This website uses cookies for anonymised analytics and for account authentication. See our privacy and cookies policies for more information.

 




Supporting Scotland's vibrant voluntary sector

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the membership organisation for Scotland's charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. Charity registered in Scotland SC003558. Registered office Mansfield Traquair Centre, 15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh EH3 6BB.

Smith Commission - SCVO interim response

Timetable

Lord Smith's initial request was to provide views by today, 10 October, in order to meet the challenging timetable agreed by the Better Together parties. Whilst we have appreciated the extension to 31 October, which was granted three days later, this has given rise to concerns about the possible marginalisation of views from Scottish society since the extended deadline for responses coincides with the publication of the Command Paper, and will follow party political responses today and meetings of the Commission itself next week. We want to ensure that no decisions are made, no parameters are agreed, and no options ruled out before the full diversity of views are on the table and able to be digested by all concerned. We know that this adds difficulty to an already challenging timetable but we do not think it is credible to proceed otherwise. Thus the reason for this interim submission, and why so many voluntary organisations have taken the opportunity to contact Lord Smith today. Transparency will be necessary going forward from here if this process is going to enjoy the support and confidence of the public, as well as making full use of the experience and views of Scottish civil society.

How to do devolution

One issue beyond the immediate discussion of powers for the Scottish Parliament which we think deserves further attention is how to review and adapt the devolution settlement going forward. The range and complexity of the issues outlined at the end of this paper well illustrate the need to establish a periodic review, informed from practical experience and undertaken in an inclusive, thoughtful and bi-partisan way. It should now be obvious that devolution is a process rather than an event and we think that the primary purpose of any review should be to improve the coherence of governance and the quality of public services in Scotland. In other words, positions on the devolution settlement should not simply be used as a tactic for short-term party political advantage.

Civil society

We are pleased to be party to a wider discussion with other civil society actors, and have written to Lord Smith and the political parties today to demand that a citizen-led process is able to proof the Smith Commission’s work before legislation is enacted. For this process to be credible, it is important that nothing is ruled out. Putting people at the centre of the constitutional debate is necessary to ensure that discussion about powers is rooted in the needs and interests of citizens. In short, we do not believe that it is possible for the Commission to conclude its business successfully as currently structured and without the full involvement of citizens and communities. Devolution is not the preserve of party politics and there is an evident need to build on the participative culture which emerged during the campaign. We strongly believe that attempts to return to business as usual are not an option.

Principles/Values

Although the nature and purposes of the powers that may be devolved is a matter of debate in the third sector, there are some underpinning values which will be widely endorsed. Our sector broadly aspires to work with governments and the Scottish Parliament to:
  • reduce inequality and celebrate diversity
  • promote social justice, here and internationally
  • create a more inclusive society
  • promote subsidiarity
  • enable and empower people
  • promote environmental and economic sustainability

Subjects

What follows is a rehearsal of some of the areas which our members have identified. We have tried not to provide definitive conclusions at this stage – our sector is characterised by its diversity and pluralism – but expect to be able to take more formal positions by the 31 October deadline. However, the third sector in Scotland will be generally supportive of the principle of subsidiarity, and will want to see a significant transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament in that context.

Welfare

The devolution of powers and associated budgets that affect welfare support, either wholly or in part, has been the most widely discussed area for devolution by the third sector. Many third sector organisations provide a range of services which interact with the benefits system and wider welfare policies, as well as working closely with people who claim in and out of work benefits. In 2013, over 70% of third sector organisations had experienced a significant increase in demand for support as a result of benefits changes and cuts.[i] Individual benefits include: Job Seekers Allowance; Employment Support Allowance/Incapacity Benefit; Housing Benefit; Attendance Allowance; Carers Allowance; Child Benefit and Personal Independence Payment. Associated assessments and how these affect key groups in society, especially the disabled, is also a key concern. The third sector has considered the case for devolving some individual benefits where they could bring an area of devolved policy – e.g. housing – into alignment with the associated benefit. Others such as JSA have been discussed because of concurrent debates about the devolution of employment support services, such as the Work Programme, to the Scottish Parliament. We suspect, however, that piecemeal benefit transfer will create more alignment difficulties, especially with the eventual introduction of Universal Credit. Moreover, many aspects of our welfare system and policies, in particular benefits, are interrelated. For example, Carers Allowance interacts with a number of benefits including Personal Independence Payment and Disability Living Allowance. It is in this context – and with a desire to develop a coherent, harmonised welfare system – that much of the discussion about the devolution of welfare has taken place. The devolution of all powers relating to welfare, excluding pensions, has been highlighted by some as this would enable Scotland to adopt a more coordinated approach to linking welfare to such interdependent areas as health and social care, housing, employment and skills. The currently diametrically opposed policies of the UK and Scottish governments on approaches to welfare and the benefits of empowerment ill serve the public since they counteract each other. UK welfare policies and cuts also increase failure demand costs on other public services which fall within the current responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. We need to do this better.

