Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 13 January 2025, increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much-needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. Alongside other steps that the Government are taking to support local planning authorities to build their capacity and capability, the regulations will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
Let me start by providing some important context to the regulations. Planning application fees were last increased by 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications in December 2023, yet when it comes to planning application services in England, we still face a national funding shortfall of £362 million. Moreover, the types of planning application with the greatest gap between the fees that can be charged and the actual costs associated with processing them constitute the majority of applications received by local planning authorities. In short, the arrangement that the Government inherited is simply not sustainable.
By increasing the level of fees charged for making those applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, we will ensure that local planning authorities can cover a greater proportion of the costs associated with processing them. That will provide an immediate boost to local planning authority resources. We estimate in the impact assessment that the changes will generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities across England. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is a substantial sum that will significantly enhance the capacity, capability and therefore efficiency of planning services in every part of the country, to the benefit of applicants of all kinds.
I will now turn to the detail of the regulations. The regulations increase the fees for householders who want to enlarge, extend or alter their home from £258 to £528 for a single house and from £509 to £1,043 for more than one house. While I acknowledge that this is a large increase, it is necessary to meet the estimated costs to local planning authorities of determining such applications, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would accept, in principle, that it is right that those who seek and will directly benefit from the planning permission cover those costs rather than the taxpayer. The application fee represents a small proportion—less than 1%—of typical overall development costs. As I am sure you know, Ms Jardine, certain householder development can also be undertaken through permitted development rights without the need for a planning application, and so incurs no fee at all.
The regulations also increase fees for a range of other application types that are currently also set too low. They increase the planning fees for prior approval applications from a flat fee of £120 to £240, and from £258 to £516 where they include building operations, and for a change of use of commercial buildings to residential uses from £125 per dwelling to £250 per dwelling. The regulations also increase the fees for discharge of conditions from £43 to £86 for householders, and from £145 to £298 for all other applications, including discharge of biodiversity net gain plans.
Finally, the regulations introduce a new three-tiered fee structure for section 73 applications that are used to vary or remove conditions on extant planning applications. That reflects the higher costs associated with section 73 applications on major developments. The regulations also make corrections to two fees that were erroneously set too low when the fee regulations were last amended in December 2023. Taken together, the fee increases provided for by the regulations will reduce the current funding shortfalls for the various application types to which they apply, and will thereby enable local planning authorities to hire more staff, invest in better technology and streamline their internal processes, all of which will contribute to faster and more efficient decision making.
I want to be very clear that the Government expect local planning authorities to use the income from planning fees on their planning application services, so that they can build up their capability and capacity, and improve their performance. That is what applicants expect in return for paying higher fees. The fee increase is not made in isolation, but is part of our broader efforts to resource and streamline the planning system. As hon. Members will be aware, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment in the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. As part of that investment, we are working with delivery partners to understand how we can scale delivery and fund the recruitment and training of at least an additional 300 planners. That includes expansion of the Pathways to Planning programme, which has had significant interest from prospective graduates wanting to take up roles in local planning authorities and train while they work.
The Government have also announced our intention to introduce a measure in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. That measure will provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to adjust fees according to local needs and circumstances, ensuring that they can manage their resources sustainably and continue to deliver a high-quality service. As a result of those measures, we will ensure that local planning authorities are not only better funded but better equipped to handle the significant demands placed upon them.
As we progress measures for local fee-setting through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, today’s regulations will provide local planning authorities with an immediate boost in resourcing and greater financial sustainability. That will ensure that they are better equipped to boost housing supply and deliver economic growth. I hope that hon. Members from across the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I welcome him to his place, the Minister can be reassured that, although I like a challenge, we will not divide the Committee this morning given the number of Government Members on the other side. However, as he would expect, we have some questions to follow up on some of the points that he made in his concise speech.
We are here because the Government have announced a hike in fees for householder development applications, applications for prior approval, and applications for the approval of details reserved by condition. The increase is a further blow, we would argue, to homeowners, who already face the complexities and red tape of the planning system. I understand that new burdens are also being introduced: applications for prior approval and for the approval of details reserved by condition, to approve details not fully described in planning permission, now face added layers of paperwork, all of which will add to the burden on ordinary people trying to make improvements to their homes.
