Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie 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.
Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Building Safety) Order 2024
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation of this instrument. She has made it clear that it is related to the consequences of the Grenfell disaster, which I think we all recognise is still with us in terms of the consequences and the resolutions still needed. We can understand, first, that we need to address it and, secondly, that the two Governments have discussed the ways of doing that. It is not possible simply to do the same thing in Scotland as in England because of different building standards and so forth. I understand that.
The order specifically mentions cladding, but the question arises: are there other forms of remediation that might be included? That is not specified anywhere. The explanation says that the proportion should be the same in principle both north and south of the border, but it appears the method of collection will be different. In England, it will be local authorities which collect and administer it, but in Scotland—I am afraid I am not surprised about this—they prefer to do these things centrally. Local government gets even less support from the Scottish Government than local authorities in England. I do not know whether there is any suggestion that a different way of doing it could lead to different impacts.
The two Governments say that they do not think it would adversely affect macroeconomic policy or impede the UK single market in housebuilding. Nevertheless, the joint consultation produced a rather mixed result. Not very many people or organisations responded— I admit that. Nevertheless, while eight were broadly supportive, six were not and two did not express an opinion.
There was one particular issue I would like the Minister to address. There is a power to impose a levy, in effect on builders, to provide funding to remedy the problem, particularly with cladding. What about a levy on builders who may have not been involved in any buildings affected by cladding? I am thinking of small and medium-sized builders. What is to stop the Scottish Government nevertheless putting a levy on them? If they do, it could presumably affect the market. By definition, big developers—some of which, as the Minister has said, have stepped up already—can probably absorb this and manage it, but small and medium-sized ones may be less able to. I want to highlight that concern because it is the one thing that was flagged up which struck a chord with me as a risk. Not only could it affect the profitability of those small builders but the price of building houses could be adversely affected if builders were subjected to a levy in spite of never being involved in building anything that required remediation.
If the Governments are satisfied that the UK single market will not be affected, what are the arrangements for ensuring that the levies raised are not significantly different north and south of the border? It is devolved, so presumably it is entirely a matter for the Scottish Government. However, if they became significantly different, it would have an impact on the UK single market. Do the Government have any indication of how they could intervene in that situation? I know the single market was very contentious but, given that we are praying it in aid, it is important to know that if it is distorted there will be some mechanism by which there can be redress—particularly if either England or Scotland is adversely affected by the application of this.
Other than that, on these Benches, we understand the principle behind this instrument, and we are happy to support it.
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.