Taxation

We expect that there will be broad support for the proposition that governments at all levels should be responsible for raising what they spend. Our sector will want to see a more progressive, redistributive tax system but the details of exactly which taxes, or proportion thereof, would need to be devolved to Scotland in order to allow for the implication of such a system, should the political will exist, is a work in progress. In that context we think it is important to consider the devolution of taxes alongside each of the policy areas identified in this report so that new powers are accompanied by fiscal responsibilities which would enable the flexible use of powers. (The Scottish Budget announcements yesterday are an excellent example of the development of a progressive alternative to Stamp Duty.) We also think it obvious that the Scottish Parliament ought to have powers over a diverse range of taxes in order to provide stability of revenue over the longer term. The devolution of income tax alone will leave public finances exposed to unnecessary volatility. The various political parties’ proposals on income tax would have a significant impact upon the work of the sector in relation to Gift Aid. If income tax rates were to be set by the Scottish Parliament it is presumed that any system or rate of tax relief on charitable donations would also have to be set by the Scottish Parliament. SCVO was a member of the High Level Reference Group chaired by the Secretary of State for Scotland that considered Gift Aid and its possible devolution as part of the Calman Commission, and would be keen to be part of any future discussions on this subject.

Localism and local government

There has now been much debate about the distribution or centralisation of powers within Scotland, and between the Scottish Government and local authorities. The third sector will generally support the principle of subsidiarity but there is a growing view that local government is insufficiently local to people and communities, and that local democracy ought to be redefined in post-referendum Scotland. For the purpose of the Smith Commission’s work we think that a commitment to a bi-partisan approach to reconfiguring local government ought to be considered, not least in the context of a further transfer of powers to the Parliament. What we would not want to see however, as the enemy of coherence, would be any efforts to circumvent the Scottish Parliament and Government with direct funding and relationships between local government and, for example, the Department for Work and Pensions. We expect the Smith Commission to rule out this option.

Employability and job support

The suggested devolved powers under this theme cover: employment rights and duties, industrial relations, health and safety, and job search and support. Overall it has been considered that the devolution of employment would allow Scotland to take a 'whole government' approach aligning employment policy with other devolved areas such as education, skills, childcare, housing, health and social care. Devolution of employability was unanimously endorsed by the Christie Commission and enjoys broad support in Scotland. Proposals which establish an agency role for Scottish Government to deliver DWP programmes are not acceptable at any level. There are groups which face considerable barriers to the labour market such as lone parents, carers, and those with disabilities, where the discussion of devolution has been about the alignment of policies and services to ensure there is a strategic and consistent approach. For example, the Access to Work scheme is reserved to and operated by the UK Government, but other support is provided by local authorities, the Scottish Government and the third sector across social care, skills services, etc. There is an opportunity for realignment and rethinking of services and support which help people to remain in, find, and progress in employment, as outlined by the Expert Working Group on Welfare. This will be complicated by recent announcements e.g. vocational rehabilitation support. Jobcentre Plus advice and services remain reserved but we have a one stop shop careers advice and support service which is devolved alongside other interventions which support access to the labour market provided by the third sector e.g. Community Jobs Scotland.

Equality and human rights

Devolution of equality law will be supported by many voluntary organisations given the strong links and impact equalities have on many areas of devolved policy including housing, health, education and justice. At present the reserved nature of equality law can be a hindrance to the development of policies by the Scottish Parliament creating unnecessary dissonance and disconnect. One of the most evident examples relates to transport, where the powers to define access standards for vehicles are reserved, thereby limiting the ability of the Scottish Parliament to improve the accessibility of transport for disabled people. On a practical level, the devolution of equal opportunities has been raised as this would bring EHRC and SHRC into alignment and prevent the current confusion and disparity that arises from having two such organisations operating in parallel in Scotland reporting to different parliaments. The Equality Network has already proposed that equality law ought to be devolved and we understand that the Network has already written to the Commission on this issue.[ii]