Let us be clear about the context. When increases in fees were necessary in the past, the last Government always took care to ensure that they were fair and kept as low as possible. That is why, as the Minister outlined, in December 2023 the last Government increased planning application fees by 35% for major developments and 25% for all other applications. We understood that householders already contribute to local authorities’ budgets, primarily through council tax.
Now, fees will jump by 105%—from £258 to £528—for single dwelling house improvements and other alterations. For two or more dwelling houses, the increase is also an eye-watering 105%, from £509 to £1,043. We remain concerned that the measure means that people simply trying to make improvements to their homes, in line with local planning policies and national regulations, are being burdened with ever higher fees. As a result of Labour’s local government finance settlement, councils are already having to raise council tax by 5%—the maximum they can raise without going to a referendum. Those councils represent people already dealing with the tax hikes imposed by this Government; now those people must navigate these increased costs just to make small improvements to their properties.
We are concerned because there is no evidence that the rises will deliver a better service for local people who are going through the planning system for simple changes and low-level planning alterations. Nowhere in the impact assessment is there conclusive proof that the money will go back into restaffing planning departments or helping with the efficiency of planning decisions—as we know, those take far too long for far too many people. Meanwhile, costs increase on people already suffering the brunt of the Government’s fiscal decisions.
The Minister hinted at an expectation that local authorities would keep the extra revenues within planning departments, but I would be grateful if he outlined what monitoring mechanism he will personally put in place to see whether the increases deliver better services and planning decisions for local people. If the improvement in efficiency that we expect does not take place, what mechanisms will he put in place to bring the increases back down?
The Local Government Association has identified a £1.7 billion shortfall, directly resulting from the Government’s national insurance contribution hikes. This is not a hypothetical problem; it is a real issue impacting local services, including planning authorities. As I said, there is no guarantee that that extra burden will result in quicker planning decisions. Furthermore, local authorities across the country are facing cuts that go beyond planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has pointed out, millions of pounds are being cut from crucial funding schemes, such as the new homes bonus and the rural services delivery grant. Those cuts, combined with the national insurance hike and this increase, are pushing councils further into financial crisis.
There is a clear case for treating householders differently from large developers, as the last Government did. Home improvements, however small, are a right of homeowners, in line with local and national planning policies. They are not there to be priced out of reach for ordinary homeowners. Improvements to homes, under schemes as described, free up the market and help to create sustainable communities and local supply chains. I urge the Government to reconsider these fee increases and the impact that they will have on ordinary households across the country. I cannot see that there will be better services at the end of this proposal.
As I mentioned, we will not divide the Committee, but I hope the Minister will take onboard some of these comments and outline to the Committee how he expects efficiencies to improve. We need a fairer, more balanced approach to funding planning authorities—one that does not target hard-working homeowners. It is time for the Government to rethink their approach to planning and local funding, and stand up for the people who matter most: the citizens who contribute to their communities and the local economy.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are concerned that without planning officers in place we simply will not deliver the homes that we need. Homes are less likely to be the genuinely affordable, nature-positive and zero carbon ones that we all want to see. As has been referred to, there is a £362 million shortfall for planning authorities after the fee is taken into account. The Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out that there is a lack of robust data on how many officers there are per region, per local area. That is a concern in itself; without that data we cannot have a realistic picture of how the service can be improved.
The Home Builders Federation, through a freedom of information request, pointed out that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity, which is not where we need to be if we are to address the housing crisis. We want to see authorities given more flexibility to set their own fees, determined locally by those communities. We would like to see minimum ringfenced funding for local planning authorities.
In a previous debate, the Minister referred to guidance on ringfencing. I would be grateful if he could say more about how funding and budgets within hard-pressed local authorities can be ringfenced for a planning service that is important to people and their local economies. We welcome the 300 additional planning officers announced by the Government, but fewer than one graduate per council area will not have a massive impact. We need to see more than that in our planning departments.
Taken together, those measures would help to address the need for better services for our local communities and our councils. Planning officers and councils are not blockers; they are the problem-solvers. If we are to have housing that is genuinely affordable and net zero, delivering biodiversity net gain, we need planning officers in place and councils to be supported. That is especially so at a time when the social care crisis is putting pressure on local councils. Funding is rightly being diverted for frontline care operations.
