Chamber and committees

I will briefly touch on a number of areas. The focus for the delivery plans is based on robust evidence of what works, but there is also a recognition that no action in isolation will deliver the level of change that is required.

We have looked at the previous plans and into the future, and the focus for the next plan will remain on the three drivers of child poverty, which are income from employment, cost of living and income from social security and benefits in kind. Previous plans have been based on those three stools, and the same will be the case for the third delivery plan. My understanding from the evidence that the committee has received, and from the conversations that we have had with them directly, is that organisations such as the JRF, the Child Poverty Action Group and so on broadly agree that those are the three drivers that should be focused on.

The other area that we are very conscious of is the need to look at short, medium and longer-term aspects to try to break the cycle of poverty. We have talked about the six priority family groups, which will remain an important part of the work that we are doing.

I am keen that we take a gendered analysis to the work on the next delivery plan, recognising the importance of tackling poverty as it impacts on women and therefore on the family. That is an important piece of work, and a number of organisations, including the National Advisory Council for Women and Girls, Scottish Women’s Aid and others, have been keen that we undertake that type of gendered work. I again give the reassurance that we will do so.

I will point to some of the areas where is it is important to look at systemic change, which I have mentioned before, such as whole-family support and the expansion of fairer futures partnerships, where we are learning lessons from initial partnerships. A number of lessons have been learned from our policies, but there are also areas where we can say with confidence that the Scottish child payment is making an impact. The policy is making a difference and will be an important part of the work that we will continue to do.

The mitigation of the two-child cap will come up in the next financial year and will run into the next delivery plan. I make it clear that, should the UK Government change its mind and decide to scrap the two-child cap, the First Minister has already made his commitment that the money that is in the Scottish Government’s budget for the mitigation of the policy would be used on other measures to tackle child poverty.

I am conscious of the number of FOIs and parliamentary questions that you have had answered on this, Mr O’Kane. I think that it has been dealt with. To summarise, the Scottish Government’s position is that we took action when we gave up on the Labour UK Government taking that action, and we delivered it through the budget.

That question ties into a number of questions that members have asked about evidence gathering. I appreciate Liz Smith’s point that times have changed since I was at school, when I was in a separate meal queue and we all had our wee tickets. That was one of the worst examples of stigmatising young people, but we are not in that place now, with digital payment cards and so on. Given the way in which children interact and speak, we still have to take account of stigma about free school meals, but we can tackle some of those issues as technology improves. That is an important area, and I give that as an example of how we need to move forward.

We challenge ourselves in two ways, which I mentioned earlier. First, we do evaluation work over time to look at policies in the round. Secondly, and importantly, we speak directly to families about how the provision of services works for them. Too often, services—regardless of whether they are delivered by a public agency, the UK Government, the Scottish Government or a local authority—still require people to jump through too many hoops. There might be too many difficulties, or there might be stigma about asking for help. We combine qualitative work with quantitative work, and our evaluation strategies need to look at how things change over time. Technology helps in some areas, and it can challenge us to deliver services in a more cost-effective way than we would otherwise have delivered them.

We are also looking to make improvements in data sharing. We want local authorities, the Scottish Government and the DWP to be able to share data in a way that assists the delivery of a much more cost-effective and seamless service for people. The Scottish Government is keen to do—and is doing—a lot of work on data sharing across Government to see how it can impact on the cost-effectiveness of different policies and the delivery of better services.

You have mentioned an important area, convener, in relation to the work that can be undertaken, whether it is in a school or other settings in which there are already relationships between parents, carers and the service. Our requirement is to ensure that the services that we have are available where and when people need them.

I point to the work—which I mentioned briefly before—on the fairer futures partnerships. I went on an excellent visit to North Ayrshire recently, where we had the same type of discussion in a school setting about what can be provided by a trusted person with whom the parents already have a relationship. They can seek support on income maximisation or benefits, or wider support—in that school, they could have discussions about employability too, and the parent was then supported in several ways. That was all done in a trusted setting with trusted relationships that allowed some of the parents I met to move on to employment or to education and training on the route to employment. Those are the types of area that you touched on, convener, and they are part of the fairer futures partnerships work that is being expanded. That work and support are an important way to provide an alternative route out of poverty through employment, in a supportive fashion and without sanction.

