Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of this order. As she says, it is technical and complex but there can be the rub in these kinds of things. I also welcome the fact that there is constructive collaboration between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on this. The people of Scotland have two Governments; it is important that they know that they do, and who is doing what and where they are working together. I take it that the same funding transfer will take place as in other social security benefits that have been transferred to Scotland. Again, it is important that the UK Government make that clear and that the Scottish Government acknowledge it, but it obviously gives the Scottish Government the ability to adapt these benefits to local circumstances, which is really the advantage of this.
I think we might all be grateful for the Scottish Commission on Social Security’s analysis. There are one or two aspects of concern which it has raised— I do not intend to pursue them all—that I want to explore with the Minister. In my previous capacity as a Member of Parliament, obviously I saw many circumstances where benefit claimants had problems with the administration. They also had family involved in that too.
Perhaps the biggest issue that happens is that those people who have succeeded in applying for and getting long-term benefit, in particular, have a real anxiety about anything that involves a review, even though they have been told that it is permanent. As the commission points out, the fact that there is an option to apply for adult disability payment—the Scottish adult DLA can effectively continue as if it was DWP—sounds like an improvement on the situation in England, where there is an automatic transfer to PIP. But the problem for many claimants is that if they apply, they really do not know whether they will be better or worse off. That is aggravated by the fact that once they have applied, if they find out that they are worse off they cannot revert to the previous benefit.
To some extent—I expect the Minister will argue this—it is a matter for the Scottish Government, and I accept that. But equally, the Minister wanted to make it clear that the DWP and the UK Government wanted to be sure that there would be no loss of benefit. Nor do I take the view that the Scottish Government have any obvious intention to disadvantage people who may be in that situation.
A particular recommendation of the commission that seems valid is that people must have access to independent, professional advice as to whether it would be in their interests to apply to switch to the new Scottish benefit or stay on their current effective benefit. Why would they want to transfer? In some cases, it will give them access to other related benefits which are triggered by the benefit that they are claiming. On the other hand, by leaving one they may also forfeit benefits that they currently can get, so it really is important that people know what they are going to do. The question of the grace period of two years also arises; the commission has suggested that it should be more flexible, because people really may not know what the advantage or disadvantage of doing it would be.
That is the main point of concern. There are obviously issues relating to those of working age and those of pensionable age. There is also the possibility that one benefit may give you access to related benefits while the other one does not.
So, in sum, to what extent is the collaboration a continuing one as opposed to handing it over and basically saying to the Scottish Government, “There you go. We’ve handed over some account of the money. You now have it and you can do what you like with it”? Alternatively, is there a recognition of good will on both sides and that people should be able to opt for what is best for them? The Scottish Government’s objectives are that benefits should always offer the best that is available for which people qualify. But the danger, sometimes, is that opting for one benefit as opposed to the other may lead to a loss. Why is it not possible to opt for the transfer but if, as a result of that, it becomes clear at the point of swapping over that it is a disadvantage to switch, are people in a position to say, “No, I’m not going to switch”, or are they already too far committed? That is really the point.
I think the Minister will appreciate that people who find themselves on the wrong side of that will be aggrieved and will let people know they are aggrieved, which is surely not what we want. The objective is to ensure that people who have applied for benefits get them on a fair basis and that, once they have secured them, they continue on a fair basis and there is no arbitrary situation where what they can or cannot claim changes simply because they have opted for one benefit as opposed to the other. So the choice is great, but not if people do not know the reason, the benefits and the outcomes.
A number of other issues were raised by the commission, but the Minister will know what they were. It did a very useful report that covered pretty well everything that needed to be covered. The assurances we have are that the British Government will not simply wash their hands but that the collaboration will continue, allowing the Scottish Government to do what they are doing—but perhaps recognising that there are some transitional things here that may require a bit more flexibility than appears to be provided for by the instrument itself.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
As ever, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful introductory remarks and for her kind words about me and my brief stint as a Minister in the Scotland Office. I feel somewhat undeserving of those. The July election meant that I never quite got the opportunity to present a Scotland Act order in this Committee, and I now find myself, regrettably, scrutinising them in opposition.
In general terms, this is indeed a sensible and technical order that we will not oppose. Clearly, those who are entitled to the Scottish adult disability allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance at the same time. Further, it is important that the relevant UK legislation is amended to ensure that recipients of the new Scottish DLA are treated in the same way as recipients of DLA in the rest of the UK, in respect of reserved taxes and benefits.
Since 2016, the devolution of some aspects of welfare to the Scottish Government has been complex and certainly not straightforward. It is perhaps a unique policy area, where some elements are reserved and some are devolved. That means that it requires sophisticated operating systems to be in place within both the new Social Security Scotland and the DWP. It also necessitates close and collaborative working between the Scottish and UK Governments at an official level—a point made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
With that in mind, I raise the following points. Is the noble Baroness confident that these operating systems are agile and accurate enough to avoid the very duplication that this order seeks to preclude, as well as ensuring that cases that might be complex and difficult do not lead to people being denied payments that they are entitled to?