The previous Government took nearly £1 billion out of funding earmarked to reform social care. Unless local government funding is properly reformed, and social care as a key part of that is delivered, councils will continue to struggle and lean on other departments for cuts and savings. Planning departments will continue to suffer, however many statutory instruments are passed. Until those issues are addressed, we suggest that the proposals do not go far enough. However, they are welcome, and we will support them as a small step in the right direction.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank both the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I note that the shadow Minister does not feel strongly enough about the reforms to formally divide the Committee, but he makes a number of pertinent challenges and asks a number of questions that I will seek to answer.
Both Members outlined the problem we face, which is that local planning authorities are significantly under-resourced and hard pressed. On planning application fees, despite the increases made by the previous Government in December 2023, we have a funding shortfall across the whole of England of £362 million. That is the problem we are attempting to address with the regulations. Fees were consolidated in 2012 by the coalition Government and have been increased only twice since, in 2018 and 2023. Importantly, prior to changes in 2023 that will come into effect on 1 April, they were never index linked, so they have never risen with inflation. As such, the gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened over time.
The Government propose, through the regulations, to increase the fees on certain types of applications, which as I said in my opening remarks constitute the bulk of applications to local authorities, where the funding shortfall is most acute. The current fee of £258 on householder applications—just to give the shadow Minister a sense of the shortfall we are talking about—covers less than half the cost of processing the application to the local authority. As I have said, we think it is right in principle that taxpayers should not bear that burden, but the people making the application who will directly benefit from consent once it is processed. The planning application fee represents a small proportion—as I said, less than 1%—of typical overall development costs and, through permitted development rights, certain types of applications incur no fee at all.
The shadow Minister rightly raised ringfencing. The Government are clear that they expect the income from planning fees to be retained and directly invested in the delivery of planning application services. Managing public money principles should ensure that planning fees are effectively ringfenced. We believe that they are in most instances, but I have heard anecdotal accounts of planning fees being used to cross-subsidise other council services. We are therefore considering ringfencing as part of the Government’s longer-term plans for planning fees, which will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.
On performance, in return for increasing planning fees, we expect local authorities to invest more in their planning service to deliver better performance. We are able to monitor, and will continue to monitor, the performance of local planning authorities through the planning performance dashboard and the quarterly planning statistics seen by the Department. The planning performance regime ensures that underperforming local planning authorities are held to account. The previous Government took action in that respect and we stand ready to do so where necessary.
Both Members raised concerns about general funding for local authorities. The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the financial issues facing councils and the potential for continued instability as we work to fix the foundations of local government. That is why we have a framework in place to support councils in the most difficult positions and why we work on a collaborative basis to help councils to manage their financial challenges.
Lastly, let me say something about local fee-setting. As we have said, it is important that local planning authorities are well resourced so they can deal with planning applications efficiently and do not hold up the development necessary for economic growth.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. The Minister proposes to increase fees, but from my understanding they will not go to full cost recovery. Will he set out why they are taking a leapfrog approach and not going to full cost recovery, if that is indeed where the Government want to get to?
Matthew Pennycook
We think we are striking the right balance between increasing fees on the type of applications outlined in the regulations and making it very clear that nationally set planning fees can never be set in a way that covers every local authority’s costs for their planning application service, because costs vary between local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of that in his role. We think the only way to do this is ultimately for local planning authorities to be able to set their own planning fees. As I said, we intend to introduce a power in the proposed planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees, so that they will be able to recover their costs for their planning application services.
The proposed increases in fees are necessary and timely. The changes address the critical funding shortfalls faced by our local planning authorities and will provide them with the resources they need to deliver improved services in the short term. I hope the Committee will welcome them. As I have made clear, they will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and better equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. This order, laid on 13 January, is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments of Scotland. It supports the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce the Scottish adult disability living allowance in Scotland next month.
The Scotland Act 2016 devolved significant powers, including responsibility for certain social security benefits and employment support, to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government’s introduction of Scottish adult disability living allowance under section 31 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 exercises that responsibility. Through their executive agency, Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government will administer the new benefit in Scotland. At introduction, the Scottish adult disability living allowance will operate on broadly the same terms as the disability living allowance that it replaces.
