Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.