Hansard

I am pleased to come to the chamber today to debate this LCM. As I recently noted to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I have a responsibility to ensure that legislation impacting on the devolved social security system is fully compatible with our principles and ethos. I am also mindful of the practical implications of any legislative changes and how they might impact on the safe and secure transition of benefits. I have scrutinised the bill and the ramifications carefully, and have engaged with the UK Government. I now recommend consent in a number of areas.

On entry, search and seizure, the provisions will allow the Department for Work and Pensions to apply to a sheriff for a warrant to enter premises and to search for and seize items when investigating serious cases of fraud. Currently, the DWP requires the police to undertake that action on its behalf. I am content that nothing in those provisions runs contrary to the ethos and principles underpinning our devolved social security system.

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

On eligibility verification measures, the provisions in the bill will allow the DWP to require organisations such as banks and financial institutions to provide data to establish an individual’s entitlement to benefits and to identify incorrect payments. It will be of reassurance to the Parliament today, I hope, to know that the UK Government has confirmed in writing that there is no intention to include devolved benefits within the scope of that measure, now or in the future.

On changes to administrative penalties, there is no equivalent to administrative penalties within the devolved system, so I am therefore content to recommend consent.

Overpayment recovery is an important aspect of the bill. Although the provisions on that were referred to in the memorandum accompanying the motion, the Scottish Government did not take a position on consent. That was to allow for due consideration of the impact of those provisions on Scottish clients and for on-going discussions with the UK Government.

I fully recognise the duty of Governments to ensure that overpayments are recovered, wherever it is reasonable to do so, but that cannot be at the expense of our values and ethos. As I confirmed to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend consent for the overpayment recovery provisions. Those provisions allow for the direct recovery from bank accounts with no need for a court order and for the potential suspension of driving licences. 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 confirmed that position in writing to UK ministers, who 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 introduced on 22 January 2025, which meant that normal timeframes for lodging this legislative consent memorandum could not be met. As a result, and due to the on-going engagement that is still required to understand where the bill and its numerous amendments will impact on Scotland, I confirm that there will be a requirement to lodge a supplementary LCM for the bill in due course. I will, at that time, be happy to provide a fuller update on the overpayment recovery provisions as part of that supplementary LCM.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that clauses 72, 73, 74, 75, 77 to 81, 83 to 87 and 98, and schedules 3-4 of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error And Recovery) Bill 2025, introduced in the House of Commons on 22 January 2025, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.