I hope that they are reintroduced into the strategy. As well as calling on the UK Government to make changes in reserved areas, we are endeavouring to assist UK Government colleagues with our learning and with our experience of our policies. The Welsh Government is doing likewise in the areas in which it has undertaken work, so we can learn from each other. That is an important part of the strategy.

As well as making those calls, we are trying to assist with learning. Part of that involves our sharing information on our experience of the importance of targets and the challenges in reaching them. I do not know whether officials want to say a little more about the work that we are doing on that.

There has been a change to the work that Ms Robison is taking forward because it would be premature to deliver a review of Scottish finances before the UK Government’s spending review on 11 June. All that Mr O’Kane has done is highlight once again how utterly dependent we are on—

Thank you, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence on the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, which bring forward a number of minor but necessary updates to legislation.

The amendments make three separate sets of changes to the legislation. The first set of provisions are required to remove references to tax credits from certain devolved benefit legislation. That follows the UK Government’s decision to close tax credits from 5 April this year and ensures that the policy intent of the legislation matches the reality in relation to which qualifying reserved benefits are available to determine eligibility for devolved benefits.

Tax credits formed a route for establishing eligibility and responsibility for a child in relation to best start foods, best start grants and the Scottish child payment. They also formed a route for eligibility to the funeral support payment, the winter heating payment and the pension-age winter heating payment. Tax credits closed for new applications in April 2019, and the DWP and HM Revenue and Customs undertook a planned transition to universal credit, known as the “move to UC”, to move eligible tax credit recipients on to universal credit before tax credits closed in April.

The amendments have been reviewed by the Scottish Commission on Social Security, which asked about the Scottish Government’s role in the promotion of universal credit. Scottish Government officials worked closely with Social Security Scotland to deliver a synchronised letter campaign that identified those who are in receipt of devolved social security payments with tax credits as a qualifying benefit. Social Security Scotland wrote letters and made phone calls to those clients, informing them of the upcoming changes and the effect that those could have on eligibility for their devolved benefits. There is no evidence that the move to UC has affected the numbers or eligibility of those applying for the named benefits, with applications and awards remaining relatively stable for each Scottish Government benefit.

A further amendment is required to the Social Security Information-sharing (Scotland) Regulations 2021 to replace an outdated reference to discretionary housing payments being made under the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001.

The final set of amendments is required to ensure that appeals are dealt with consistently across all benefits. Those amendments update the Scottish Child Payment Regulations 2020 and the Carer’s Allowance Supplement and Young Carer Grants (Residence Requirements and Procedural Provisions) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Regulations 2020. The changes relate to appeals for the Scottish child payment and carers allowance supplement, where individuals are seeking to receive that support from outside the UK. Those amendments align with the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, as amended by the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2025.

I extend my thanks to SCOSS for its formal scrutiny of the draft amendments. I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in the consideration of the regulations today.

I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with members, particularly Mark Griffin and Meghan Gallacher, on the issues raised by the amendments in this group. I also thank Marie Curie for the meetings that we have had to discuss the issues for tenants who are terminally ill and their families that have prompted the amendments in this group. Those issues include concerns about the length of time for which a person must currently have lived in a let property before they can succeed to a tenancy, which is 12 months in both the social and private rented sectors, and the time by which an occupier has to leave a let property after the tenant’s death.

I turn first to amendments 520 and 521, in the name of Meghan Gallacher. Amendment 520 would remove the current 12-month qualifying residence period before partners, members of a tenant’s family or carers are entitled to succeed to a Scottish secure tenancy following the death of the tenant. Amendment 521 would make the same change in relation to private residential tenancies under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. Those amendments would remove the qualifying period and would require only that the house must be that person’s only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death.

