Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

My preference would be for a non-legislative approach. That is what can be done. The challenge when it comes to guarantors—particularly, but not only, for students—has been recognised for long enough. That non-legislative approach would be my preference. Members might not feel that we can make sufficient progress on those concerns by stage 3 through a non-legislative approach, and they are free to do whatever they wish at stage 3, regardless of what I say. However, it would be my intent to try to work before stage 3 on whether we could take that through in a non-legislative manner.

Amendment 130, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would ensure that provision is made in regulations that a tenant may pay a tenancy deposit directly to the scheme administrator. I am not opposed to that amendment in principle, but it would be a major policy change that requires careful consideration to ensure that it would be workable and would have no unintended consequences for tenants or landlords.

We already have regulation-making powers via the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 to make any necessary changes in that regard, and we plan to exercise those powers following passage of the bill to reduce the likelihood of deposits being unclaimed. I am happy to commit that, as part of the work, which requires consultation with tenants, landlords and the tenancy deposit schemes, we will explore the model that Ms Gallacher has proposed in her amendment. That is the appropriate way and time to consider the issue further and to ensure that there are no negative impacts or unintended consequences. I ask her not to move amendment 130, on the basis of the reassurances that I have set out on the work that we will undertake.

Amendment 190, in the name of Maggie Chapman, has two parts: restrictions on the payment of advanced rent and the reduction of the maximum tenancy deposit to one month’s rent. On advanced rent, I recognise the concerns that are being raised. The ability to pay advanced rent is currently one of the options that can help to facilitate a let when a tenant is unable to show that they have sufficient income, cannot demonstrate creditworthiness or cannot provide a suitable guarantor. Current requirements restrict that to no more than six months’ rent.

Although I am sympathetic to the outcomes that are being sought, I have concerns that the proposed restrictions could result in landlords choosing not to rent to tenants who are unable to provide a suitable guarantor or demonstrate that they are able to afford the tenancy, but who could have previously afforded to pay rent in advance. That could create an unintended barrier to obtaining accommodation, potentially increasing the risk of homelessness.

Although I am unable to support the amendment as set out, I wish to explore further with Ms Chapman, should she be agreeable, the potential for a reduction in the maximum amount of rent that a landlord could accept as advanced rent, with a view to bringing back an amendment at stage 3 on that issue.

Amendment 190 also seeks to reduce the maximum deposit payment from the equivalent of two months’ rent to one month’s rent. Although I understand that the intention is to reduce barriers to entering the PRS market, that change might have adverse effects for prospective tenants and could also lead to landlords being unwilling to let to certain tenants—for example, those on lower incomes—given an increased risk of recovering rent arrears or property damage at the end of a tenancy.

In addition, the measures in the bill that create rights for tenants to make category 1 changes to a let property—changes that do not require the permission of the landlord—are based on the current deposit maximum of two months. I fully understand Ms Chapman’s intention, and I am supportive of tenants’ rights, as is clearly demonstrated by the Government’s introduction of the package of measures in the bill. I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 190. As I have set out, I commit to exploring further restrictions on the payment of advanced rents for stage 3.

I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendment 184. I understand Mr Mountain’s desire to increase the quality and provision of social housing and to tackle the housing emergency. I share that aim. Although I am keen for unclaimed deposits to be put to good use, I do not believe that it is appropriate for those funds—funds that belong to the people who have lived in the private rented sector—to be used for that purpose.

As we set out when the bill was introduced, we intend those funds to be used to help those who are living in the private rented sector, by supporting the provision of advice, assistance and services and by preventing homelessness. I hope that that will achieve the member’s objective of tackling the housing emergency, although in a different way and through the private rented sector itself.

Amendments 374 and 396, in the name of Paul McLennan, respond to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding the scope of the regulation-making power in section 31 in relation to the use of unclaimed funds. On reflection, I agree with that committee, and those amendments therefore remove the regulation-making power.

In line with the removal of that power, amendment 371 would ensure that unclaimed tenancy deposit funds can be used to support prospective tenants in the private rented sector as well as to support existing tenants. As I have discussed with Mr Greer, that would enable unclaimed funds to be used for projects and activities to support access to the private rented sector. For example, they could be used to support guarantor schemes.

