The Scottish Affairs Committee calls for the repeal of the Bedroom Tax. While this is being considered, the Committee calls on the Government to suspend application of the Bedroom Tax for all those tenants to whom a reasonable alternative offer cannot be made. There are not enough smaller houses available for tenants to transfer into. The lack of any alternative offers means that tenants have no choice but to go into arrears if they simply cannot afford the extra costs. Other amendments proposed for the operation of the tax include: exemptions for those disabled people who require a room to store or use equipment or aids; non application where it would be financially perverse to do so - eg where removing fixed aids and adaptations, and then reinstalling them in a smaller home, would be more expensive than the savings over two years; all children of secondary school age should be allowed a bedroom of their own to allow quiet study; all disabled children, of whatever age, should have a bedroom of their own. The Committee also calls for changes to the system of Discretionary Housing Payments, which have been designed by the Government to mitigate the worst impacts of the Bedroom Tax. There should be a standard nationwide entitlement system, across the UK as a whole, rather than the present postcode lottery. The UK and Scottish Governments should make longer term commitments to the provision of DHP payments in order to allow local authorities to plan and structure their budgets.
In a report published ahead of the expected White Paper on Separation, the Scottish Affairs Committee says that the Scottish Government must meet high standards of accuracy and openness and avoid any risk of using public money to promote a party political agenda. Any document that is produced as a Government White Paper must meet the highest standards of accuracy and clarity, and must be totally honest about the risks, alternative possible scenarios and costs involved in Separation. The Committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has shown a propensity to mislead Scottish voters on the likely outcome of some of the negotiations that would be needed for the final Separation agreement - as well as the timescale on which this could be achieved. Many important questions - like EU membership or the currency - have to be negotiated with the UK Government and others, and the White Paper cannot simply claim that the SNP will get whatever they want. It must lay out all the alternative scenarios that might actually emerge from these negotiations - and their consequences. Particular uncertainties highlighted by the Committee include membership of the EU, currency, and benefits, public services, taxation and pensions.
This report concludes that any government which is serious about land reform needs full and clear information on existing land ownership and values made widely available. Scotland lags behind most comparable European countries in providing such data, and the Committee calls on the Scottish and UK Governments to address this as a priority. Scotland is also behind other countries in terms of the openness and ease of land transactions. Land reform is an important, neglected and intensely political area of public policy and the Committee is expanding this enquiry more widely than originally envisaged. Evidence is sought from interested parties on a number of topics including: state aid; the Scottish Government's Land Reform Review Group; community land ownership; and opaque and indirect ownership by front companies, trusts and offshore entities
The Scottish Government's plan to negate the future effects of the bedroom tax in Scotland is inadequate, and further that the route they have identified - using Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) - is flawed. The Committee has taken evidence in Scotland and Westminster on the impacts of the bedroom tax but also on the best and most effective ways of mitigating those effects. The Committee reiterates its call for the Scottish Government to meet all the bedroom tax charges for Scottish tenants, write off all the arrears, and refund all the payments that have been made, as the only fair and workable way forward.
Incorporating HC 139-xv - HC 139-xx, session 2012-13 and follows on from HC 139-II, session 2012-13 (ISBN 9780215052551). For related report, see HCP 542 (ISBN 9780215047489)
The Scottish Government's White Paper must make absolutely clear the details of both its foreign and defence policies. Much of what has been suggested up to now suffers from a conspiracy of optimism. The most explicit pledges made to date include: that the whole cost of security and defence will be no more than £2.5 billion, that personnel in the armed services will total 15,000 full time and 5,000 reserve personnel, and that the defence force will include "current Scottish raised and restored UK regiments". Will we then have a defence force which is army heavy? An army which is infantry heavy? Or will historic regiments be redesignated as platoons, reserves or non-infantry units? If Faslane is to be kept at its existing workforce, how will people be retrained? What costs will be inccurred in the transition to the new Scottish Defence Force? What are the implications for procurement whether or not Scotland gets the assets it wants? Hanging over all of this is the future of Trident. Will a separate Scotland impose unilateral nuclear disarmament on the UK? Furthermore, membership for Scotland of NATO will require not only the unanimous agreement of all the existing NATO members, but also the resolution of any disputes with the UK. The Scottish Government must spell out what wages and conditions it would propose to offer to compensate those who would leave behind participation in world class armed services. The people of Scotland are entitled to expect that those who propose drastic change can explain what the consequences would be.