Immigration and asylum

It has been acknowledged that Scotland faces different demographic challenges to England and Wales, which may be tackled at least in part using different approaches to immigration. There is evidence to suggest that people in Scotland have a more positive attitude to immigration and asylum seekers than elsewhere in the UK, so the devolution of these powers would offer the opportunity to take a different approach to the rest of the UK. This issue has been explored at some length by the Scottish Refugee Council. Its paper ‘Improving the Lives of Refugees in Scotland after the Referendum’ discussed the devolution of powers relating to the ability to execute ‘return and removal’ measures for people refused asylum and other aspects of immigration control such as the granting of temporary or permanent residence permits.[iii] It has also been noted that the devolution of immigration and asylum policy would have to be accompanied by the appropriate devolution of any related benefits.

International development

The devolution of international development assistance and co-operation powers has been discussed by international aid organisations in Scotland not least because of particular relationships that have been established, for example, with Malawi. NIDOS asked in their pre-referendum paper ‘Scotland’s Place in Building a Just World’ that regardless of the outcome of the referendum the Scottish Government considers the impact on international development in all of its policies.[iv] Again the ability to create joined-up approaches is important, but we would also commend the idea that DFID could and should do more to engage with the people of Scotland on policies and priorities for their work.

Legislative competence

If the power over elections was devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there is a significant prospect of the franchise being extended to 16 and 17 year olds - something which has been supported for a long time by Young Scot, the ‘Votes at 16’ coalition members, and SCVO. More generally, there would be strong support for entrenching the existence of the Scottish Parliament and the powers which are agreed. Power devolved as power retained is an unhelpful axiom given the current political circumstances, and will be even more ill-suited when/if significant tax raising powers are devolved.

Energy

The devolution of powers over energy has been referred to in a number of different contexts such as tackling fuel poverty, ability to meet climate change targets, and promotion of community energy/benefit. However, it could be argued that tackling fuel poverty needs wider input from other policy areas e.g. benefits or economic policy, and is not solely an energy related issue. Concerns have been raised, especially recently by Friends of the Earth Scotland, about fracking and the UK Government’s position on removal of rights to object to fracking underneath homes. Planning consents for fracking ought to be entirely devolved.

Consumer Protection

The devolution of powers over Consumer Protection as set out under section C7 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 has been raised by some within the sector. Once again the discussion here has revolved around alignment. The devolution of the regulation of the sale and supply of goods and services to consumers, and guarantees in relation to such goods and services, would give Scotland the opportunity to simplify the current consumer protection framework, possibly by integrating some of the existing consumer institutions in Scotland. It would also give greater assurance to the right of redress.

The Crown Estate

The prospect of devolution of the Crown Estate has long been on the agenda in Scotland. Indeed, the devolution of the Crown Estate was recommended by the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee in its 2012 report on ‘The Crown Estate in Scotland’.[v] The devolution of the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament was advocated by SCVO in its 2011 response the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry. Community Land Scotland and other third sector organisations also gave evidence to the Committee seeking the devolution of the Crown Estate. Given the recommendation of the Committee but the lack of progress on this since 2012, the issue is still very much current.

Conclusion

There are many other areas, for example Health and Safety and the power to set a minimum wage, where our sector will set out its views by 31 October. SCVO hopes that this initial submission gives the Smith Commission an insight into some of the issues which the third sector will prioritise. We also hope that these initial thoughts will form part of the Commission’s discussions with the political parties and others as they progress throughout October. We would be happy to contribute further if required. We are pleased that Lord Smith has agreed to make himself available to join some of our discussions and hope that some of the members of the Commission will similarly make efforts to engage. What is evident is that many of these issues which have been discussed are interconnected; the interdependency in particular of welfare, employment and equalities cannot be stressed highly enough. We think that there is a substantial opportunity to improve the devolution arrangements, and wish you and your commission every success in your efforts.

References

[i] https://storage.googleapis.com/scvo-cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/welfare-reform-mapping-report2.pdf [ii] http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-blogs/tfn-blogs/equality-law-should-be-devolved [iii] http://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/media/press_releases/1891_a_vision_for_asylum_in_scotland_after_the_referendum_new_research_aims_to_create_policy_debate_post_2014 [iv] http://www.nidos.org.uk/sites/default/files/ScotlandsPlaceReport.pdf [v] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/1117/111702.htm
Last modified on 22 January 2020