Amendments 372, 373, 375 and 376 make minor and technical changes to the bill. Amendment 377 seeks to provide clarity that the provisions cover existing, and future, private residential tenancies and student tenancies. I ask members to support those amendments to ensure a more robust framework for the use of unclaimed tenancy deposit funds.

In summary, for the reasons given and in light of the assurances that I have offered, I ask Graham Simpson, Ross Greer, Meghan Gallacher, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members to reject them but to support the amendments in the name of Paul McLennan.

I am content that that is clear and that we are covered. If Ms Chapman can persuade me, before stage 3, that her points are not covered by the 2004 act, I will be happy to look at bringing the amendment back.

The reasons that I have set out are, in essence, about the impacts on landlords, particularly on smaller landlords who might still be moving over a local authority boundary and therefore operating in two systems. I appreciate where Mr Greer is coming from and the point that is being made. However, as we have moved through the bill, I have been very conscious of the administrative burden particularly on, but not only on, small landlords, as well as the importance of encouraging people into the private rented sector, both as landlords and as investors. That is why, I am afraid to say, Mr Greer and I disagree on the amendment.

The amendment also appears to seek to link fee levels with compliance with other legal requirements. I reassure members that compliance with the law is a key component of the fit and proper person test applied by local authorities, and it is not necessary to link that with the level of fees. A critical consideration is already made in determining whether someone is suitable to be a landlord at all.

Amendment 419, in the name of Mark Griffin, would reduce the registration period to one year from three and require more than 200,000 landlords to re-register and potentially pay an annual registration fee. That would be costly and burdensome for landlords and local authorities. As I am not persuaded by the argument as to why such a significant change to the operation of the registration process is considered necessary, I ask the member not to move amendment 419.

Amendment 455, also in the name of Mark Griffin, would open up access to the data held on landlord registers. As applications include personal and sensitive data, careful consideration of data protection rules would be needed before considering the publishing of such information—if opening up such access would even be possible. Elements of the register are already searchable by the public, including basic details of landlords, letting agents and property addresses, or are available upon application.

The fact that a landlord has been entered on the register confirms that a local authority has made the necessary assessment that they are a fit and proper person, and such a determination means that the landlord has provided the prescribed information needed for such assessment. There is also a wide range of information that tenants are already entitled to request from their landlord. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 503, in the name of Maggie Chapman, proposes to add new considerations to the fit and proper person test for landlord registration, including where the landlord has tried to raise the rent above the cap, has failed to set the rent in accordance with rent control restrictions, or has been subject to a wrongful termination order. Although I share Ms Chapman’s view that the assessment of suitability to be a landlord is a critical part of the protection for tenants, and that a landlord’s compliance with the law on rent and termination of a tenancy should be part of that assessment, the points that are made in amendment 503 are already covered by section 85(2)(c) of the 2004 act. As such actions would be contraventions of landlord and tenant law, they would already be relevant considerations in the fit and proper person test. By picking out those particular contraventions, we weaken the generality of the existing provision, without adding any particular protections. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 420, in the name of Mark Griffin, would introduce a requirement to publish statistics on average rent, supported by the information that would be available as a consequence of amendment 418, which I cannot support for the reasons that I have already set out. I would just reflect that the Government’s amendment 328, which has already been agreed to, would enable the processing of information obtained from landlords in connection with rent control for the purposes of publishing aggregate statistics on rent levels. I hope that that reassures the member.

Lastly, I turn to amendment 421, also in the name of Mark Griffin. Of course, it is important that tenants are aware of their rights and are empowered to use them—I share Mr Griffin’s views in that respect. However, as local authorities have existing legal duties to provide advice and assistance to both landlords and tenants on landlord registration and other aspects of landlord and tenant law, I am not clear on the need for a specific statutory requirement to promote the register and, as a result, I cannot support the amendment.

Again, I reassure members that ministers are committed to continuing to raise awareness of tenancy rights and responsibilities, and to see what more can be done about that after the bill is, as I hope, passed by the Parliament. We will seek to work with tenants, landlords and stakeholders to do that in the most effective way.