Chamber and committees

The agency agreements, as you know, Mr Balfour, have been a very important part of the safe and secure transition of benefits. They have been absolutely integral to the way in which the system has developed. With the completion of case transfers we are coming, as the convener said, to the end of many of the agency agreements. That is an important milestone that will allow us to not have to have a system in which we are obliged to do the same as the DWP because, and very understandably, the clear point from the DWP was, “You have an agency agreement, you are doing it the same way as we are.” We have discussed that in the past.

Longer-term policy development beyond the lifespans of agency agreements is not hampered by them. Such policy development continues, however, to face the context of the DWP’s policy decisions and, therefore, the financial implications of those decisions. That is the next challenge on our horizon, if I can put it like that, rather than the agency agreements.

Thank you very much and good morning, convener. As Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, I must ensure that United Kingdom social security legislation that impacts on Scotland is compatible with the principles embedded within the devolved social security system. I must also be mindful of anything that might disrupt the safe and secure transfer of benefits. I have considered the bill carefully and it is clear that, in practice, it has implications for Scotland only in so far as the Department for Work and Pensions still administrates devolved assistance, under agency agreement, on behalf of the Scottish ministers.

I am, therefore, content that any impacts on devolved assistance from the provisions that are under consideration today will be negligible and can confirm that I intend to recommend consent to the provisions in the following areas. The entry, search and seizure provisions will allow the DWP to apply to a sheriff for a warrant to enter premises, search for and seize items when investigating the most serious cases of fraud. Currently, the DWP requires the police to undertake such action on its behalf. I am content that nothing within the provisions runs contrary to the ethos and principles underpinning the devolved social security system.

Regarding the provisions on data gathering, the UK Government has broadly mirrored the approach pioneered in the devolved social security system, and because of that, and because the provisions contain similar safeguards and exemptions for third sector organisations, I am content to recommend legislative consent.

The provisions on eligibility verification measures allow the DWP to require banks and financial institutions to provide large datasets to help verify a claimant’s entitlement to benefits and identify incorrect payments. Similar provisions were included within the UK’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill of last year, for which legislative consent was agreed in the Scottish Parliament but which fell away due to the UK general election.

On changes to administrative penalties, there is no equivalent to administrative penalties within the devolved system and I am, therefore, content to recommend consent for the provisions in this area.

Convener, although not included in this memorandum, the Scottish Government did not previously take a position on consent in relation to the overpayment recovery provisions, which you mentioned in your opening remarks. That was to allow time for due consideration to be given to the impact of those provisions on Scottish clients and for on-going discussions with the UK Government. I can, however, confirm to the committee that I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend consent for the overpayment recovery provisions. No such provisions exist within the devolved system and I do not consider them compatible with the ethos of fairness, dignity and respect. I have set out that position in writing to UK ministers, who in response have confirmed that they will seek to amend the bill such that devolved benefits are removed from the scope of those provisions.

The Scottish Government did not see the full provisions of the bill until it was laid on 22 January 2025. That meant that the normal timeframes for lodging the LCM could not be met. Due to the on-going engagement required to understand where the bill and its numerous amendments will impact on Scotland, I expect that there will be a requirement to lodge a supplementary LCM for the bill in due course and I will provide an update on the debt recovery provisions as part of that LCM. Thank you, convener.

We expect that the case transfers that relate to the major agency agreements on benefits will complete on timetable. The agency agreements relating to benefits will end in March 2026 and we have a timetable of ending the case transfers by the end of this calendar year. I think that the case transfer process is one of the great successes of the devolution of social security. It has gone exceptionally smoothly when we look at what can perhaps go wrong when we are undertaking such large changes to benefits. We anticipate that to continue and that would bring to an end the agency agreements for carer benefits, for example, that we have in place currently.

As this bill is exceptionally technical and complicated, it is fair to say that I remain concerned that we may have to come back on other issues. My officials are in detailed discussions with the UK Government on different amendments as they come up. Continuing to do that is proving challenging and it is a further challenge where we have legislation that the DWP and the UK Government may think is only to do with the reserved system but has implications, unintended in many instances, for Scotland. We have been able to clear those up with the DWP in writing, but this is perhaps one of the first significant bills where we are having to tease out how we deal with the fact that while the DWP may think that the legislation is only to do with what happens in the rest of the UK, it has implications for up here.

