 Good morning everyone and welcome to the eighth meeting of 2019 of the Social Security Committee. Can I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones or other devices to silent mode so that they don't disrupt our meeting without getting an apology. So hopefully they will short-leave our full house of MSPs for this particular evidence session. We moved to agenda item one which is decision to take items in private. The committee is asked to agree that items four and five consideration of evidence heard during this i'n mwyfyrdd i gynhyrch siehtle. Bydd hynny'n i'n gwybod i sgwpeth gwaith o gweithio yn ymrŲ mwyfyrdd i'r tîm. Felly, mae'n gwneud y cymhwladol o gwblhau a'r wneud eich sgwpeth a'r wneud o'r pwg hyn. Mae'nversech ei wneud drwy hwn o'r mwyfyrdd ni allan ar yr olygweith ymrwyrdd fel hwn nyfyrddol. Felly, ryanol, nes â ddim yn â'u gwybod jion Blackwood, Executive Scottish Association of Landlords, Alice Simpson, Assistant Director Homes for Good and Sheila Hay, Customer Manager City of Edinburgh Council. The three of you and I have got a wealth experience in this area, and we look forward to putting some of your views on the record, but we will move straight to questions, if that is okay with your agreement, and the first question from Alasdair Allan. Thank you very much, convener. One of the issues that probably several of the committee are interested in are the whole issue about payments to landlords, and some of the choices that now exist around that, particularly whether you feel that that is having an impact on the way that landlords view tenants, or potential tenants, who are on universal credit. In the terms of universal credit, the changes brought about by the chancellor's statement in 2017 probably made quite a significant difference. Citizens can choose for their rent to be paid directly to their landlord, and obviously the DWP would do that in the terms of vulnerabilities, but now it's actually a choice, so very much like Scottish Choices, if that's what you want to do, that's what will happen. That potential for people to slip into debt should be removed. As well as that, we have housing benefit run-on for people who are transferring from housing benefit into universal credit, so you get a two-week run-on to reduce the opportunity to run into arrears. There's no 70-day waiting period anymore for people on universal credit, so potentially it's not much different from local housing allowance now. Is there any evidence that private landlords in particular are becoming weary or are advertising awareness about taking on universal credit tenants? I certainly think that there is a nervousness within the sector, and we are on record having welcoming the Scottish flexibilities, but I have to say that it doesn't go far enough as far as the individual landlords are concerned. One concern that we've had, and of course this is happening piecemeal as it's been rolled out, is that with new applicants going on to universal credit, yes, the Scottish flexibilities allow the applicant to pay it directly to my landlord, but that will only happen when it comes to the second payment, not the first payment. We're actually seeing landlords reporting to us now that they've got one here in front of me, landlord with the same tenant there in that property. For years and years, never a problem, always in receipt of benefits, and now suddenly that person is in rent arrears because of transition. It's been a new claim to universal credit, and that's a problem. So now we have rent arrears that never existed before. My concern there is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. I think that once people do transition from housing benefit through full service into universal credit, we will see a huge amount of rent arrears, as social landlords have found certainly in England. We're finding that about 75 per cent of our tenants are accessing benefits for all their part of their income, and we're finding that the Scottish options and theory is really good, but in practice there are tenants that have vulnerabilities that should have DWP alternative payment arrangements in place, but job centres, when they are instigating universal credit claim, are opting for the easier route, which would be the Scottish options. Our feel from that is that they're not seeing the impact of that, is that a tenant can cancel their Scottish option to get it paid direct to their landlord. It makes it harder to do third party deductions, and it makes it much more likely for that person's tenancy to be at risk. For the very most vulnerable tenants who have been homeless and have mental health issues, they are the ones that are most likely to fall negatively from that. We appeared to a system where the default option is not payment direct to the landlord. It's certainly a matter of effort that has to be made for that to happen. In principle, what do you feel about that? In terms of the groups of tenants that you're all dealing with, how much of an effort is it to change things so that the payment goes direct to the landlord? Is that functioning? We're having quite a significant issue at the moment where this has happened in a number of tenancies, but in one tenancy at the moment, they had always had safeguarded house and benefit that moved on to universal credit. They got put through for Scottish options, and for four consecutive payments, the payment went direct to the tenant, even though she had it journaled that it would be coming direct to us, which has increased her anxiety levels, and she's fallen into her interiors because it happened around about Christmas. It's also the administration time at our end that has meant that instead of our tenancy support, helping our tenants to make improvements to their lives and access education and things like that, they're now spending all of their time on the phone to call centres. There's no information on that, Mr Blackwood. Do you want to come back? I certainly agree with everything Alice has said there. That's what we're hearing from members as well, too, and they're aware that their tenants are becoming increasingly disadvantaged just through the system. I think that we have to remember that the reason why we've got this problem and experiencing these issues is actually not to do with the tenants. It's actually the system that's creating the issue here, and that's our biggest concern. So, whilst we welcome the Scottish flexibilities, there are these cracks that tenants are falling into. Those are our most vulnerable people in society, and we should be trying to support them and, of course, the system doesn't do that. In our experience in local housing allowance prior to universal credit, the figures that I've taken off the system at this current point are showing that around 90 per cent of people in the city of local housing allowance are receiving that directly to themselves. I'm assuming that they're paying the rent, but it's perhaps a different clientele, but certainly from our evidence, local housing allowance has traditionally been paid directly to the tenant, and that's worked well for a number of years. Sorry, I'm conscious of the subject of direct payment, which is what you asked there. Certainly, we would welcome that. We think that that would be a positive step to encourage landlords to take new applicants and receipts of benefits. That would reduce a lot of the barriers that are out there. We've called for that in our written evidence, and we hope that the Scottish Government would consider that. Some of the Scottish flexibilities are constrained by UK policy as well, but you won't find me disagree with the premise of what you're saying there. I was just interested to know whether you felt that tenants themselves were aware of what their options were and what efforts were being made to make tenants aware of what their choices were. I would think that, at the initial meeting with the Job Centre Plus, it tends to only be around 17 minutes that each job adviser has got with the citizen, and I think that that's potentially where issues are occurring. If people had more time to spend with their job adviser, I think that the checklist of everything that's open to them would be easier to explain. Obviously, the DWP is under the same constraints as many other public organisations and the amount of time that they can spend with people is constrained. Can I just pick up something on that? We did our last inquiry into universal credit and the working poor and low-income families. We rehearsed some of those arguments and something didn't sit easy with me. We talked about the choice for tenants and the Scottish options. It's not an option but whether to pay your rent is a responsibility. Yes, the money may normally be yours when you're sitting in your bank account for a period of time before you then transfer it to the landlord, but there is no choice here. It's your responsibility to pay your rent, so put simply, shouldn't the money just go straight to landlords anyway? I can't disagree with that. Whoever the landlord is, whether it's a local authority housing association or indeed a private landlord, I think that where some tenants find it difficult is that if they're experiencing difficulties in their life that some of Alice's clients actually are, then this becomes a much lower priority. Often we find from tenants to say, listen, I just need to know that my rent is paid, at least I know that the roof over my head is okay, then I can get one and sort out the rest of my life. I think that that's an important empowerment to help to support tenants. Of course, that was taken away some years ago where they didn't have the option to elect it to be paid direct to the landlord. The fact that I've got it back now is a good step, but why not just pay it direct in the first place? I'm going to come back when all the others just flesh that out a bit more because this committee will have to make recommendations one way or another, which is why I'm just pushing on this a little bit more forcefully. In terms of the private rented sector, I see from the Scottish Association of Landlords' position ahead of today, one of the big concerns for landlords is rent arrears and securing that guaranteed income that you should get when you rent out of a property. There's an absolute guarantee there if the money by default goes straight to the landlord, but that encourages more landlords to take on those who are in receipt of benefit. I don't think that there's any guarantee because of course the person could lose their entitlement to benefit, so therefore the money wouldn't go direct to the landlord. So there is always a risk, but there's a risk of somebody losing their job as well too and not being able to afford to pay the rent. That's the business that we're in, so at least it would give some additional reassurance to private landlords that that money would be paid direct to them, so the system would be communicating direct with them. We're not really doing from what I can see tenants any favours by telling them we've got this choice when actually it's their responsibility anyway, so we actually, even though extensively some individuals might like the idea of having the money and then being empowered to give that money to landlords, or they may just not care either way quite frankly, I don't know, but we're not actually doing them any favours because we've had a point of crisis for a variety of reasons. As any of us can quite frankly do in society, as you say, paying the rent might be one of the first things that hits the buffer, so actually is it in the best interest of all tenants probably to have the money go straight to the landlord but also any of yous on that? Sheila Hagan, then Alison Paol Simpson. I would tend to disagree. I think that to make assumptions that just because you're on benefit you're not going to pay your rent is probably not appropriate. I think that, as I've given evidence for local housing allowance and Edinburgh sitting at 95 per cent of people receiving that directly, there is evidence that people are paying their rent and it's not to say that somebody working with really fantastic salaries is going to pay their rent because people do make choices, so I think that to single out benefit claimants as being non-rent payers is probably unfair to them. I fear that I didn't single them out and I think that that should be clear for the records. If you go back and listen carefully, you'll see that. Maybe I should put it the other way, Ms Hague. Is it a price worth paying for all rent payers in society that if the default option is if the money goes straight to the landlord, it actually protects vulnerable tenants because we have no way of effectively screening for who those vulnerable tenants are to make sure that they are protected in such circumstances. There's no suggestion that the vast majority of people who receive benefits don't pay their rent because they do, but one thing is absolutely clear, rent arrears has increased quite significantly since money has started going to claimants rather than direct to landlords. Is that not a reasonable thing to say, Ms Hague? But money has always gone to tenants through LHA. UC hasn't really changed that because the principle in LHA, when that was first introduced, was unfortunate enough to remember. The same statements were made at that point and the same assumptions were made. However, in reality, that didn't happen. The world didn't cave in when local housing allowance started. It's really important to protect vulnerable people. It's really important that the DWP identifies that at that point of claim and makes the decision that, in their best interests, that should go. However, it's all about having that advice right at the beginning to support people in making the right decisions because people may make that decision for ulterior reasons. If I was to recommend anything, it's to get that support in right at the beginning so that people are making informed choices. That's really important. Thank you for putting that pretty clearly on the record. Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour want to come in, but just before they do, Ms Simpson, do you want to add anything and they'll bring my colleagues in? I agree that tenants that are accessing benefits are just as likely to pay their rent as tenants that are working. I personally settled my direct debits to come out on my bank account the day after I get paid so that I don't have to worry about that all month. I think that it would be cost effective if all payments went direct to landlords because they are for housing costs and it would reduce the amount of administration both at our end and at your end. In addition to that, when our tenants are in extremely limited budgets, we are a provider of food bank vouchers and we have had to increase the amount of food bank vouchers that we hand out by 400 per cent over the last year. Having a significant amount of money placed in your bank account that you then just have to give away to somebody else is much more likely to make you decide to use that money for something else. As soon as you've got two months of rent a year when you have such a small income, it's much harder to come back from that and can end up with you going into the homelessness system. It's a no-brainer that, if it's for housing, it should just go to housing. I've used a variance of views but it's important that we get them all on the record. I really appreciate that, Mark Griffin. It's just to come back to the subject of choice. Just now we have default payments to a tenant who then have a choice to switch to direct payments. What would you be on a system where payments to landlords was the default option but still maintained a choice for tenants that they could choose to opt out from that? I'm not captured by the official report. I saw a nodding head from Alice Simpson, so if you want to say something. I would say that the biggest issue for us has been that when payment is meant to come direct to us it has gone to the tenant and they've not been clear on that. That's what's led to arrears. The fact that the Scottish options doesn't kick in until at least the second claim date. If it was the default that it went direct to the tenant and the tenant could choose to manage their funds themselves, that would be fine. The issue at the moment is that the administration of the universal credit system isn't fit for purpose. That's what we're making one to. It's Sheila Hague. I apologise, Mr Blight. Would that be a reasonable compromise in relation to that? I don't have a passionate view of one way or the other. I would say, though, that if we mandated all payments to landlords, there are complexities in there because not everyone receives 100 per cent of the rent through universal credit. That's been a real issue for councils where they have had managed payments and alternative payments arrangements because they don't know exactly how much that's going to be. It's not like housing benefit where there's pretty much a reliance that what you receive every month is the same. It's not really the same universal credit because of the nature of that. You may find yourself collecting multiple income streams. You may have an alternative payment arrangement. You may have a managed payment coming for arrears. You may have a DHP payment that has to come in if the person has a shortfall on their rent and we've decided to pay DHP. You may have a contribution from the tenant themselves, so you could be managing income streams where it would be easier if they actually received it and gave you the whole payment. Would it be worth piloting in one local... Perhaps not Edinburgh, given your slight reluctance, but piloting that in a local authority area just to see how default to the landlord goes, for example, Miss Hague, or come to you, I think a pilot would have less... It would give us really good raw data, but there would have to be a satisfactory mix, 10 years and things like that. I'm more than willing to say a pilot would be good as long as it's in Edinburgh. I just accept that the private rented sector dynamic is very different in different local authorities and there may be a variance of views with local authorities across the country, depending on that dynamic. Mr Blackwood? I think that it's a very sensible idea for direct payments to be made to landlords for a number of reasons, but two are very, very important. One is that it reduces rent arrears that tenants can build up and another one is that it can avoid homelessness. Those are two major issues that we need to be taken into consideration. It's the system alone that's creating rent arrears and homelessness, and we need to avoid that as much as we possibly can. I do also agree, though, that we shouldn't make assumptions about anybody who's in receipt of benefits there. As we've already pointed out, many of them are more than capable of paying their rent like anybody else, so they shouldn't be differentiated in any way. That choice should still be available to them, so if they feel they want to take control of their rental payments for whatever reason, they're more than entitled to do so. I think that that should remain as well. Maybe I'm approaching a very balanced position. Alice Simpson, before I take Jeremy Balfour, I want to add anything. Just really quickly, we're doing a house and first pilot at the moment with the city ambition network in Glasgow. We've got tenants between us and their support workers. They have been taken to start bank accounts to go into job centres. They've been rough sleepers, put into tenancies with multiple and complex needs, and the job centres are suggesting that they go into Scottish options instead of the Department of Work and Pensions alternative payment arrangements. They are the most vulnerable people that should be getting put straight forward for the alternative payment arrangements. Can I thank you for putting that on the record and also let me put it on the record that I had the privilege of going to the Glasgow emergency night shelter last week and I saw one or two of the individuals using the night centre who were getting the immediacy of housing first options in Glasgow. It was very, very interesting and very, very worthwhile pilot that I saw there. I'm glad that you gave me the opportunity to put some of that on the record. Jeremy Balfour. Thank you. Good morning. I wonder if I can pick up two points that have already come out and just to explore them further. This was my ignorance really for you, John. Sarah talked about this two-week transition period. Does that not explain or help the people that you represent in that two-week transition period and why does it work for the local authority and not for private landlords that two-week transition period? I think that one of the issues is that with local authorities registered social landlords in general, they have access to the landlord portal. They are provided with additional support and assistance from the DWP that is not available to private landlords. Private landlords are in their position. They don't know that this two-week payment exists, so obviously it's part of our job to get that information out there, but there's a lack of information. There's a lack of support that's provided. Obviously I'm representing private landlords talking about the support that's available to them, but I think equally to private tenants as well too. Now it's a new system and that takes time to bed in and nobody likes change and I think there's an issue with that too, but you will see from our written submission is that a big part of the case load that we get from landlords is saying, nobody communicates with us. We send emails, who do we phone, because we're trying to help the tenant, especially the most vulnerable, who aren't empowered to make the calls themselves. Landlords are willing to help, but to just be told or we can't speak to you or not even reply to an email is not acceptable. I have to say obviously part of our work is trying to engage with the DWP to make these issues much easier for both landlords and tenants and we're building good relationships with the DWP, but it's an uphill struggle and we really feel it's the system that's creating that problem and it's disadvantaging the very tenants we're all trying to help. But if an landlord knew about this two week, that would help? It would help in the knowing that it exists but it doesn't mean to say you're going to get that money so and of course many tenants are experiencing hardship and they might have other priorities in their lives other than paying their rent and I'm afraid when it comes to it although we all might think the most important thing is keep a roof over your head, pay your rent or your mortgage, whatever that might well be, but actually other priorities in life come up at that time and it might well be that landlord never sees that money. Just following through your argument logically, John. Can you tell me an apology? I wouldn't like you to ask that next question, it's just that I saw that Shula Haig won't respond to that as well, but I'll come back. I mean, I would say that the two week run-on is something that's automatically awarded when we get a housing benefit stop, so that's for people moving from housing benefit to universal credit. When people receive universal credit, that first payment, because of the changes in 2017, a full advance can be given, so people should not experience that hardship and again I know that it's the issue about how do we get that money and that's a problem and that's a relationship because that's a contract between landlord and tenant, but the difficulties that people have, contact indeed, AWP and things like that, is the very fact that someone is in receipt of universal credit is a personal matter and you know without the tenant's permission you could not share that data and I'm aware there's more stringent controls in there than perhaps in current schemes where a mandate only lasts for that question whereas with housing benefit if we had a mandate to discuss with a landlord that would hold until it was withdrawn, so these are things that have been put in place by the DWP, I can see why they've been put in place, but perhaps that's a focus. If where a tenant does need support, then if the mandate lasted longer and that conversation was better, I think that would improve things. Jeremy, thank you. I have felt slightly uncomfortable about some of the answers and questions so far because I'm supposed to take your argument logically, would you say that any landlord should be able to go to an employer and get their money before it comes into their bank account to guarantee that rent is paid? I think that there's a very unfair distinction between those who