Secondly, although there has been no formal consultation here, can the Minister update the Committee on what informal consultation has occurred, if any? Has there been a public information campaign of any kind to ensure that those affected by these changes are aware of them?
Thirdly and finally, I return to divergence; I accept that it is a bit of a pet subject of mine, but it is important. There remains the distinct possibility that, in time, the Scottish and UK systems might diverge, whether in terms of rates, payables or benefits in more fundamental terms. Has any assessment been made of the consequences of potential divergence when it comes to eligibility for benefits? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to these points.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. As ever, they asked some pertinent and relevant questions. However, I reiterate that this is a technical SI and that the policy process is a matter for the Scottish Government. We are, as our responsibilities make clear, providing them with the legal framework that already exists.
With regard to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the same funding transfer arrangements will take place. As I said, this is technical. I completely agree with him in terms of his experiences as an MP. Some of the most heart-wrenching conversations I ever had were with my former constituents who were in fear of what might happen in terms of a review—not even of the review itself. Then the appeal process was something else. So I completely agree with the noble Lord, but I reiterate that the application and review processes are a matter for the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. However, I assure him that there will be ongoing collaboration between both Governments, who touch on the lives of the people of Scotland and of people in every corner of the United Kingdom. There is genuine good will; I hope that there will be even better good will after the next set of Scottish elections, but we will see.
With regard to the benefit options, the Scottish Government are making sure that individuals can make an informed choice about what will benefit them, but I want to clarify something for noble Lords: everybody currently on DLA will ultimately end up transferring into the new benefit. It is a replacement benefit. As that process happens, it is a matter for the Scottish Government.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I am sorry—not necessarily for the country but for him—that he never got to stand on this side of the Room to put forward a Section 104 SI. However, he started the work that we are discussing today, and I am grateful for that. With regard to his specific questions on the agile systems that we expect to be in place, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland believe that they are ready for them. In fact, the process will get under way on 21 March. So they are definitely aware, but we will continue to work closely with them. In terms of whether those affected are aware, that will be an ongoing process, but we will make sure that we work closely with anyone who is affected, especially anyone who either is on the border or would have been entitled and who lives in either Scotland, England or Wales—as the onus will be on us, I think; my officials have not shouted at me yet so I think we are okay.
I know that divergence is of huge interest to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as well as to many other noble Lords. The Scottish adult disability living allowance operates in broadly the same way as the DLA, and the UK Government have agreed that it can be treated in the same way—it is a qualifying benefit but is very similar. We will consider any changes that the Scotland Government make to the Scottish adult disability living allowance in future and, if those changes meant that it diverges significantly from the DLA, it would be for the UK Government to consider how to identify individuals in Scotland who may be eligible for additional support in the reserve system. So we will continue to monitor that. I think that answers the noble Lord’s question.
I believe I answered everything so, in closing, I say that this instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government and to delivering for the people of Scotland.
Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Cameron of Lochiel(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and add my thanks to the Civil Service officials in the various departments that have worked on this order.
We will not oppose the order. As has been outlined, it makes consequential changes as a result of Section 2 of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023, passed by the Scottish Parliament last year. Section 2 amends the test which the court must apply when considering whether to grant bail to a person accused of or charged with an offence in summary proceedings. As has been outlined, in essence, Section 2(3) limits the extent to which the court may refuse bail in summary proceedings when reliance is placed on a specific ground of refusal of bail: namely, that the accused, if granted bail, might abscond or fail to appear at court diets as required.
I need not detain your Lordships with the more technical aspects of that change; suffice it to say that this order excludes from the alteration made last year bail decisions in extradition proceedings. That is an important decision, and one with which we on these Benches concur. It is notable that last year in the Scottish Parliament, both Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour MSPs voted against the 2023 Act. Nevertheless, we are where we are. It is of paramount importance that there is alignment across the UK for granting or rejecting bail in extradition cases, given that accused persons in extradition proceedings are often considered a flight risk and that maintaining the integrity of the Extradition Act and the UK’s broader extradition system is critical, points made by my colleague Andrew Bowie MP last week in Committee.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister what discussions the UK Government have had with the Scottish Government about the interplay between UK government policy in this area and changes to Scottish criminal procedure as enacted by the Scottish Government to avoid issues such as this emerging in future. In particular, have the UK Government made any assessment of the impact on UK government policy of the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Bill, passed only this week by the Scottish Parliament?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord—I was going to say “noble Lords”—for his contribution to the debate and for his questions. I also put on record my thanks to the Civil Service, which works tirelessly to make our Government function and to support the Opposition to make sure that we can deliver in the way that we need to.
With regard to the noble Lord’s question about making sure this never happens again, as he will know, we are trying to reset and normalise relationships and discussions with the Scottish Government and all devolved Administrations, and I hope that, as part of those ongoing and more regular discussions, issues such as this will be raised in advance. However, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government approached the UK Government when they realised this anomaly and sought to work with the previous Administration and now the current one to fix it. That is a step in the right direction. With regard to the other issues that the noble Lord raised, I will have to write to him with an update, but I will ensure that it follows.
