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(3 weeks, 4 days 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.