are in benefit and those who maybe are working and how they pay, so the logic to your argument would be that the people that you represent could go straight to the Scottish Parliament and take my rent out before I see it. That is the logical way that the argument goes and why are we drawing a distinction between one set of people in Scotland and another people in Scotland? I feel slightly uncomfortable about some of the answers and whether you can clarify. I'm quite happy to come back on that if you want. I don't think that it is logical to draw that conclusion. I don't think that we're comparing apples with apples. We are trying to encourage people, private landlords, to take tenants in receipt of benefits when we know that those tenants, in some cases, are struggling to access the money to pay their very rent. That's a very different scenario to somebody who's out there working in an everyday job. Effectively, tenants should still have the right to be able to take control of their own money in the same way as you and I could be who are earning a salary. Effectively, we're trying to encourage the sector to take some of the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged within our society. The landlords who we're representing and who have been taking people in receipt of benefits for years are saying that we have no problems with the tenants. We've built good relationships with them over the years. It's the system that's failing them, not the tenants themselves. Of course, if rent arrears rise—I'm afraid that's a stark reality of it—we know that's happening. There's more and more rent arrears through universal credit now than there was in housing benefit. Perhaps that's for a number of reasons. I'm sure that we can work together to try to solve some of those problems. There's many ways of achieving that, but I think that a very positive step would be to say to landlords, listen, if you're going to take somebody in receipt of benefits, we can mandate that direct to you. That's what we would do as the Government, as the powers that we have to be able to do that. I think that that would be a positive step. From that, the tenants can elect through their own choice whether that continues to be the case or not. I would just like to say that our biggest issue isn't that all of our tenants that are access and benefits need the payments to come direct to us. The issue is that the tenants that have asked for the payments to come direct to us or have gambling and addiction issues previously where it wouldn't be beneficial for their health for them to receive the rent into their bank account. They are still receiving their rent, which is the only reason that I'm going if it would be simpler for the housing component just to come to us, and that would make sense. That's all very interesting. Do you want to add anything to that before we move on? I do think that, and John and I spoke about this before the meeting, that there's probably been a lack of engagement with private sector landlords. The DWP have done a really good job at engaging social sector landlords, and that's because they're very accessible. We did have some sessions for private sector landlords in advance of universal credit in the summer, and we did use our landlord portal, but unfortunately something went wrong and only eight landlords attended those sessions. However, I would say going forward, having John's details now, that Edinburgh will be working really strongly with our private sector landlords, because we're in a unique position, as opposed to the rest of Scotland, on the size and caseload that we have in the private sector. There's a lot of good work to be done with local authorities in collaboration with the DWP to work with private sector landlords to do a bit of myth-busting and to highlight that there's DHP available, there's rent in advance available, there's help with deposits, there's help with removals, if those things obtain a better outcome for citizens. I am more than willing to be working towards that with private sector landlords. First of all, I think that what you said there is of concern to me about the lack of engagement with the private sector, because arguably it would be more important in my personal experience. I would be more concerned about private landlords given up on the idea of taking tenants who are on universal credit. That's really, I suppose, the basis of my first question, which is, have you noticed any trends amongst landlords just saying I no longer wish to rent to tenants who are on universal credit payments? Have you seen any behavioural changes or do you expect any? I haven't seen any evidence of that. I know within housing legislation it's actually not permitted to say I won't take you because you're on benefit. However, people may do that, but it isn't the case that it's— I would say from our perspective we are noticing that there's landlords that aren't willing to take the increased risk of previously somebody who was on house and benefit and we thought we would be able to safeguard that rent. It's been really easy for landlords that want to work with us to get them to accept tenants that are accessing benefits. On universal credit, it's a very different story that you're saying. You're saying to move into this property without any money up front. In six weeks' time, you might get some rent and you might not. That is a much harder sale. It has nothing to do with the tenants, but that's part of their affordability. We have certainly seen evidence of it and we've got a postbag that demonstrates it that effectively more and more landlords not only are now saying, do you know what, I won't take anybody who's on receipt of benefits because of all the stories I hear and let's face it in the press, we always hear the worst stories, but beyond that we're actually seeing landlords with existing businesses where they're offering and have been for some considerable time, tenancies to those who are in receipt of benefits now changing their business model. They're now saying, I can't afford to stay in this marketplace anymore. Quite frankly, wherever you are in Scotland, there's more and more demand in the private rented sector to provide accommodation, so there will be more and more people out there who are in work, who are seen to be, shall we be perfectly honest and use the expression, a better bet to a private landlord and they don't need to worry about dealing with the DWP and universal credit and understanding all the details of it. That's the stark reality and we're seeing landlords shift their business model already. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any immediate solution to that because of the five-week wait and the design of universal credit means, unless that changes, any other solutions? I mean, I can't think of any. Housing benefit has always been paid in arrears to private sector landlords as well, so it's paid at the end of the period. The advantage with universal credit might be a disadvantage to the citizens themselves, is that they could get that money up front, so they could get a full advance. They may not want to because that will be deducted over a course of 12 months, but LHA has always been paid in arrears as well. We highlight this to tenants because that's who we deal with, that the DHP is available for them and they could get rent in advance, provided that the outcome is going to be better for them. That would solve a problem for the landlord and the tenant, but in the long-run issue with that is the debt then builds up and there's evidence that higher levels of debt for those in universal credit because of that, would they have taken in advance? The DHP isn't paid back, so if we paid a rent in advance and we paid a deposit, that isn't claimed back. However, as universal credit extends, that's going to put huge pressure on the DHP pot and we would obviously be looking to Scottish Government as to how we fund this. We'll make them back to some point about local housing allowances, which could also solve that problem, separate from discretionary housing payments, but I know that that's not the line of questioning you're particularly falling at the moment, Deputy convener. Any other comments on that before Deputy convener comes back in? I guess if you look at the issue of under 35s, which used to be 25, I think, and now it's now 35, and the shared room rate, again would you say that any issues of landlords preferring not to have shared tenancies? Is there any evidence of that market changing? We don't have any issues with our landlords accepting shared tenancies, but we do have an issue with quite socially excluded people who are under 35 with mental health issues or care leavers who are over 23. We then have to apply for DHP to make up their rent because they don't have anybody to share with or it wouldn't be suitable for them to share with a person. I think it is much harder. I remember the days when the under 25 rule came in effectively and we thought that was unfair back then, and now it's under 35-year-olds. I think that there's a very big difference about being 24 or 34. You're at a different stage in your life, so sharing with a stranger is difficult and a different prospect. Certainly, as landlords and as letting agents, we're not in the business of renting rooms, so you'd be looking for two people or three people to come along who are willing to share all of whom are in receipt of benefits. That doesn't happen very often. I think that it's harder for those tenants to find suitable accommodation simply because of their age. I noted what you said earlier about the issue of universal credit causing rent ar ears and creating more homelessness. There are some evidence that you put to the committee to suggest that the design of universal credit has destroyed a sustainable relationship that landlords have had with tenants who have been on welfare benefits for long numbers of years. That's going to have an impact on society. It's not just a question of tenants not being able to go into the private sector because landlords don't trust the system. Landlords are having to change their business model, but there's an overall impact, too, which is that society is going to have to pick up the pieces of this because of debt and homelessness. Would you agree with that? Yes, I do. Ironically, what's happening is that we're encouraging or we're creating a system whereby some of the most vulnerable in our society can end up in debt. Fundamentally, that's wrong. You are right. We've got landlords who've been operating where they've been providing tenancies to people in receipt of benefits for many years. That's been their business model. In some areas of Scotland, that's the tenants that they're dealing with, and that's how they've operated. Over those years, they've also built up very good relationships with their local authority, so, like the city of Edinburgh, other areas who do engage well with the sector. You build up your relationships, your local contacts. If the tenant is struggling with their benefit payments, there's been a change in the circumstance, you've got a go-to person in that local authority who can help you to understand the system and give you the contacts and support that you need, whether you're a private landlord or indeed that tenant. All of that local network, those local supports have gone with DWP, so the landlords are coming to us and saying, yes, there's been a change in circumstance with our tenant. Before we would have gone to the council, they would have been really helpful and supported us through the process, and as long as I know it's going to be sorted, I'll get the rent at some point, so there's a reassurance there if nothing else. With DWP, they're literally told from word go, I'm sorry, we can't discuss this with you. You're asking, I don't understand it myself, to be able to tell the tenant, sorry, they can't go into any detail. You write emails, it's all detailed in our written evidence, just a lack of communication if nothing. Of course, this happened as we know in the social rented sector and housing associations, DWP then supported them by providing them with a landlord portal, which has gone a long way to actually reducing rent arrears and supporting tenants and avoiding homelessness. We don't have access to anything like that in the private rented sector, and whilst I appreciate it would be a very difficult different system that would have to create for private landlords than social landlords, at least a helpline, at least somebody to speak to, some dedicated resources for private landlords. I hope that that will happen, and we're trying to work with the DWP to create that, but that's the problem here today. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Having a point of contact would be the absolute biggest change to the way that our organisation is able to operate. We own a number of our own properties, and then we've had tenants that, because tenancy start dates have been input incorrectly by a job centre person and things like that, there's been three months of arrears that have occurred. If they weren't one of our tenants, there's a good chance that that landlord would have chosen to take that tenant forward for eviction for rented arrears. We aren't able to see the information in the same way as we would have been able to see under house and benefit. If we were able to see that information and we had somebody to speak to, then that would be perfect. An example of that is that recently we had 10 formal complaints raised with claims that had started from one job centre. The complaints were related to what had happened in the call centre, not the actual job centre. From that, we've managed to get contact with one person who has spoken to us, and they have managed to resolve all 10 complaints. That means that we're able to continue with those tenancies, and that makes all the difference having somebody that we can speak to. Sheila Hood, do you want to add something? Universal credit means that landlords are going to have that more direct relationship with their tenant. What they can do is, if the tenant is sitting with them, they can deal with the tenant and the DWP. If they use the phone that is registered, they get directly to their caseworker, so that means that they are getting to the person that they need to speak to. Again, it's the facts that are little known, and it's something that we will be working hard on to get that information out to the private sector, because some of those problems have solutions, and that's the important thing, is that we resolve that. We seem to be getting to a stage where there's no individual sole reason why there's a reluctance in the private rented sector, but when you join all the dots together, you realise why there's a growing reluctance to engage with benefits, claimants, and some of those can be dealt with and solved. I was going to sit Keith Brown next unless there's a supplementary on this particular issue. I hear what you're saying, and I know landlords do that, but that's quite a big ask of landlords sometimes having to sit for long periods of time trying to help a tenant to negotiate with the person on the other end of the phone, often around complex issues. Some landlords may be prepared to do that, but I think to try and build a system around landlords being willing to do that. I guess my worry would be—I wonder what your view of this is—that if landlords felt that that was going to be part of their landlord obligation to potentially having to spend hours with a tenant on the phone and doing that with many tenants, and that becomes a standard, could that not lead to yet another reason that landlords may be reluctant to take universal credit tenants if they feel that that becomes par for the course? I think that similar things would happen with housing benefit, because again housing benefit is not a million miles away from universal credit in terms of data protection. A landlord, if they don't have a mandate and they don't have that buy-in from their tenant, will not get that information either. We would, as a responsible organisation, ensure that we would take that information and do something with it. Whether that is the same in DWP, I do not know to the same extent that they would do that. Immediately, if rent arrears is declared, we will put a stop on housing benefit and contact the tenant. I am assuming that universal credit will be under the same obligations, because you cannot allow fraud and error to enter the system like that. Landlords are not saying that they have to do that under housing benefit. They are saying that this is a system that is requiring them to act in a different way. There must be something that is different about the way that the universal credit system operates compared to housing benefit. Otherwise, we would not have landlords raising those concerns if we would not have a rise in arrears. I think that it is probably the loss of that local contact because it is a service centre, what the DWP has done. It used to be a virtual service centre, so you could phone and you would be speaking to somebody in Wales or the north England. They have changed that and there is now a dedicated service centre for the area, which is in Dundee. That local knowledge will be wider, but it will start to come through. It is very early days. Housing benefit is never perfect. I would say that. Having the local knowledge and the local contacts—as you say, a go-to person—is much easier when it is Edinburgh to Edinburgh, but when you widen that net, that is when it becomes difficult, so you might never speak to the same person twice. However, I would say that you will speak to the case worker if the citizen is with you and uses the device that they have registered as part of their claim. They will get directly through. They will not be hanging on the phone that people complain about. That is a case worker in the service centre. It is a case worker in the service centre. I know that there are sometimes communication issues between the job centre case worker who is the work coach in the service centre themselves having visited job centres and had those conversations, which is something DWP is trying very hard to resolve. However, PCS also tells us that there is simply not enough staff there to deal with that. Given the system, Mr Blackwood, do you want to go in relation to that? Obviously, backing up everything that has been said there is a different job now than what it was before. Fundamentally, that is wrong. In practical terms, and what landlords are telling us that they are having to do now is that the issue is that, if you move from housing benefit to universal credit, the landlord is unlikely to know when that is happening, or if it has happened, if they have not been receiving the money direct themselves, for which the majority do not. You are completely oblivious to this. You do not know this. The first time you will know is when your tenant does not pay the rent on that given date. Then you will go to the tenant, and then often what the tenant is saying is that there is a problem with my claim. There could genuinely be a problem with their claim, but maybe they just do not understand the system. Of course, the landlord does not know that they have already received some money as well, as part of that migration process. There is confusion and muddle. What we are now saying to landlords about what you can do is that you can try to get in touch with a secret person at the end of the phone. What you will need to do is use the tenant's phone to phone them, because that phone number is registered. That is assuming that the tenant has got a phone to be able to do that, or internet access in their home. What we are encouraging landlords to do is even use your own smartphones and go online. However, those are all issues that we did not have to deal with before. Alice mentioned the issue about the mandates. Before what we would have done is got a tenant to sign the mandate to allow us to communicate with the local authority, that mandate is no longer acceptable by Universal Credit. You have to get one done every single time you want to make a call. That is impractical. We seem to be creating a system that is so bureaucratic that is certainly not helping the people who are in need and encouraging the landlords to take the tenants in the first place. Just to pick up on the relationship aspect, we put personal centre tenancy support at the very heart of our organisation. I think that you would struggle to find a house and association or a private landlord that has a closer relationship with their tenants. What we are finding is that a tenant will get notified of something in a journal. They will phone us in a panic and our tenancy support team will take two hours out of their day to try and resolve that. They will have to do it again the following two days. If you also had to add in hours' worth of travel time to go out and see that tenant and come back, it is completely unsustainable. It just does not work. We cannot spend that much time actually going out to see somebody. The amount of anxiety that has caused to our tenants when previously we would have received a letter from House and Benefit about a change in circumstances and we would have phoned up the tenant to reassure them and to let them know then and out of what they have received. That is no longer the case. This is a professional landlord dealing with many of those cases. I am representing often, as well as Alice, individual landlords with just one property. How can they afford that time and how can they gather that knowledge and expertise that Alice has? This is positive because you are having a conversation that illuminates to us what the issues are, but I am conscious that Shona Robison asked the question. I do not know if you want to follow up anything else at this point before they come back in and answer again. Sheila Hague, I will give you the final comment on this section and then we will move on. From 1 April, the Citizens Advice Bureau will be supporting people in the seat of universal credit and supporting that transition. That was formally sitting with local authorities for personal budget and support. It really was not a great offering. The funding was poor, I have to say, and it did not allow you to adapt and grow a service that would offer what universal credit people need. Since that has gone to CAB on 1 April, I think that that will be a remarkable difference for citizens. I think that they will trust CAB perhaps more than walking into a local authority. They will get access to make their claim, support to make that claim and support through that transitional period. I think that that is a positive move in the right direction that CAB will support universal credit citizens. I have an experience where MSPs will be the same, where we quite often refer people to CAB for helping support. I have not looked at the situation in my area where sometimes CAB are sending them to myself because they are so overworked to see what representations that we can make. If there is additional resource from me, that is absolutely welcome. I think that that is something that our committee should certainly look at. Keith Brown. I am conscious of that sort of dilemma that there was before about direct payments. I suppose that the difference to come back to a point that is made between benefit recipients and others is that the taxpayer has got a right and an obligation to know that the resources that are supplying towards a particular end are being used towards that purpose. On the other hand, treating people as individuals. The point made about a choice being made, perhaps the default position being direct payments, and then a choice being made if somebody wants to do that. Having said that, I am thinking of people like veterans as well, many of whom are very content because it is all they have ever known that their rent was paid directly before it came to them. Leading that aside, just some of the stuff that we have heard recently is that there is an increasing use of food banks, a 400 per cent increase in food vouchers, increasing rent arrears, increasing demand or presentation of homelessness. A number of at least two of the panel have said that it is to do with the system, whether it is transitionally things or the actual system itself, which is causing those things. It seems to be that you are all trying to work around, as the both Governments had imagined, trying to sort the problems with it. Are you aware at any time of somebody having looked at the enquiries into social security support for housing? If somebody is saying from the other end how you guarantee that people have got a safe and secure accommodation, trying to look at it