In closing, this instrument demonstrates the continued commitment that the UK Government have to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland, ensuring devolution in action as we celebrate 25 years of devolution. On that basis, I commend the instrument.
Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Building Safety) Order 2024
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this order. She spoke of collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments. It is important to note that the collaborative process which led to the order began under the Conservative Government. In 2021, the then-UK Government announced the introduction of a building safety levy. As the noble Baroness stated, the Scottish Government now seek devolution of the necessary powers to introduce an equivalent building safety levy in Scotland.
The collaborative approach taken by the Conservative UK Government and the Scottish Government began with a joint consultation, which ran from January to February this year, with the outcome published in April. It stated that the UK Government were willing to proceed with the devolution of the power and the Scottish Government were willing to receive it.
It is also important to recognise that the Scottish Parliament has agreed to this instrument. The Scottish Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has agreed to it, and I believe its Finance and Public Administration Committee did so only today. In light of that background, I confirm our support for the order, but I have a few issues to raise with the noble Baroness.
With the devolution of any proposed tax power, there is always a question about the impact on UK-wide policy issues. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that, in devolving this tax power, there will be no disproportionately negative impact on macroeconomic policy in the UK? In particular, building on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, does the noble Baroness think there will be any negative impact on the single UK market in housebuilding? Finally, I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government intend to assess the impact of any tax decisions made by the Scottish Government on growth in the UK more broadly. If she could deal with those queries, I would be most grateful. I welcome the order and am happy to confirm our support for it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I will respond to all comments, but I want to put on record thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who is absolutely right that this process began under his leadership. Devolution has been a cross-party, I hope, success—although some relationships are now being slightly reset.
In terms of the specifics, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is right that it refers to cladding and other remediation, but the reality is that the detail of how this policy will be applied is a matter for the Scottish Parliament as a policy consideration. On how it will affect the wider market, there was a genuine consultation and we do not believe that it will have an impact on the market on implementation because we believe that both levies in England and Scotland will be comparable, although collected differently. We will, however, as part of our ongoing relationships with the Scottish Government, ensure that if there is a significant divergence we will look to review.
How the levy is paid is a matter for the Scottish Government. This is devolution in action; they have asked for the powers, and we are working with them to give them the powers they have asked for. We will do everything we can to make sure this is a success as far as they are concerned. I believe I have answered the substantive points, but if I have not, I will reflect and write to noble Lords.
This instrument comes in the year of the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, which the last Labour Government delivered and which I am very proud of. It is in the spirit of devolution that this Government have set out to reset relationships with the Scottish Government to deliver for the Scottish people, building on the work of all parties. The instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks in introducing this statutory instrument and I note her comments on the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament. Having spent eight years of my life as a Member of that Parliament, I echo my obvious support for the devolution settlement and a Parliament that, as she said, is 25 years old this year.
This instrument is made, as the noble Baroness said, under Section 104 of the Scotland Act, which allows for legislative amendments to UK legislation that are considered necessary or expedient in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. As she also said, this statutory instrument is made under that section and as a consequence of Section 31 of the 2018 Act passed by the Scottish Parliament introducing the pension age disability payment, which replaces the attendance allowance in Scotland.
As currently constituted, the attendance allowance interacts with other benefits in a number of ways, including with reserved benefits. It gives rise, for instance, to additional amounts payable in reserved income-related benefits, such as pension credits. I think the DWP has said that while PADP—if I can use that acronym—is broadly equivalent to attendance allowance, it should therefore interact with reserved benefits in the same way as attendance allowance. For that reason, receipt of PADP will passport a person to an additional amount in pension credit in the same way that attendance allowance does.
I welcome the fact that the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to deliver these changes. I think the noble Baroness said this, but while these changes are complex and technical in nature they are of fundamental, practical importance for those in receipt of social security payments. Their complexity also points to the hard work of the various officials involved in formulating them. Having served briefly as a Minister in the Scotland Office, I am well aware of how intricate issues of welfare can be, given that some aspects of social security are reserved and some are devolved. I put on record my thanks to all the officials involved in creating this order. We will support this instrument but I have one issue to raise with the noble Baroness.
There are questions about how PADP might interact with reserved matters in the future, should there be divergence in the rules for those entitled to attendance allowance. For instance, it is possible that eligibility for pension age disability payment might diverge from rules around attendance allowance, and there could be a scenario where eligibility in Scotland is not mirrored by eligibility in the rest of the UK. Is the noble Baroness able to inform the Committee whether the UK Government have considered this? What implications would there be in terms of additional claims resulting from divergence, especially in terms of staffing, administration and resources?
If she could deal with that I would be most grateful but, as it stands, I welcome the order and am happy to confirm my party’s support for it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon and for their tone—given that this is my first outing as Scottish spokesperson, I am very grateful for it. Before I move on, to reassure both noble Lords, I was born in Scotland, so although I do not sound like it I am very much invested in our relationship with Scotland and as part of the union.