It is the intention of the UK Government that individuals in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance should also receive the same treatments in the reserved social security and tax systems as those on disability living allowance, the Scottish recipients of which will transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to Social Security Scotland.
The order before us today is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary amendments to legislation in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore the appropriate vehicle for making these technical but important changes to recognise Scottish adult disability living allowance in reserved systems. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action; I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through over 250 orders since devolution began.
I now turn to the effect that the order will have and the provisions that it will make. The order makes amendments to UK legislation to ensure that Scottish adult disability living allowance is recognised as a qualifying benefit in the same way as disability living allowance is within the reserved social security system with regard to entitlements to additional reserved UK Government benefits and premiums. Those include the Christmas bonus and carer’s allowance. That means that recipients of Scottish adult disability living allowance will be entitled to receive the annual £10 Christmas bonus payment, if it has not already been paid via another benefit. Should all other eligibility criteria be met, it will also ensure that reserved carer’s allowance can be paid to someone caring for someone in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance.
The order also prevents dual entitlement to benefits paid because of the same needs: individuals entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance cannot be entitled to attendance allowance, disability living allowance or the personal independence payment. In the same way, the disability living allowance and personal independence payment are not payable to people in receipt of attendance allowance. The order also amends the taxation of trusts with disabled beneficiaries to treat those with beneficiaries in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance in the same way as those with beneficiaries who receive disability living allowance. Without the order, people in Scotland on Scottish adult disability living allowance would not receive the equivalent tax treatments and entitlements to reserved premia and additions as individuals in receipt of disability living allowance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Scotland Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have worked closely together to ensure that this order can be made, clearly demonstrating cross-Government support for the order.
The Chair
The question is that the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Hobhouse—today’s SI has a pithy title. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks.
Today should serve as a salutary lesson for the new Government about the law of unintended consequences. In 2014, following the referendum on separation, the Smith commission was convened by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulting in a host of recommendations to increase the power and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. One of the powers devolved through that process was the ability to deliver elements of social security in Scotland. The devolution of certain powers by the Scotland Act 2016 was eminently sensible.
On income tax, for example, although I passionately believe that it is not in the interests of the Scottish people, businesses or the wider economy to have more tax bands and higher tax rates than the rest of the UK, it is an eminently sensible and, indeed, Conservative belief that those responsible for spending public money should also be responsible for raising it. I just wish that Scotland would blaze a trail by being the lowest taxed part of the United Kingdom—I think of the investment and the economic benefits that would be reaped.
We are gathered here this afternoon to discuss the devolution of certain elements of social security, and thereby the increased complexity of how these benefits are delivered to the people of Scotland and how they interact with other benefits and other delivery bodies across the UK. With hindsight, I wonder whether this was a positive move for Scotland and, indeed, the UK.
Broadly speaking, this is a sensible and technical statutory instrument that has our support. Clearly, those who are entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance, attendance allowance or personal independence payment. The fact we have to take the time and effort to legislate to make sure that is the case is plainly absurd.
The explanatory notes set out plainly that we are also legislating to ensure that those receiving Scottish adult disability living allowance retain access to the same treatment as those on disability living allowance:
“while Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance operates in a broadly similar way to Disability Living Allowance, it should interact with reserved social security benefits in the same way as Disability Living Allowance.”
Of course, it should. But that statement never needed to be made, that explanation was not required and this legislation was not needed before the creation of an entirely separate operation to deliver what is, in effect, the exact same benefit. We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving benefit payments either north or south of the border. It has cost more than £650 million to establish Social Security Scotland, which is years late, has resulted in duplication and has added cost and complexity to the process.
The Smith commission, the Scotland Act 2016 and Social Security Scotland were all established, convened, reported and legislated for before any of us on this Committee were elected to this place. They are now a fact, but a lesson must be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties—my own included—believe that giving ever more to the Scottish Government will appease the SNP’s desire to break away. Far too often, far too little thought has been given to the impact of devolution on the specific policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire of Social Security Scotland after the 2016 Act really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits?
We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. What must be decided is whether the devolution of a certain power or powers to the Scottish Parliament will or will not have a beneficial impact on the lives of the people and businesses of Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer must be no.