holistically, rather than being driven by, in this case, universal credit previously housing benefit, and then trying to plug the gaps? Has anyone ever tried to say this, or are you aware of any systems that do it much more effectively in other countries perhaps? It needs a system to work around it, so Finland has been really successful using house and first to be able to wrap the support around people and maybe try them in several different tendencies. They have basically eliminated rough sleeping in their country. I strongly believe that rapid rehousing in house and first is what we need to be able to do, to be able to accommodate people. If landlords have mortgages on their property, so it all goes back to if we put the most vulnerable person into a property and wrap all the support that they need around them but the rent still does not come in, then all we are doing is putting them back into that cycle. They will go into temporary accommodation again. It is just creating a massive chaos index. I am conscious that we are doing a really good question. We are doing an enquiry on social security as opposed to an enquiry on homelessness. How would you change the social security system to do more of that? That is the bits that we will be making recommendations on, rather than on homelessness, for example. What would you do differently in the social security system? Give landlords a portal and increase communication and give better training to people in the job centres and in the service centres. In my company, if somebody had been on work for a week or two, I would be able to say that they have made an error because they are new. After this length of time, we cannot say that people that are in the universal credit service centres do not know what they are doing because it is a new benefit. It affects people's lives and it is making people homeless and it needs to be fixed. I apologise for cutting across your case. Do you want to come in again? I want to ask the question. I did not mention in the context of social security support for housing. Homelessness is one of the examples of how it does not seem to work. I am aware that all three of your organisations are trying to make the system work, but it still seems to be the case. I keep looking for fixes because I need to be fixed to help people. I wonder if a much more holistic approach to social security support for housing might have yielded a better outcome. Maybe it is not the incremental finding a solution for the way that it has to go. I suppose that, over time, that is what housing benefit did. The business model has changed because there were just the same problems on how housing benefit came in. There were people that would not be allowed to or were refused accommodation because there were housing benefit recipients before. I wonder whether, endlessly trying to fix it and the different organisations that are involved with the central government in both its forms, local authorities, providers and so on, I wonder if continuingly trying to fix a system is not better than looking at the whole system afresh. My personal opinion would be that if the central government and local authorities worked more collaboratively, we all know what the problems are, but we feed it back and it is certainly the Government will say that universal credit is testing and learning. There is no doubt that it is one of the biggest changes in 40 years in the welfare system and that is not going to happen overnight, but the impact to testing and learning on people is significant and it can ruin their whole life. The time for campaigning against it has gone, but to work collaboratively to sort the problems is where we really need to be. To sum up that, I think that one of the biggest issues that we have in this system, and yes, we know that the housing benefit system was never perfect either, we had issues with that equally, but if you have a system where there is a lack of communication, then that inevitably develops into a lack of trust. Ultimately, what we are looking at here in the private rented sector is an individual private landlord with an individual tenant and it is important that we have a good relationship between the two. Both parties have a responsibility to make that work, but what we are seeing in many of the cases that I am citing is where that relationship has broken down as a result of a system, and that system is based on change, and yes, change is always important, but there seems to be a lack of communication there within the system communicating with us. That will mean just one thing at the end of the day that that one private landlord will say, do you know what? I cannot be bothered with this. I could be doing something else with my time or letting to somebody else who I feel would be more able to pay the rent to that property. Sadly, that is meaning that people who have done this for many years, despite all the problems with housing benefit, they still kept those tenants, they still maintained that business model, now they are saying enough is enough, I cannot cope with this anymore. Back in January, I was invited to a round table with the cabinet secretary, Amber Rudd about this, and she was very clear that she wanted to listen to what we were saying and find the solutions, so I am kind of hoping, despite the negativity from this side of the table, that we will find some of those solutions, but it might be too late for some of those landlords and some of those tenants who will have racked up rent arrears and increased their chances of homelessness, and as a society, we need to be addressing them. Alison Jordan. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I think that what we've heard this morning sounds, and in the written submissions too, seems pretty damning when it comes to the relationship with the DWP. I mean, there's a submission from a letting agent that doesn't pull any punches at all, and that letting agent is suggesting a dedicated and pre-authorised line of communication between the DWP and a relevant point of contact at the PRS end that isn't requiring form filling on each and every occasion, so I think that that point has been well made, and that's helpful, but to me it seems that the bottom line here in many cases is that the cash is insufficient. We've spent a lot of time this morning talking about the system, but we took evidence last week down in Leith from individuals who were within the private rented sector and organisations, too, and one thing that came up quite clearly in that evidence was the impact of the benefit cap. We heard from young single parents who were relying on DHPs to make up the shortfall, and we were hearing of people being handed notice to quit, because from one month to the next it just became apparent that what they were going to receive wasn't enough, and I'd like to explore that impact with Sheila Hague, if I might in the first instance. City of Edinburgh has apparently spent £28.1 million on temporary B&B accommodations since 2016, and I have no doubt that you would rather be spending that money on something else. Imagine the amount of social rented houses that could actually build. We heard evidence last week that some people are constantly applying for DHPs and living with real insecurity about whether or not they'd get them, so I'd like to understand how that is working from your end. DHP in City of Edinburgh Council has been a significant amount of money. It's around £6 million, the pot for that. In terms of benefit cap, it's much less than we expected. We expected to have around 900 people going in and out of benefit cap, 900 claims. We're only at 300. We did have more initially, but those have dropped, and it's people adjust and maybe move into another accommodation, things like that. In the private rented sector, what we have been supporting people with DHP is to move to a cheaper alternative accommodation by giving rent in advance, by giving deposits and by giving removal expenses, so that takes away that insecurity. However, there are people who we are supporting who meet the shortfall in their rent because of the benefit cap with DHP. When we first went into benefit cap, I make no bones about this, we were very prudent because we were unknown what this was going to look like. We would have had a million pound shortfall, had the figures panned out as we had expected them to. That turned out not to be the case. Once we got through the initial three months, we applied DHP for longer periods of time, and now we're looking at providing DHP where it's a benefit cap for the year, rather than short term, to take away that insecurity. It helps us as a council to manage that as well. Obviously, we heard from young parents who were concerned about having to move into that cheaper accommodation because it could be away from any family or support networks that they might have, so other costs are incurred as a result of losing that support. How easy is it in Edinburgh to find that cheaper accommodation? It's not. Rents in Edinburgh are much higher than our counterparts in Glasgow, for instance, and that is why, where people have made reasonable adjustments, where they have tried to look at alternative accommodation, we will support them with DHP if there's an alternative. Edinburgh itself is going through quite a significant social sector house building programme, and we also have a mid-market rent, however that's not accessible to people purely on benefit, but that model may change in the future as the demand increases. We are very conscious of the cost of accommodation in Edinburgh, and we use our DHP fund as much as possible. We are bordering on the generous side when we look at people's expenditures and their income, so we always look for a way to pay DHP, not to pay DHP. Are you content at the moment that the funding that you have for DHP is sufficient? I would like the normal hardship DHP to increase. We have sorted out the under occupancy. There's sufficient funding for that, and that's always been fully mitigated by the Scottish Government, but it's people facing real hardship, not people who are necessarily in receipt of full universal credit or full housing benefit, but people who are the working poor, who have partial housing benefit and are struggling to meet that gap because of their expenses. They are a forgotten sector of the society who won't ask for help and probably are using food banks more than people in receipt of full housing benefit. Are you saying that you expect possibly to be contacted by 900 people and it's been about 300? Do you think that everyone is aware of the fact that they can contact you for help? We found out about the benefit cap through the DWP, and then we approached the citizen about their benefit cap and we invited them to apply for DHP, so I'm confident that I am reaching those who I need to. Can I just check before we move on to Michelle? We were mentioning the benefit cap there, but there's also the LHA allowance levels, which has, I just want to double check, so they've been kind of, if you like, staircaseing down the way, so it's now 30 per cent of available commercial rents in any local authority area. Since 2016, that's then been frozen as well, so you would have expected either one or two things to have happened, if not both. One would be the potential, the quality of accommodation that is then on offer, where the LHA will meet the full payment. If you're over 35, of course, it might go down, or the variety of it goes down, or it puts more pressure on discretionary payments, and it was just that apology, but that exchange between Alison Johnstone and Sheila Higgs seemed to suggest that it hadn't been putting additional pressure on it, and maybe I just misheard that, so it's an opportunity to clarify some of that. It would be huge pressure if the fund wasn't sufficient and wasn't significant enough, and we are in the fortunate situation that it is. However, people have been difficult to engage, to get them to apply. I mean, there are people who we've written to three and four times to ask them to apply for discretionary housing payment, and for whatever reason people aren't doing that, but we do make every effort to try to get that. In the terms of the LHA, I completely agree that it is completely out of kilter with the rental market in Edinburgh, and I really feel—and I've made this point—I'm on a group that meets in Caxton