In addition, amendments 520 and 521 seek to change the amount of time that a person who could succeed to the tenancy but does not wish to do so must be given before they must leave the property. There is currently a process for that in the social rented sector. Amendment 520 would change the period of time that a tenant in such circumstances has before they must leave the property, raising it from three months to six months. I see the benefits for tenants but would like to further consider the impact of that change in relation to the duty on social landlords to make the best use of their housing stock. Initial discussions with some social landlords have raised some concerns and, in a housing emergency, any delay in being able to allocate a property when an individual has indicated that they do not wish to remain there must be carefully considered. However, I am happy to commit to further exploring that aspect of the amendment with Meghan Gallacher and Marie Curie ahead of stage 3. Should social landlords not make a substantive case, I am content to work with Meghan Gallacher on that area, and I particularly thank her for the conversations that we have had in the past few weeks and for her commitment to moving forward on the issue.

Amendment 521 would make changes to the 2016 act to introduce a similar mechanism for qualifying private tenants who do not wish to succeed to a tenancy. That would mean that private landlords would have to give a tenant who has already automatically succeeded to a private residential tenancy six months’ notice to leave that tenancy if they write to the landlord to say that they do not wish to become the tenant. Existing legislation already provides greater protection for tenants in those circumstances, because qualifying tenants automatically succeed to the tenancy and can stay for as long as they choose. The change is, therefore, unnecessary and would actually reduce existing rights.

Amendments 520 and 521 would also introduce a new mandatory requirement on landlords to give reasonable assistance to the tenant to find alternative accommodation, and I recognise the positive intent behind that. Social landlords are already required to provide housing options advice for those at risk of becoming homeless, so that homelessness is prevented as early as possible, which means that the new requirement is therefore not necessary. Private landlords will not usually have the necessary training or resources to provide housing options advice and assistance to tenants, so I do not think that they are best placed to support a tenant who needs or wishes to move to alternative accommodation. A more effective approach would be to work with Marie Curie and other relevant stakeholders to develop a practice note that would support private landlords whose tenant has a terminal illness or dies. That would be the appropriate resource to encourage landlords to provide tenants with signposting to the organisations that are best placed to provide support and advice in those circumstances.

I understand the concerns raised by the member and Marie Curie that the current qualifying period contributes to housing insecurity and increases distress and trauma for terminally ill people, their families and carers, which can cause profound emotional and practical disruption when they are at their most vulnerable. I have also reflected on previous consideration of the issue, which resulted in the extension, through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, of the qualifying period from six to 12 months—a position also taken in the 2016 act. The qualifying residence period for succession must be balanced with the need to make best use of the limited social housing that is available and with the property rights of landlords. On balance, I think that the 12-month qualifying period should be changed and, therefore, ask members to support amendments 383 and 384, in the name of Paul McLennan, which would reduce that qualifying period from 12 to six months.

I ask Meghan Gallacher not to move amendments 520 and 521, in light of Government amendments 383 and 384 and my commitment to explore, at stage 3, a change to the timescale for leaving a property where a succeeding tenant declines the tenancy.

I also reiterate my commitment to progress the development of guidance for private landlords to help them to support terminally ill tenants and their families.

I move amendment 383.

I welcome the conversations that I have had with Paul Sweeney, particularly on community-based housing co-operatives. I spent many an enjoyable time on placement when I was training to be a housing officer at a community-based housing co-op, so I absolutely share his passion for them and their place in our housing sector. I thank him for his interest in the area.

Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree to his amendment 440. Although I understand his intentions to ensure that the views of tenants are rightly taken into account in significant decisions relating to their homes, I have reservations. The position that is set out in section 107 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is that, for a transfer to proceed, a majority of tenants should agree to it. The rationale for the suggested change is not wholly clear, although I appreciate the comments that Mr Sweeney has made about the Reidvale Housing Association.

Moving to a requirement for two thirds of tenants could be viewed as setting out a position in which the expressed wish of a majority of the tenants can be ignored. Given that there has been no consultation with the sector—either landlords or tenants—it is difficult for the Government to support such a change to what has been in place since 2012. I understand that 21 transfers out of the 22 that have been proposed since 2010 have all received well over two thirds of tenant approval. Although that could suggest that the amendment would not be problematic in practice, it could indicate that there is no real need for change as well. For those reasons, I urge Mr Sweeney not to press amendment 440.

