Chamber and committees

I am pleased to take part in the debate. I pay tribute to and thank the organisations that provided helpful briefings ahead of this debate, as well as the committee’s clerks and all the witnesses who gave welcome evidence ahead of stage 1.

The bill represents an opportunity to take stock and improve people’s experience of Social Security Scotland by making what the cabinet secretary has described as technical changes. However, it is important to remember that those are changes that people have helped to shape.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome many aspects of the bill, but, as my colleague Jeremy Balfour stated, it does not provide a vision of how Social Security Scotland can and will change in the future. As the bill progresses through Parliament, we need to look at how we can do things differently in Scotland. Across the parties, that is what we all agreed to when powers to legislate for the benefits were transferred to the Scottish Parliament, but we have seen very little change.

In the limited time that I have available, I will touch on a few areas in which I can see welcome progress, although the devil will be in the detail at stage 2. For example, the changes on appointees will be important. I wrote to the cabinet secretary about allowing parents and carers to become appointees for the purpose of claiming child disability payment. I wanted to see change in that area, so I welcome the fact that that idea will be implemented.

A number of members have touched on the framework for delivering the Promise as regards welfare proposals and changes. I welcome the proposed assistance for care-experienced people, but we need to see more detail of its scope. There is one aspect that the cabinet secretary could perhaps touch on in her closing remarks. For some time, I have been asking the Scottish Government about tenancy deposit schemes, which are meant to fall within the scope of the Promise. I have not had an answer from ministers, but I hope that provision for such schemes could be made in the bill, as they would otherwise seem to sit outwith its scope. I would be interested in finding out whether there is any information on what that would look like.

As other members have done, I very much welcome the changes that are proposed to childhood assistance, to position it as a stand-alone payment rather than a top-up benefit.

In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives want to see a distinctly Scottish approach taken to social security. The Scottish National Party Government has received extensive devolved benefit powers, but it has consistently failed to maximise or change them. I hope that the bill will present an opportunity for it to do that, and that is why we will work constructively to lodge amendments to the bill.

For example, I would like to see carers allowance payments made for up to six months after a bereavement, to allow carers who are in full-time education to continue to receive the allowance. I think that there is cross-party support for that. Certainly, Ben Macpherson, when he was Minister for Social Security and Local Government, pointed to that as something that the Scottish Government wanted to deliver before the end of the current session of Parliament. I hope that we will see an amendment to the bill to bring that about.

Although these changes are welcome, it is important to remember that Social Security Scotland has been facing growing problems, including slow processing times. High numbers of complaints are now being recorded, and a larger proportion of applicants are now being denied benefits. We need to take stock of that and of where Social Security Scotland, as an institution, currently is.

Nevertheless, the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1, to ensure that dealing with Social Security Scotland is a bit easier and that there is a framework to take forward the changes that we all want. I look forward to stages 2 and 3, when we can—I hope—get the bill to a place where we all want it to be.

Thank you for that.

I want to touch on data, too. You have already mentioned some of the work that the Scottish Government plans to do, but what impact could that work have on councils, specifically the requirement on them to assess rent conditions in their areas? Do councils, particularly Scotland’s smaller councils, have the analytical capacity and the additional workforce to undertake that work? After all, workforce challenges are regularly raised with us.

Moreover, why is this data collection role being proposed for councils instead of being carried out at a national level? I know that different data sets are already provided at national level, but why has that not been included in the bill?

Thanks for joining us. I have a question about the understanding between tenants and landlords. To what extent do you think that tenants and landlords understand the adjudication process that you have outlined and their rights and entitlements in that?

Good morning, panel, and thank you for joining us today.

You mentioned that the principle behind the bill is to stabilise rents, but what is your assessment of the rent controls that were put in by Parliament under emergency measures and which have left Scotland with some of the highest rent increases anywhere in the United Kingdom? Does this bill not have the potential to turbocharge increases for people renting in different communities?

Thank you for that. Some of the concerns that have been raised about the bill—for example, around mid-market rent—are very important, and we should already be looking at reforming things in the bill as it stands.

We have touched on rent pressure zones, but I have a couple of questions about rent control areas. What would be the timescale and the process for developing any regulations in that respect? Also, under the rent control area provisions in the bill, what would happen in that gap after the designation of a rent control area ended? From what you have said, my understanding is that there could be multiple designations within a council area, and there is a potential risk of landlords increasing rents, especially for new lets. Indeed, we saw that happen with new lets under the emergency regulations, with the market moving; in Edinburgh, for example, we have seen very different levels of rent for the same type of flat. Globally, we have seen unintended consequences where rent controls have been used, with rents for the same property doubling.

Since the bill was published, the Scottish Government has declared a housing emergency in response to lots of councils, some of which have seen the largest rent increases, declaring their own housing emergencies. Indeed, my own council here in Edinburgh has been one of them. What response have you had to the bill since then?

I note, too, that the homelessness duties that you touched on already exist, as far as I can see, but they are being swept up in the bill. One of those duties is to ensure that children and families are not in temporary accommodation for more than a week, but in Edinburgh, some have been in such accommodation for two years. What real impact do you think this bill will have? I am concerned that this is a case of politicians talking about bringing in a bill that affects local authorities, when those authorities do not have any capacity—and, in fact, could lose it. How can we achieve the delivery of the outcomes and ensure that things do not get worse as a result of this bill? We must be very mindful of that.

A lot of the rented market in Scotland is made up of individual additional properties that people own. They are not big landlords. There is data available now showing that a lot of them are moving out of being landlords because they are expecting some of these changes. With the Housing (Scotland) Bill bringing another set of regulations and duties that they must follow, do you have any data or information from people contacting you that suggests that those landlords, who may have inherited a property that they rent out, are likely to sell up and leave the market? In Edinburgh, there is a buoyant housing market, so property can be sold quite easily. There is evidence of that taking place, but the national data set does not seem to be available to allow us to look at that. What are your views on that and the information that you are gathering from people contacting you?

I know that the Deputy Presiding Officer will welcome the four homes that have been provided in Orkney, but there has been nothing else across the country for a whole year now. It is clear from what Kenneth Gibson has said that the criteria for the scheme are way too limited. Will the minister review the criteria and consider the development of a national empty homes fund for island and rural communities?

That is helpful—thank you. Another recommendation was to introduce severance payments for councillors losing their seats at elections. We already have a set of principles for MSPs—the payment, half of which is taxed, is up to two terms’ salary, depending on the terms served. When the single transferable vote was first brought in for council wards, payments were provided to councillors who were standing down. Will the witnesses explain how severance payments would work? What costs might be attached to that?

I will move on to my next question. We previously heard SLARC’s recommendations on establishing a dynamic national data set to look at the composition of our councils and councillors. Does COSLA have views on why that has not been made available to date? How could we create that? The committee has looked at that and found that some self-reported information has not been available and that there were general data protection regulation issues in looking at councillors standing down. Do you have a view on that?