House with the DWP, and I've made the point on every occasion about how Edinburgh needs to have some kind of Edinburgh waiting in the same way as London does, and that benefit cap should align in the way that the London boroughs do, so that it's greater than perhaps the rest of Scotland, because accommodation is so difficult to come by and it's so expensive. Michelle, thanks for your patience. I don't know if John Black with or Alice Simpson wants to add anything just before I take you in or just move to the next question. There's obviously an issue with LHA just not meeting the market and it's designed not to meet the market for a number of reasons, so again that's another disadvantage to landlords actually accepting tenants and receipt of benefits. I would say that it's more extreme in Edinburgh than in Glasgow, but the issue is still in Glasgow, and you can see that mid-market rents are getting offered in Glasgow at higher than the LHA rates by housing associations at the same time as property prices are increasing, so it's just harder. Maybe everyone has understood it already, but that helps my understanding, so thank you very much, Michelle Ballantyne. Good morning, thank you. It's been very interesting actually, and clearly the one thing that's coming out of it is that for private landlords the communication element is going to be absolutely key in this. I want to just explore a couple of things, a few things that have come up during this discussion, and I just want to delve a little bit deeper in them. The first one, which is probably a very quick yay and nay, is that obviously data protection has changed over the last couple of years quite significantly, and we're all struggling and we bit with some of that, I think. I'm assuming that that's had part of the impact around some of the communication issues as well, and I just wonder if there's any quick comments about how much of it is related to data protection, and do you feel that in terms of that individuals do have a right to the protection of the data in the first interest, or should they in some way forgo some of that if they do fail to pay their rent, for example? I don't think that you could change data protection laws because people have chosen to be in rent arrears. What I would say is, for me, the difference between housing benefit and universal credit is that that's not changed. We have always been very protective of that data because, technically, it was always the DWP's data anyway. We have always protected that data, and without a mandate we would not have that discussion, even to the point to say if a person was in receipt of housing benefit or not, and you'll have experienced that, John. It's always been the case, and I've worked in benefits for over 25 years, and that's never changed. What we do like to do though is make sensible decisions at the back of that. For my team, I would expect that if that conversation had been had and a landlord had been told, I'm sorry, I can't tell you anything, I would expect my officers to be taking action to go in and look at that claim and contact the tenant to protect their tenancy. So why can't that happen if a landlord rings up now and you see and says, I've got a problem, is it because it's going to the centre as opposed to going to the local? Is that simply the reason? I would see so, and it's perhaps not being part of their culture to do that. Whereas it has been a culture because of that local relationship, it has been a culture. One of our issues here, we have had those good relationships before. No, I don't see any reason why that can't continue, but you do have this faceless DWP, and of course landlords are saying, well, where do we phone? Well, there's nowhere to phone, there's not a number, there is a number in the city of Edinburgh, but there isn't for the DWP. So we need to create these channels of communication, which don't exist at the moment, and as I say, the cabinet secretary is keen to develop that the best way we can, but the issue is we need it now, and perhaps we should have had it long before now. So following on that, the other one you mentioned in passing was about the use of alternative payments to the DWP system or Scottish options, and you seem to imply that having those two, and people going for Scottish options rather than alternative payments, was causing some issues and confusion. Is it then that, because alternative payments now exist, it would be better if we just didn't have a Scottish option and that people just went straight to alternative payments? Is that because that seemed to be what you were implying, particularly Alice, if you made that comment? If I can jump in first, I think it might be easier, actually, that the Scottish options only apply on the second payment, not the first payment. So the easiest and most sensible thing to do is let it apply on the first payment, and that way we don't need to worry about it. Because it does seem to be, and it is anecdotal about what we are all hearing, is that don't go through the alternative payment arrangements through vulnerabilities, just go to the Scottish options because administratively it seems to be easier. I think that that is the feedback that we are getting, but that could mean that that 10 and 10s up, and that is certainly what we are hearing, ends up in rent arrears. Maybe only for a month or so, but that is rent arrears that should never existed in the first place, had the continuity of the protection of the payments to the landlord being maintained. This is for the most vulnerable people that we are talking about. The continuity, if they went with alternative payments, if it was already being paid directly to the landlord, would that just continue unabated if it went through alternative payments then? So if it is an alternative payment, the issues that we are having around if somebody changes from house and benefit to universal credit, the people that are administering universal credit are saying that they do not have access to information to see that the house and benefit has been safeguarded for the last 10 years. I do not see any issue with tenants having options, and I think that the Scottish options would be good. I think that there is a jar because there are two different Governments trying to administer it, arguably it would be easier if it was all just run in Scotland. If it was just one Government that was doing it, it would not make as much difference. The issue is that there is an option that seems to get means tested before it gets implemented. It is all to do with the administration of the system. I really do think that the alternative payment arrangement, if that goes from month one, that is probably easier than having Scottish options. It is probably at a very confusing time where people are moving from either one benefit or another, or they have lost their job in moving into that. If there is to be an alternative payment, it should be from day one if the tenant agrees to that. I think that leaving it a month is an attempt that perhaps is not needed for some people and I will reiterate a very small amount of people. My final one, which is sort of combined then, is a couple of things that I have been hearing from private landlords. I just wondered whether you have been hearing the same sort of thing. A couple of landlords told me that the tenancy laws change is also making them rethink their modelling. It is not just about some of the benefit changes, it is about the whole of the changes that have gone on around being a landlord. I would be interested in your views on that. The other one is in terms of arrears. I have been looking at some of the numbers that I had some in yesterday from one of the councils. They seem to be coming back down to the same level in an area that you see rolled out for a wee while now. They are back down at the same level as they were at the point of roll-out. When I was talking to some of the landlords about that, what they were saying is that a lot of the arrears are cash flow arrears as opposed to permanent arrears. Their biggest gripe is that they did not know where the money was in the system. It seemed to have disappeared between leaving the allocation of it by the DWP and the arrival of it in the landlord's account in a way in which they could reconcile it and say, yes, that tenant has paid. For me, there is a huge difference between arrears as in the tenants gone out, spent them and you are never going to get them, or it is going to be very difficult to get them. The tenants it has been allocated is being paid but it has not arrived with the landlord. Cash flow is a huge issue for private landlords clearly. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that. On time constraints, I want to give a time check to everyone. You want to get one bite at answering that. Mr Griffin has a follow-up question. I have a very brief one to finish off, but we need to about inside 5, 10 minutes, unfortunately, on time constraints, with the Thursday morning slots on my apologies in advance for that. Sheila Hague, did you want to go in? What I would say, what Edinburgh's experience is, is that of people who go into arrears with universal credit, more than 90 per cent of them have had a legacy of arrears anyway. It is not necessarily that U.C. has caused an arrears problem, it may have made it a wee bit worse because when the payment is made, but certainly what other local authorities experience, and we are new to the party in Edinburgh because we only went live in November, but first three months you see a spike and then it starts to settle down and it is a pattern that has been played out in most local authorities. I personally welcome the new PRT, I think it is great. To me, the only thing that it does is take away a no fault ground for eviction. I have never heard of a landlord wanting to evict somebody when there is not another ground that would apply such as anti-social behaviour or rent arrears. Given that, I have also only ever taken one person forward for eviction. Rent arrears, we break up our technical verses, our actual arrears. We would never count a technical arrears where we can work out where it is from as an arrear because we know it will come in at some point. We have found that regularly there is a week or two missing at the start of universal credit claim, especially if it is a new claim that has not been somebody on house and benefit previously. There is something to it that we do not have the information on. If we cannot see what dates it applies to, then how can we know if it is a technical arrear in actual one? With regard to the tenancy, obviously with the new private residential tenancy, I am not aware of where necessarily the members are contacting us saying the issues with the tenancy regime here and our lack of confidence in taking tenants and receipt of benefits. There is an issue, of course, with one of the group— Tenancy generally, not just people on benefits. In fairness, with the new tenancy, there is this issue of course that landlords will be reluctant to go and rent arrears grounds simply because if there is an issue through the administration of the benefit system, they are unlikely to get that eviction. That is a real issue for some landlords to pick up on. With regard to the level of rent arrears, whether it is actual, technical or whatever, I have heard that more from social landlord colleagues saying that that has been an issue for them, so it is not an actual arrear. In our sector, it tends to be an actual arrear because landlords in the private rented sector generally charge rent up front. They pay in advance, so of course benefits have always been traditionally paid in arrears. Therefore, by the time they have not paid the arrears of the rent that they are due to pay, it is an actual arrears, as well as being a cash flow issue. However, I am more concerned about actual arrears that have accumulated as a result of universal credit. I have noted what you said that 90 per cent had legacy arrears anyway, and that is a pattern that we played out across local authorities. Is it your position that the issue of arrears caused by universal credit still applies? John had a strong view on that, and as my personal view, there must be an inbuilt level of arrears because of the design of universal credit. How does anyone ever catch up with that? Do you disagree with that? Not entirely, but what