The 2015 Parliament will see the continuing development of the relationship between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. The Scotland Bill currently going through the House of Commons will devolve to the Scottish Parliament substantial powers over taxation and welfare, increasing both its powers and its responsibilities. Underpinning this transfer of responsibilities will be a revised fiscal and funding framework for Scotland-a crucial part of the devolution process that will give the Scottish Government and Parliament greater financial autonomy and substantially increase their accountability to the people of Scotland. Like other departmental select committees, the Scottish Affairs Commitee is charged with scrutinising the performance of a government department, in its case, the Scotland Office, the "guardian of the devolution settlement" and its relations with the Scottish Parliament. Through this inquiry the Scottish Affair Committee wishes to find out directly from people and organisations in Scotland what key issues we should be looking at in the first part of this Parliament.
There will always be those who lose out when a company goes into administration and cannot cover all of its debts. However, the current system does not represent the appropriate balance, since those who have given secure credit to a company are cushioned from the full impact of an insolvency, because the losses are borne by those who work for a company on a self-employed basis, or as contractors or suppliers. Under the current rules it is clearly in the financial interest of a company to break the law, and ignore the statutory redundancy consultation period, if the fine for doing so is less than the cost of continuing to trade, especially since this fine will anyway be paid by the taxpayer. However, while the financial calculation is simple, ignoring the consultation period has a high human cost that appears not to have featured in the decision making process at City Link. Employees were denied a reasonable notice period in which to seek alternative employment and instead, at a time of financial uncertainty, have to pursue a court claim for lack of consultation if they wish to be compensated. While there were differences of opinion as to whether or not City Link could be made viable, and the desired level of return could be achieved, the Committees regret that Better Capital felt its investors' interests could only be protected at the expense of the future of City Link and continued employment for its workers
This report examines the recommendations of the Commission on Scottish Devolution ('the Calman Commission'), specifically the parts which relate to relations between the two parliaments. The Scottish Affairs Committee concludes that closer cooperation between the UK and Scottish parliaments and governments is only possible if backed up by political will. Removing procedural barriers is only one part of improving communication and cooperation; structural changes alone will not make the difference. The Committee's key findings are: the Government should make time for a regular 'State of Scotland' debate, to include devolved matters; The UK and Scottish governments have given a positive response to the idea of appearing before committees of either Parliament; the idea of a 'Scottish Super Grand Committee' composed of Scottish MPs, MSPs and Scottish MEPs should be revisited; changes should be made to allow UK and Scottish parliamentary committees to work together; positive consideration should be given to whether Scottish ministers can give evidence to UK Parliament committees examining Scotland Act Orders; arrangements should be made to remove any unnecessary barriers to access for MSPs visiting Westminster; a programme of exchanges and secondments with the Scottish Parliament should be funded and encouraged by the House.
On 18 September 2014, Scotland held a referendum on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?". 55.3% of voters cast their ballot in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom. In the lead up to the referendum the three largest UK political parties pledged to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament in the event of separation being rejected. The day after the referendum the Prime Minister invited Lord Smith of Kelvin to set up a commission to take forward that commitment. This report focuses on the recommendations of the Smith Commission, particularly those on taxation and welfare, and the work of the UK Government in transposing those recommendations into draft legislation. The Committee believes the Smith Agreement represents the best of both worlds for Scotland giving much greater fiscal autonomy and accountability, but maintaining a good degree of protection within the wider UK economy from fiscal risks and shocks. The Committee is surprised, however, that the Scottish Government did not raise its concerns when it was initially consulted over the draft text of the clauses but instead waited until after publication to air them. The idea that the draft clauses contain "twelve vetoes" is a ludicrous one and it is disappointing that the UK Government failed adequately to rebut such claims. It is hoped that a good working relationship between the two Governments will mean that consultation will be routine, agreement a formality, and that dispute will not arise.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.