Amendments 456 and 423, in the name of Mark Griffin, aim to amend the provisions in the bill to allow social landlords to serve rent increase notices by sending them by regular post. A social landlord is required to provide a tenant with 28 days’ notice of a rent increase and the 28-day period needs to be evidenced. If a notice does not reach the intended recipient, they could be unaware of the rent increase, which could result in a tenant being in rent arrears. Tenants would not be able to evidence any change that they had not received the rent increase notice if regular post is an acceptable service method. There needs to be certainty that the notice has been delivered to the tenant, and a tracked service provides that certainty while regular post does not.

The bill at present, which also allows for electronic or personal service, aligns the service options for the social rented sector with the private rented sector. The amendment would remove the requirement for a tracked service, which would be at odds with the protection that is provided to tenants in the private rented sector.

The bill already provides for two additional methods of delivery. The first is electronic delivery, which reflects the increased use of web-based tenancy management systems, email and paperless communications that, over time, are likely to become the default for the majority of tenants and will primarily be cost neutral for landlords; the second is a tracked postal service to point of delivery, which removes the requirement for a signature. I therefore urge Mark Griffin not to move amendments 456 and 423.

Although I understand the intention behind Mark Griffin’s amendments 457 and 457A, they would prevent a landlord from refusing consent for a mutual exchange on the basis of rent arrears when the criteria that are set out in his amendments are satisfied. Those are that

“one or more children under the age of 18”

live with the tenant, that the tenant’s current home is inadequate and that the proposed exchange home would be suitable. That would apply regardless of the total amount of rent arrears or whether the tenant was currently paying the rent arrears or keeping to a repayment plan. The only situations when a landlord could refuse consent for a mutual exchange would be when a notice of proceedings had already been served on the tenant on conduct grounds or when an eviction order had been granted against the tenant for the current tenancy.

Although Mr Griffin’s amendments would not prevent the landlord from taking steps to recover any rent arrears, those would become former tenant arrears, which are generally more difficult for social landlords to recover and often must be written off, which reduces landlord income and impacts on the service that social landlords provide to tenants and on their ability to maintain affordable rent levels.

Social landlords already have discretion to agree to a mutual exchange between their properties when there are rent arrears, if moving to a property with a lower rent would be more financially sustainable for the tenant and if a repayment plan is put in place.

I accept the points that Mr Griffin made in his remarks about those suffering from domestic violence and instances when there is domestic abuse in the home. I would be happy to have conversations with Mr Griffin in the run-up to stage 3 on aspects of those particular cases when there is a threat or there has been a history of domestic violence. However, on this occasion, I urge him not to move amendments 457 and 457A.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 73 seeks to place restrictions on private landlords’ guarantor requirements, including for purpose-built student accommodation. I recognise the member’s good intention with the amendment, which I think was prompted by concerns in relation to non-UK domiciled students in particular. However, it could inadvertently have negative consequences for those whom it tries to protect.

Although I understand that views on the place of guarantors in the private rented sector vary, the ability to request a suitable guarantor mitigates the risk for the landlord should the tenant not pay the rent or other tenancy-related costs. During our recent engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords, it raised significant concerns about the impact of the amendment. For many landlords, asking for a suitable UK-based guarantor is part of facilitating a let that might otherwise not go ahead, such as when the tenant does not have a stable income, has a poor credit score or is unable to provide suitable references. Without a guarantor, the tenancy would be too much of a financial risk for many landlords and would simply not go ahead. The amendment might also have an adverse effect on the landlord’s ability to obtain rent guarantee insurance, which is another safeguard that landlords use to manage financial risk.

Imposing restrictions on the type of guarantor that a landlord could use would be likely to result in a reduction in the number of landlords who felt able to let to students and other low-income tenants, making it harder for the latter to access a home in the private rented sector. I am sure that that is not the outcome that Graham Simpson is seeking, but it might be the end result in practice. As I outlined in relation to amendments that were debated in the group on student tenancies, I also have significant concerns about the impact on PBSA and continued investment in that sector.

Many alternative options already exist for tenants who are unable to provide a suitable guarantor, such as payment of rent in advance or local authority and third sector rental guarantee schemes. Given the potential for negative unintended consequences, I ask Mr Simpson not to press amendment 73.