I have some practical questions for the Minister about the implementation. Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions will need a very sophisticated operating system to ensure that the provisions of this draft order become a reality. Is the Minister confident that the systems are in place to accurately determine who is in scope and to avoid the duplication that this SI seeks to avoid? Given the cost and delays to Social Security Scotland—the IT systems have already cost more than £220 million—does the Minister have any indication of the cost of ensuring that the system is able to cope? On the other side of the coin, will the system be sufficiently agile to ensure that complex situations do not result in people being denied the payments to which they are entitled?
Likewise, in relation to Northern Ireland, article 5(3) may be quite complicated to administer. What work has the Minister undertaken with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure a properly joined-up system across these islands? Although there has not been a formal consultation on the changes made by this draft order, will she update the Committee on whether she has consulted informally? Is she working with the Scottish Government on an information campaign to ensure that those affected are aware of the changes?
Finally, it is possible that the Scottish and UK rates could diverge over time, with one becoming higher or lower than the other. Has the Minister assessed what this would mean for broader eligibility for UK Government benefits or, indeed, for people living on either side of the border? I note that the draft order will need to be reviewed should there be changes to the Scottish adult disability living allowance or the reserved legislation. Can the Minister outline what circumstances would bring this about?
On a broader point, the devolution of welfare is not straightforward. It may well become much more complex over time as the systems diverge. Why we devolved welfare in the first place remains a complete mystery to me, but I would appreciate answers to my substantive questions.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I intend to speak very briefly because, although I do not disagree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, it was agreed some time ago that this order should happen. While we may have reservations about how it could develop, we have to recognise the achievement of our two Governments in reaching agreement on introducing this new Scottish benefit. Historically it is something for which Liberal Democrats have advocated, because we believe in policies that promote social equality and support for individuals with disabilities.
This order ensures a smooth transition from DLA to SADLA, maintains the entitlements and legal protections for recipients in Scotland at its heart, and aligns Scottish disability assistance with the social security system, separate from UK-wide benefits like the personal independence payment. If we believe in devolution and that decisions should be made at the point at which they are closest and most relevant to the community, then this is a move forward and it is something we should welcome and support.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. We fully support this order to support the ongoing work of Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government.
I was not planning to speak for long, but the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has opened a few doors for me so I might as well take them. Although Scotland may be the highest taxed part of the UK overall, 51% of its workforce pay less tax than they would in the rest of the UK. It is simply a more progressive system than the rest of the UK.
The Scottish social security system is based on dignity and respect. Many Government Members, and some Opposition Members, will probably welcome that. The UK social security system is incredibly complex—benefit advisers and experts within the system struggle to navigate their way around, never mind the claimants. With this order, there is an opportunity to simplify how people apply for benefits from Social Security Scotland, especially if they have conditions that are not going to improve. People who move on to this benefit in Scotland have the opportunity potentially to apply for the Scottish adult disability payment rather than Scottish adult disability living allowance. That is a choice for the individual, but people have that opportunity and there is dignity and respect at the heart of the process—something that needs to progress much further in the social security system.
My final point is that there is one way to resolve the complexity that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, mentioned: to devolve all the powers of the UK Government to Scotland. I reserve the right to continue to campaign for that circumstance.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank all hon. Members who contributed today. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine noted that the order is a broadly sensible technical change. He intimated that he is slightly worried about the time and effort that it takes to go through these processes. However, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have passed 250 of these orders at great pace, largely thanks to the sterling work of officials in both Governments; I put on the record my thanks to them.
The shadow Minister suggested that Labour’s enthusiasm for devolution was perhaps in the service of another political objective. I want to put his mind at rest: it is entirely about bringing decision makers closer to the people of Scotland—something to which the Government remain entirely committed.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were confident about the implementation plan. The answer is yes, because of the smooth working that there will be between both Governments. He also asked about the promotion of the benefit. That is a matter for the Scottish Government, but we will be speaking to them about that. He asked about provision in Northern Ireland. Equivalent provision is being made in respect of Scottish adult DLA to prevent dual entitlement to Northern Irish social security benefits, as agreed under the previous Government.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for her support for this practical and timely change. I also thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey for his support for this technical change, although perhaps not for his other advice to the Government, which I assure him we will not be taking.
This statutory instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.