Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are a number of areas there that the UK Government has responsibility for. However, if it chooses not to act on those, the Scottish Government can mitigate. We are already mitigating the effect of the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, and we will move to mitigate the effect of the two-child cap as well. Some of the other areas are reserved or are to do with the economic context, which the Scottish Government does not have any control over.

We try to carry on with work that can assist the UK Government—for example, a great deal of work has been undertaken by Dr Allan in relation to the social tariff. All that work has been fed to the UK Government and we hope that the UK Government will take it on. Even when we do not have direct control over something, we are doing the best we can to do the research and to do the work to assist the UK Government. I hope that it takes that work up, including, for example, in relation to the social tariff.

Indeed, and there is a challenge to ensure that the meals are nutritious but appealing so that children want to take them up. There is also a difference between the take-up at primary versus secondary school and so on.

It is important to look at who takes the free school meal offer up and, if they do not, why not. I am happy to provide further information, because you raise an important point about the usefulness of a policy and its impact on child poverty.

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.