many ways not for me to decide, but we are handing that process over to those with lived experience to decide how they want to measure. Obviously, that will be done with a great deal of facilitation and support, just as we did when we developed the charter. As I said earlier on, the early plans are to have in many ways a larger core group that will look at that measurement, have a lot of capacity building for them, and it will look at the different areas of the charter. Some of the aspects in the charter might seem on face value quite difficult to measure, but that is the challenge that we have to overcome, is how that is done and how people will feel on that. Julie will also be leading on the work with the framework. I wonder if you want to say a little bit more about where we are at with it at the moment. The first step is to put together a larger new group. We are going to take some expertise from the core group that worked with us to design the charter, and we are going to also bring some new people in to boost up the core group. That will start with capacity building, as it did with co-designing the charter, and then we will develop a framework that is a robust system of monitoring. Both Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government are living up to the commitments in the charter across all its four themes, which is really important. We will be measuring people's experience, how effective and efficient the processes are, the culture of learning in the system and how policy development is being progressed consistently with the charter. I can also add that in terms of the people who we are engaging with, every single one of them has experience of one of the benefits that are going to be devolved to Scotland, and most of them have experience of DLA OPEC. What I am driving at related to that is how, as a Government, as a minister, at the end of that process would you know whether it had been a success or a failure? We will also tie in to the other work that goes on out with the measurement framework where we have the agency with their interim corporate plan at the moment, which we will go out to consultation. That will be published this year, so there will be a variety of ways in that that we are already looking at key performance indicators for the types of work that the agency is doing. In terms of government, that is where it comes down to can we demonstrate that we have done every single part of that charter that is delivered? Obviously, that will not be shown up in the agency's corporate plans, but that will be shown up in our report back to Parliament on how we have delivered on the charter on that. To the extension of the core groups, is that an excellent opportunity in relation to Keith Brown's point, in relation to veterans? That is not, for answer, state and obvious, Mr Brown, but he just explored a line of questioning there. Shona, is that a supplementary that you had, because I think that Michelle Ballantyne for any line of questioning was a supplementary that you had? Not really, I will wait. Okay, Michelle Ballantyne. Okay, thank you, good morning. A couple of things, picking up from what Michael Jeremy was saying earlier, obviously there's a lot in here and a lot of good promises, but some of them I wonder how you're going to deliver, I mean if I take number six on processes that work, you're offering face-to-face services in local communities and places that are convenient and accessible, including home visits if appropriate. So I certainly representing rural communities will be very interested to see how that operates, because it's one of the big things in many of my constituents that is difficult to get the things, so I think they'll be delighted to hear that you're going to be actually in their local communities, but I do think it's going to be a big ask and I wonder if you're going to have to define some of these things a bit more tightly as time goes on. The one thing that I let out at me and you may want to correct me if it's buried somewhere and I just haven't seen it, is that there is no mention of data handling or information management anywhere in this charter, in an age where obviously people raise a lot of concerns about how you're going to use their information and what you're going to do with their data in terms of protecting that, it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the charter at all, so that's my second point. The third one is really for my own understanding and to ask the Cabinet Secretary what is your understanding of the legal standing of this charter? In terms of local delivery, there is obviously a key difference in the way that Social Security Scotland will be developed because we are very keen to have face-to-face local delivery, and that includes obviously in our rural, remote and island areas. It is very important to think about how that will be done, and it's not going to be an office in a local authority that will be the Social Security Scotland office that you have to come to, which is obviously exceptionally difficult, particularly in rural areas. The local delivery will be done through, for example, co-location with other agencies if that fits with the culture and values of Social Security Scotland, and it will be done in areas, for example, in community settings, such as libraries, community centres and so on. It will be done in a very different way to what people have experienced before. Obviously, we are governed by the GDPR, and there will be further details available within Social Security Scotland's corporate planning, for example, on how that's dealt with. It may not be a line in the charter, but there is absolutely a key focus on that. Indeed, I spoke with colleagues from the agency, from that team, when I was up in Dundee last week to discuss data handling and GDPR in particular. That's an area in which the governance section of the agency is taken very seriously. I'm doing a great deal of work on it and will be available in the different corporate planning aspects of it. The charter has to be approved by Parliament, and that will be a process that we are going through at the moment if the committee wants that to be passed or not. It will go to the Parliament to decide that. We then have the commission who will look at the reges from a systemic point of view, to be able to address areas where they feel that the Government isn't living up to our obligations either within the charter or the act and report that to Parliament. Your understanding of its legal standing? I thought that I had just described that. I'm not sure if you're trying to get something in particular. No, your answer was the process by which it's signed off, but once it's signed off, what is its