Good morning. You have already highlighted some of the areas that I will touch on but there is no doubt that you have an ageing workforce and that you have to manage retention and recruitment issues. That has a knock-on effect on the ability of departments such as social care or social work, as well as those involved in community work, which are important within the context of local government and your own local area, to deliver services.

You have already touched on the problems with an increase in sickness absence because people are being asked to do more in a shorter timescale, and the fact that the effort that is involved in managing that workload has had a detrimental effect on many of your members. We are aware of that. It would be good to get a flavour of whether you think that the sickness absence and retention issues are growing. If they are—you will probably say that they are—could you tell us how you are going to tackle that? If you cannot provide the services because you do not have the front-line service personnel, there will be problems further down the road.

On amendments 165 and 167 to 170, in the name of Maggie Chapman, Scottish Land & Estates has advised that linking rent caps with wages and earnings is not suitable for Scotland’s diverse private rented sector, and I fully agree. The sector has a wide range of property types, tenancy arrangements and landlord profiles, and rents are usually determined by factors such as location and the condition of the property. That is especially important in rural areas.

Tying the rent increase to median earnings, as set out in amendment 168, risks creating distorted assessments of the market and penalising landlords who let below the market value. I hope that Maggie Chapman does not wish to increase regional inconsistencies and that she seeks to create a system that, at the very least, reflects conditions that are not based on income. Therefore, I pose the question to Maggie Chapman whether she wishes supply, in particular in rural areas, to reduce further—because amendment 168 would do exactly that.

Amendment 72, in the name of Maggie Chapman, refers to the situation in which a tenant receives written notice of a rent increase from their landlord. The amendment would change the notice period from 21 to 30 days.

Amendment 73 refers to situations in which a tenant receives a rent increase and may apply to the tribunal for determination of whether the previous rent increase took place less than 12 months previously. However, they must first notify their landlord in writing of the reasons why they consider the rent increase to be unfair within 30 days of receiving the increase notice, rather than within 21 days. My question is this: how did Maggie Chapman arrive at 21 days as opposed to 30? What discussion took place between private rented sector stakeholders and tenant rights groups to ensure that such a period was proportionate and reasonable?

Amendments 34, 35 and 36, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would introduce increased penalties for landlords, which risk driving good landlords out of the sector. The continued cumulative burden of regulations and financial risks on the sector would lead to property sales and a reduction in the number of available rented homes. The impact would be felt most acutely by tenants, because their housing options would shrink and competition for remaining properties would increase. Rather than focusing on penal measures that would lead to a reduction in the number of rental properties, we should support enforcement for compliance and uphold standards without undermining supply.

On amendments 165 and 167 to 170, in the name of Maggie Chapman, Scottish Land & Estates has advised that linking rent caps with wages and earnings is not suitable for Scotland’s diverse private rented sector, and I fully agree. The sector has a wide range of property types, tenancy arrangements and landlord profiles, and rents are usually determined by factors such as location and the condition of the property. That is especially important in rural areas.

Tying the rent increase to median earnings, as set out in amendment 168, risks creating distorted assessments of the market and penalising landlords who let below the market value. I hope that Maggie Chapman does not wish to increase regional inconsistencies and that she seeks to create a system that, at the very least, reflects conditions that are not based on income. Therefore, I pose the question to Maggie Chapman whether she wishes supply, in particular in rural areas, to reduce further—because amendment 168 would do exactly that.

Amendment 72, in the name of Maggie Chapman, refers to the situation in which a tenant receives written notice of a rent increase from their landlord. The amendment would change the notice period from 21 to 30 days.

Amendment 73 refers to situations in which a tenant receives a rent increase and may apply to the tribunal for determination of whether the previous rent increase took place less than 12 months previously. However, they must first notify their landlord in writing of the reasons why they consider the rent increase to be unfair within 30 days of receiving the increase notice, rather than within 21 days. My question is this: how did Maggie Chapman arrive at 21 days as opposed to 30? What discussion took place between private rented sector stakeholders and tenant rights groups to ensure that such a period was proportionate and reasonable?

Amendments 34, 35 and 36, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would introduce increased penalties for landlords, which risk driving good landlords out of the sector. The continued cumulative burden of regulations and financial risks on the sector would lead to property sales and a reduction in the number of available rented homes. The impact would be felt most acutely by tenants, because their housing options would shrink and competition for remaining properties would increase. Rather than focusing on penal measures that would lead to a reduction in the number of rental properties, we should support enforcement for compliance and uphold standards without undermining supply.

State funding has gone down by 5 per cent since 2021, at a cost of about £177 million. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has cost the sector £78 million. At a time when demand for support from the voluntary sector is rising, it is unsustainable to expect the voluntary sector to fund the shortfall.

Taking this essential sector for granted will be devastating for families and communities across Scotland. Will the Government commit to providing the funding that is necessary to support those charities, which are lifelines for families and communities across the whole of Scotland?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that more than 1,000 Scottish charities are closing every year. (S6T-02674)

A joint letter from 240 charities, including the Scottish Huntington’s Association, not only highlights why there are so many alarming closures but sets out some solutions—an immediate cash injection, a medium-term recovery plan and a commitment for multiyear funding, with uplifts that reflect inflation.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to implementing those measures? Does she accept that those organisations will otherwise face an uncertain future?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. In your opening statement, you talked about the negotiations that are taking place between you and the UK Government. Will you update the committee on the progress of the negotiations with the UK Government to recoup funds through the tax system? How will that work in practice for Social Security Scotland, and how will it be accounted for in the Scottish budget?

Do the witnesses have any low-cost, high-impact suggestions for how we can improve Scottish social security?

We have heard from you in your submissions, and from previous witnesses, that organisations would like to see eligibility criteria extended to cover more people, and potentially an increase in some benefits, which would help individuals in your sectors or the areas that you deal with.

Those matters are relevant, and there is no question but that they need to be looked at. However, if you think that the eligibility criteria should be broadened and there should be further spend across the sector, how would you suggest that we could afford that additional spending on Scottish social security payments beyond what we already have in place?

This week, we have seen documentation on how the whole thing is blossoming and we are continuing to potentially move into overspend, if we have not already. If much more is required in the specific areas that your organisations are considering, how would it be possible to afford additional spend on current policies?

I am content with that.