Certainly. Mr Doris will be aware from his long involvement in these issues that the decision was taken right at the very start not to devolve SDA because it was a closed benefit with an exceptionally small case load, even at that time, and is becoming smaller year on year. At that point, there seemed to be no benefit to the devolution of severe disablement allowance, either to the clients or to the costs that it would take to develop a devolved alternative up here.

We have recently undertaken a consultation on employment injury assistance. I appreciate that people wish to see changes on that but, because those changes are quite significant, we consulted on whether it would be better to extend the agency agreement and allow more extensive consultations to happen. Given that that was the outcome of the consultation, I am still very much minded to move forward on that basis and the work has now begun on looking at employment injury assistance in detail.

I hope that that will demonstrate that the work is on-going, but I think that it is important to carry on with those timescales, given the detailed consideration that is required, particularly on employment injury assistance.

The challenge that we have is in attempting to keep pace with the amendments that are coming in. Obviously, other members of Parliament will table amendments as they see fit. In the past we have had a better ability to adapt to UK Government amendments and to have discussions before they are tabled. We are not in that space with this bill, unfortunately. There are some lessons that I hope that we can learn, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, both from when the bill was introduced and the fact that we did not see it before that, particularly given that it is such a complex piece of legislation, and also in the work on the UK Government’s amendments. I will turn to my officials. Do we have a particular timetable that has been estimated for the bill?

I recognise your point that certain co-operatives struggle to receive advice or support, whether from public agencies or elsewhere. There is a discussion to be had, of the kind that I have had with you and, indeed, with Paul Sweeney, about the importance of housing co-operatives and the need to encourage them.

I would therefore be more than happy to discuss what else could be done to ensure that we not only protect, support and encourage existing housing co-operatives, but encourage further development of the housing co-operative model. However, I am afraid that I will still ask members not to vote for the amendments in this group.

I support amendment 230 in the name of Bob Doris. It provides a three-year backstop for the commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions in part 5 of the bill. The amendment allows us to maintain progress towards those important new duties while allowing time to develop the appropriate regulations, guidance and training, in partnership with stakeholders and people with lived experience, so as to support successful implementation. Crucially, the amendment also allows us to implement the learning from the Scottish Government’s homelessness prevention pilots, as welcomed by Crisis, Homeless Network Scotland and other stakeholders. Our £4 million investment in the pilots will demonstrate how the bill’s new ask and act duties will work in reality.

I have been clear that we do not need to wait for the new duties to be formally commenced before we have improved co-operation and earlier intervention to prevent homelessness, but I am happy to support amendment 230.

Good morning again, convener. Amendments 445 and 447 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on co-housing within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. The Scottish ministers would require to define co-housing via regulations and to consult on the preparation of the guidance.

There is no need for a statutory obligation to publish guidance to be put on the Scottish ministers. They could publish guidance on the issue without having a statutory duty to do so, and I commit to doing so. I therefore ask the convener not to press amendment 445 and to work with me with a view to producing Scottish Government guidance on co-housing.

Amendments 554 and 562 would give the Scottish ministers the power to designate a public body to carry out a range of functions that would support those who want to progress a co-operative housing approach. Housing co-operatives are already a valued part of the social housing sector in Scotland, alongside other community-based social landlords and local authority landlords.

Although I understand the desire to support the development of the housing co-operative model as part of the creation of a diverse housing sector in Scotland, I have concerns about the way in which the amendments are set out. It would not be appropriate to oblige a public body to provide financial, tax or litigation advice, and a housing co-operative that acted on the advice of the designated body could seek redress against that body if the advice caused the co-operative to suffer a loss.

In addition, acting as a guarantor against demutualisation could open up the designating body to significant financial and legal risks. It is not clear how the designated body could—or, indeed, whether it should be able to—prevent demutualisation if the co-operative members vote for it.

On promoting co-operative housing, the co-operative model itself, along with—

Certainly.