legal standing? I think that the situation with regard to the legal status of the charter was settled during the bill process, so the committee might recall amendments led by Mr Tomkins. There were amendments led to the Social Security Scotland Act as it is now that talks about the legal effect of the charter. I'm quoting a little bit from memory and I'm happy to submit further information if I get this slightly wrong, but I understand that the act says that the effect of the charter is that it can be taken into consideration by tribunals and courts when considering cases in relation to Scottish social security, but that the cases cannot be triggered on the basis of a breach of the charter itself, if that makes sense. The charter could be relevant to legal proceedings that arise in relation to Scottish social security, but it couldn't be the basis of those actions. A breach wouldn't lead to that? No, but I think that the points that the cabinet secretary made in that regard are quite important in that there is quite a significant political accountability for delivery of the charter. One other point that I would make is that the Scottish Commission, when it considers the extent to which the Government has met the commitments in the charter, it has a legal duty to do that through the lens of the international human rights framework, which brings into play various UN treaties and frameworks that they would have to consider. That adds another dimension of legality to the Scoss's scrutiny of the charter, and one last point is that we now have Professor Allan Miller's report on taking forward a human rights-based approach across the Scottish Government. Generally, one of the recommendations in that report is a Scottish human rights bill, and that will have implications for all areas of Scottish Government policy, not least social security. That was very helpful. Lots of us were not on the committee when the bill was scrutinised, as a deputy convener was, who was nodding her head, as Mr Neil was talking about. That was my understanding. Had we not been on the committee at that stage, if you think there is any further clarification, then Mr Miller's cabinet secretary would please do right to us, but that was my understanding of where the charter sat within the legal process. If you like, Neil Lennon will show the robustness of the MSP. It is just really a small point. The charter seems, so far anyway, to have been quite successful in the process of development of it and the genuine engagement with people and their reflections on the charter. Therefore, if there is a possibility of it becoming a bit of a template for other public services, I know that some public services already have their own version, I suppose, of a charter. However, the way that has been done, are there lessons there for other public services, do you think? I think that there is certainly a great interest within Scottish Government about the policy making process. That has been very different, so it has been very different for the ministers who have been responsible for it, as well as the officials who have been taking it through. However, it is certainly one that has its clear advantages to that, so there is interest from other areas of Government. There is also an enormous interest internationally in what we are doing as well. Officials have had correspondence from leading academics in a number of countries to investigate what we are doing to see whether there are lessons learned for how they also do policy making, so I think that it goes much further than just looking at what we can do within Scottish Government, and we are definitely doing that. I think that it is exceptionally pleasing to see that other Governments and academics are looking to what Scotland is done to see what they can learn from that. Any follow-up questions on that? That is a really interesting point. We have got Alex Sharma MP, UK minister, coming to the committee in a few weeks' time in relation to areas under his responsibilities. That would be a fascinating discussion that we can have in relation to lessons that can be learned for other public agencies, not just in Scotland but across the nations and regions of the UK in terms of charters and expectations. That is a really interesting line of questions. Are there any more questions before we move to the next agenda item, Keith Brown? On that last point, Mr O'Neill's previous account of the different political and legal accountabilities that lie within the charter, which I think was really interesting, and also the Cabinet Secretary's point that other organisations are looking at this, does the current DWP charter share any of those elements of accountability, and if it does, do you know if they are looking at trying to amend what they have done, given the experience of the Scottish charter? It is a very different charter. We are obviously trying to do things very differently to the DWP, so there will be areas that it does not fit with the DWP's policy intention. For example, colleagues could point out many areas where that does not fit. We have, obviously, at official level and ministerial level, regular contact with DWP officials. I have certainly said to the new secretary of state, since she came into post, that we are very happy to make available our experiences, whether it is on the charter or, for example, around the flexibility that we have in Scotland around Scottish choices for universal credit and whether it is DWP or other areas. We are, of course, happy to share our experiences and our lessons learned on that. It does not currently share those accountabilities that have been described in the Scottish charter, is that right? No. I think that that is pretty relevant in nations and regions sharing best practice, but a little bit of mission drift, we might end the questions at that point. Thank you for your evidence. We will now move to agenda item 4, which is still the draft social security charter. I invite Ms Somerville to move motion S5M-15598, please. Formally moved, convener. The question is that S5M-15598, the Social Security Committee recommends that the Scottish Social Security Charter and the draft form be approved. Are we content to approve that? Yes. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary and your officials for coming along here this morning. Clearly, we will keep a watching brief on how the charter is implemented, but to all those people who helped to draft and form the wording and ethos in culture within that charter, it is only likely that we put on record our thanks to everyone here this morning. Thank you to you and your officials this morning. We now move to agenda item 5, Future Work, which we agreed to take in private.