Official Report 602KB pdf
Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/305)
Agenda item 5 is consideration of two Scottish statutory instruments under the negative procedure.
It might be helpful if I first clarify some procedural points. SSIs that are laid under the negative procedure come into force automatically unless the Parliament passes a motion to annul them or they are withdrawn by the Scottish Government. There is no procedure for amending such SSIs, and it is not possible for us to accept some parts of them but not others. The only way in which a committee member can prevent a negative SSI from coming into force is by lodging a motion to annul the instrument. That said, the committee can make recommendations for future changes to be brought forward through other instruments, or it can highlight any concerns that it might have to the Scottish Government.
The first set of regulations would allow large payments of arrears of devolved disability benefits to be paid in instalments to Scottish clients if consent is given by the clients. Further background information is outlined in paper 4.
If members have no comments, are we content simply to note the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/249)
Moving on to the second instrument, I refer members to paper 5, which details our consideration of the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2021.
The purpose of these amending regulations is to ensure that, as far as is practicable, a household in the same circumstances receives the same level of council tax reduction whether or not it is on universal credit. The committee wrote to stakeholders in advance of today’s meeting to invite further views on the regulations. On behalf of the committee, I thank Citizens Advice Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, One Parent Families Scotland and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation for their responses. I also thank the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth for his written response to the issues raised.
Do members have any comments?
I will support the regulations, convener, but I have a couple of questions.
I do not know whether it is just me, but it feels as though the regulations are really complex. To be honest, I do not think that we have had much time to get under the skin of them. Are we happy that enough data have been provided and that we understand who the winners and losers are here? I welcome the levelling of the reduction for people on legacy benefits and those on universal credit—it is absolutely the right thing to do—but do we really understand the differences here and who is or is not going to do okay out of this? That is my only concern about the regulations.
I suggest that we write again to the minister, seeking further detail. That might be helpful to committee colleagues and it might address Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments. Are colleagues happy to go ahead with the suggestion that we write to the minister, seeking further comment?
Members indicated agreement.
I invite Ms Duncan-Glancy to work with the clerks to frame the questions that she seeks answers to.
I have more of an observation to make, convener. Looking at the start-up costs of the new system, I think that councils will lose quite a lot of income, so it is important that they are fully compensated. I also note that there is no guidance for the councils on how the scheme will be administered. Can we get a wee bit of background on that, too?
Is Ms Duncan-Glancy content for Marie McNair to ask a question along those lines in the same letter to the minister?
Absolutely.
In that case, are we content simply to note the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of the meeting.
10:51 Meeting continued in private until 11:14.