I will say is that the two-week housing benefit run-on for people who are transitioning, that is an additional amount of money. If they get their universal credit advance, that could be used. Hold on. If they choose to take it— Wait, just be clear. It is their choice to ask for an advance. It is their choice if they want to take the advance. Most people will not choose to take the advance, because I have no evidence that that is the case. I think that it would be quite helpful to get some more information. I would just like some clarity around this. We both agree that the advance is a choice for the tenant, and we do not know how many people would choose that. However, if they do not choose the advance, do you agree or disagree that the five-week wait without the advance would naturally cause a separate level of arrears, or not? It would, yes. That is what I thought. Where we get people to contact in the Scottish welfare fund, because their endire rates have chosen not to take their advance, our first line is that they need to contact the DWP and take that advance. I understand that that is your advice, but even those who take the advance might still be in arrears, because they have to pay it back. I am afraid that we are going to have to leave all of that hanging. I can see Alice Simpson wanting to do it as well. Please send us a note in relation to whatever you wanted to say on this. I will say that again in a second. Mark Griffin. Thank you, convener. Just to come back to the issue of discussion in your housing, Payment Seed spoke about how Edinburgh is operating that in respect to tenants who are affected by the benefit cap. Further to what the convener is saying, how are you operating discussion in your housing payments for tenants whose actual rent is lower than the local housing allowance? We apply the exact same calculation. We will ask them what their income is, what their expenditure is. We will add on an allowance for things that people have forgotten. We will question whether that is reasonable. If they have only put down a small amount for food or whatever, we will question them. Is that reasonable? We may just adjust that. We operate, I believe, in a very fair process. It takes account of people having an emergency one week or an unexpected cost. I am pretty confident that our DHP is operating how it should for everyone, not just people in benefit cap but people in general hardship. You spoke about a year-long award. Would that be the same situation for those who's rent is above the local housing allowance? My experience in my own region is that people will be offered a discretionary housing payment for one or possibly two months to give them the time to find accommodation that is at the local housing allowance level. After that, they will be left to fend for themselves. Each case is looked at in its own merits. Each case is individually assessed. Is it reasonable for this person to move? We would probably do it for the financial year. It depends on when they apply. It would be for that financial year, as long as the fund lasts, basically. However, where we think that the rent is unreasonable and the expenditure is unreasonable, we may make a shorter-term award, but that will be revisited. If the person comes back after three months and says, I couldn't find anywhere else, we will review that as well. That certainly seems to be more generous than the experience in my region. Do you have any knowledge of how other councils operate in the discretionary housing payment? Each council has the right to operate the discretionary housing payment fund, how they want it. I will say that Edinburgh's pot is significant in comparison to some others, and it could potentially just be a constraint within that local authority that the DHP that they have been awarded does not cover what they need to pay out. I have to explore. I reckon that any other questions that we have can be asked in public session, but you would just have to drop us in open with the answers given time constraints, but I know that you wanted to come in. One of the issues that was raised by people in Leith was around the cost of temporary accommodation. It was a smaller one for Sheila Hague. People were citing £1,900 a month being charged. How unaffordable that was particularly for people who you described as a working poor in an unmet need. I can't understand how someone who is working could ever afford that level of cost if they end up, unfortunately, in temporary accommodation. How can that level be justified? The levels being set—that is PSL properties—is £1,900 a month. That is significant. I think that we have quite a significant 25 per cent of people in homeless are working. What I would say is that the homeless team will work closely with people about the affordability of that. We would never invite someone from temporary accommodation, but we will work with them. The council has an obligation to protect the public purse as well. If we need to recover money from people, we will do that, but that has to be done in a sensible manner. It would be good to get some follow-up information, but not least a breakdown of the justification for that level of charge. People are citing that it is exactly the same property as one next door, which is not labelled temporary accommodation. There is no additional services for that money, so it would be helpful to get a breakdown of how that charge is reached. I can provide a breakdown from my colleagues and that team to the committee at later date. That would be really helpful when any additional information can give about what area the social security system picks up some of those costs if the person is entitled to it and whether the person would have to pick up costs. It is certainly not unique to Edinburgh and Glasgow, I know, working poor to find themselves homeless who have to choose to sofa-surf with other family members because they simply cannot afford the temporary accommodation and quite significant levels of rent for storing furniture and the like. We certainly think that there might be more money in the system that could be better used. The question that I was going to have, which I would like to leave hanging, please come back to us on it, was certainly my constituency case, where one of the issues in relation to deposits required for the private rented sector and the different landlords have different rules around that. The social security system does not seem to offer much scope for paying some of those deposits and there are some really good deposit, tenancy deposit schemes out there and trying to help people to build up deposits or standing as guarantors for different individuals and families. I am just wondering for scope for the social security system to step in in some circumstances and actually be much more direct in paying appropriate landlords in the private rented sector deposits, which would actually bring landlords back into the game that they might be opting out at the moment. That is quite a substantive question, which we have not explored. I do not expect an answer to it just now, I really do not, because we have time constraints, but is that something that you could think about and maybe give a note back to the committee because I think we will explore it with other witnesses and we would like to have your views on that as well. We have got it there. I think that we could have done this for another hour and it is always really important when we get that exchange of views and actually quite frankly a variance of views as well, because that is kind of the point that we want to hear from those different perspectives. I thank all three witnesses for your time here this morning. Please do follow the work of the committee and if other evidence sessions emerge on those things that you strongly agree with or strongly disagree with or you think that the evidence base that has been cited to us is weak, please come back and tell us because we want you to follow this inquiry as it goes through. Thank you for your first three public sessions about the season relation to this inquiry. That ends agenda item 2. We will suspend briefly before we move to agenda item 3. Welcome back when we move to agenda item 3, which is Immigration and Social Security Coordination EU with the Royal Bill UK Parliament legislation. The committee will take evidence on a legislative consent memorandum on the UK Parliament Immigration and Social Security Coordination EU with the Royal Bill from Shirley-Anne Salarhole, Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People, Colin Brown, Solicitor Stephen O'Neill, Social Security Policy team leader and hearing what is the migration and free movement of people team leader Scottish Government. Thank you all four of you for being with us this morning and Cabinet Secretary, have you got an opening statement for the committee this morning? Yes, thank you, convener. The UK Government's Immigration and Social Security Coordination EU with the Royal Bill aims to achieve three things. First, to end freedom of movement and bring EEA nationals and their family members under UK immigration control. Second, to protect the status of Irish citizens in UK immigration law once their EU free movement rights end. Third, to create powers for UK ministers, Scottish ministers and Northern Ireland to amend by regulation retained EU law governing social security co-ordination. It is the proposed conferral of this power on to Scottish ministers that triggers the convention that UK ministers should seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The social security co-ordination provisions can be viewed as a logical extension of the statutory instruments considered by the committee in January. The committee will recall that those instruments made the necessary technical fixes to allow retained EU co-ordination rules to operate effectively in a domestic setting. That means that people entitled to benefits in virtue of those rules will be protected in a no-deal scenario. However, the instruments were made under a single use power. That means that the rules are frozen with no mechanism to allow for revisions or updates. The powers proposed in this bill address that, allowing the retained rules to be adjusted for future policy development and to keep pace with any reforms of co-ordination at EU level. In addition to UK ministers, the bill proposes that the Scottish ministers and devolved administration in Northern Ireland also get a power for matters within devolved competence. Although having such a power might be a useful tool, we have no plans to exercise it. The UK Government's approach to co-ordination has been broadly positive to the extent of committing, honouring the rules even in a no-deal scenario. The political declaration on future relationship also makes reference to the desirability of on-going co-ordination in the future. Under normal circumstances, the Scottish Government might therefore have been minded to propose a consent motion, but we do not live under normal circumstances. There are fundamental constitutional issues at stake here. The decision of the UK Government to ignore the will of the Scottish Parliament and proceed with the EU withdrawal bill has undermined trust in the sole convention. As in the 2018-19 programme for government makes clear, until such time as the convention can be strengthened in a way that restores trust, the Scottish Government will only bring consent motions in the most exceptional of circumstances. As the memorandum explains, the powers proposed in this bill might be useful at some undetermined point in the future, but it is not in any way essential to the delivery of the devolved social security programme. The bill cannot therefore be considered to present exceptional circumstances. I will close by saying a few words about the provision that seeks to end freedom of movement. The memorandum acknowledges that those fall within reserved competence. They are therefore not strictly relevant to the question of legislative consent, but the evidence is unequivocal. Ending freedom of movement will profoundly harm Scotland's economy, its communities and its global reputation as a welcoming and progressive nation. To cite just one example, our universities are already seeing significant fall in the number of EU students. It is objectionable, too, that ending freedom of movement is presented in an EU withdrawal bill, as though it is necessary consequence of EU exit. As the alternatives proposed by the Scottish Government make clear, that is simply not the case. The referendum result is being used as a political cover for misguided and deeply damaging policy choices. The Scottish Government would therefore be failing at its duty to the people of Scotland, especially those who are EU nationals, if it had allowed those provisions to pass without comment. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer questions. Okay, thank you Cabinet Secretary for State and the Scottish Government position on this. Are there any questions from members at this point? Mr Griffin? Thanks, Cymru. I understand the Government's reason for not seeking to lodge an LCM. That's probably a broader debate for somewhere else, but I just wanted to ask if there are any practical implications for not lodging that motion. We can't see any practical implications for it. First reading might appear quite a wide power, but, in reality, we do not view it as that. I give one example of that. There is a great degree of overlap between immigration policy and social security. We would not, as a Scottish Government, be able to make lateral changes to social security without having due recourse to what is happening at a UK immigration level. That would obviously have significant implications. Although the power seems quite wide, when you look at how practically the Scottish Government would use it, because of its overlap, particularly with immigration, I don't see any practical difficulties to the decision that we've taken on this. Okay, thanks, Cymru. I thought that it was important to get on the official report on that, so I'll question that. Okay, look, are there a few more bits for questions? I think that you absolutely would agree about not lodging any LCM, given the damage that it will do. On the specific question, and you might have touched on this, the fact that the co-ordination provisions are included in a bill that is principally concerned with immigration suggests a link between the two policy areas. Is there something that the committee should be more aware of in that regard? It's difficult to say, because the Scottish Government was given very late notice about the fact that those social security aspects would be attached to the immigration bill. It's not been a great example of the due process that would normally happen for a Westminster bill that contains a devolved aspect around social security. I think that that's been a matter of regrets. Obviously, my officials have been in close contact since we have been advised of this policy that will be in and has devolved implications, but the reason why those are attached is unfortunate, because it pins it together with some deeply concerning immigration laws that the UK Government would wish to put through. Are you giving any reason for the delay? No. Okay. Deputy convener? Thank you very much. I would like to concur with the statement that you made about the importance of freedom of movement to Scotland. Without rehearsing all the arguments, you said that, unless the UK Government restores trust, is that just a wider reference to the whole Brexit debate, or is there something else? It's very important that the trust comes back to the sole procedure, and that is a wider issue for this Parliament. Michael Russell has written to the UK Government twice on this aspect, particularly raising suggestions as to how trust in the sole procedure or the sole convention could be maintained and enhanced. That is a very important aspect that this Parliament will need to look at. It sits because of Brexit, but even if, at some point, there is a resolution to the mess that is Brexit at this moment, we will still need to look very, very seriously at how we can have trust within the sole convention, as we used to do in the past. Thank you very much. Michelle Ballantyne? Yes. For my understanding, it's a straight question. When we leave the EU, does not having an LCM in place, and it's sort of following on slightly from Mark Griffin's question, does that mean that you would have to go back subsequently and agree something, or are you saying that the position is such and the co-ordination and co-operation is such that nothing subsequently will happen, but you will have that power anyway? The SSIs that the committee looked at in January dealt with the no-deal scenario and what would happen. On that aspect, the UK Government has had an open dialogue with the Scottish Government and the EU around ensuring that people will still have access to benefits in a no-deal scenario. When it comes to what happens, because we haven't lodged a legislative consent motion, it is up to the UK Government to carry on with the bill as it see fit. In other circumstances, it hasn't taken the power for Scottish ministers out of their bill, but it's up to them to decide how they would carry on with the immigration and social security bill, whether they would still include those powers for Scottish ministers or take them out. I go back to the point that I made to members earlier on that I don't see any practical reasons why we would be concerned either way. If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that, technically, by not having an LCM, the UK Government could choose to not embed the powers in the withdrawal bill. By signing an LCM, it would be embedded in the withdrawal bill. It makes no difference because of the way that the SOE convention is being interpreted. The UK Government can carry on with the bill as it is currently drafted, whether we lodge a legislative consent motion or not. I think that if we had been in normal circumstances then I could be here suggesting that we do lodge a legislative consent motion and that the Scottish Government would support that, but we are not in normal circumstances and that's why we're here today. Presumably, if we lodge an LCM, it would be unthinkable of the UK Government to ignore it. If we don't lodge one, then… The entire reason that the Scottish Government has taken the action that it has is because when we looked at the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, the Scottish Parliament voted 93 votes to 30 to refuse consent and then the UK Government went ahead. It is entirely because we had a legislative consent motion in that aspect, and the UK Government took the decision that it did that we have the breakdown of trust under the SOE convention. You do think that LCMs are irrelevant now, in effect? If we didn't think that they were irrelevant, we would still do them, but if we're saying that we're not going to do them any more, we don't think that they're going to be listened to. Questions have been put, so what would your response be? Legislative consent motions have been a very important aspect of this Scottish Parliament. That is why it is deeply concerning and deeply worrying that the UK Government has ridden rustshod over that convention in the past, and why it's important. As a Parliament, I think that we come together to ensure that that trust can be brokered and we can get that trust back. A couple of questions to myself, cabinet secretary. Just an observation first of all, I think that by its very nature that it's a convention, it's not a constitutional right or guarantee that this Parliament has, and I think that that's pretty important. Would your position perhaps be that, if you did lodge this LCM while there are some reasonable aspects to it, and as Mr Griffin ascertains, there are no unintended consequences that you can see in relation to this, might you feel that the Scottish Government was complicit to the underlying piece of legislation, which is to restrict freedom of movement and rights of European citizens in some areas? I think that it would have been an exceptionally difficult position for the Scottish Government to be in, to be in effect, giving a legislative consent motion to something that takes away the rights of our most valued EU citizens. It's not a position, it is a hypothetical position because of the aspect that we're in, but it once again raises concerns about the link between social security and immigration that's being made within this bill is highly unfortunate. That said, my understanding is that the underlying piece of EU legislation will to dispose and guarantee certain rights in relation to social security, and the power that, in theory, would be conferred on Scottish ministers if that was put through as an LCM would be the variance of some of the technical aspects of those rights or the changing of those aspects of those rights that may accrue if the underlying bill is passed. Would that be a correct understanding of the LCM that we're looking at here today, because while spoken in very general terms, no-one's actually looking at the details of what this actually does or does and do. Would that be a reasonable, very simplistic perspective in relation to what the underlying LCM is? Basically, the statutory instruments that the committee looked at dealt with what would happen in a no deal, and that allowed the reciprocal arrangements to carry on. That was very important, and that's why I was and the Scottish Government was supported of those. This legislative consent memorandum is detailing what a power that could be used in the future if we wanted to make changes to the reciprocal arrangements. However, as I say, the link to immigration makes the fact that we would use those in very, very small minor cases. One extra point that might be worth adding to that is that the scope of the Scottish Government's ability to exercise a power of the nature that's in the bill is also restricted by the reciprocal nature of the way the rules work, if that makes sense. Exportability of benefits, for example, relies on all the EU states agreeing to do that. Although the power, as the DPRC pointed out, looks very broad, the immigration provisions and the way that the rules work administratively. For example, if the Scottish Government wanted to bolt some new provision onto the rules that wasn't reciprocated across the EU, that would be a very difficult thing to do indeed. The Scottish Government would then have to have in place bilateral agreements with all 27 EU member states plus the rest of the social security jurisdictions in the UK. Where the power could be used is in a circumstance whereby the UK Government decided to withdraw or restrict the way that it planned to execute the rules, so using the exportability of benefits. Again, in a world where there's no suggestion at all that this is the case, in a world where the UK Government decided that it wasn't going to export a particular benefit anymore, and the Scottish Minister still wanted to do that. Theoretically, that power would allow the Scottish Minister to continue to do that. However, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, the UK Government appears to know the value of co-ordination of social security, and I don't think that the Scottish ministers have any objection to the way that the UK Government is planning to approach that. Final question, and my colleagues want to ask one or two other questions. Given that the DPRC has raised concern over the wide scope for the power to conboard what the cabinet secretary, Mr Neil, said in relation to this, if at some point in the future this Parliament, not the UK Parliament, was to consider returning to this matter, do you think that it's worthy of a bit more consideration than perhaps it has been given the fact that the UK bill itself was only presented in December last year? Does it all feel just a little bit rushed, perhaps? I think that the timing of it is exceptionally unfortunate, and as I said, the usual time that we would have had, and indeed the Parliament would have had, to examine those in detail, has been greatly curtailed. This may be an issue that we might come back to in the future, but it is important to stress that on this issue, the UK Government's approach to reciprocal arrangements has been overall positive, and that needs to be recognised, because that negates the fact that we would take a different approach to the UK Government on that. I can understand the Scottish Government's reasons for taking action or not lodging the LCM. Given the implications that you have described for constitutional questions and the freedom of movement, has the UK given any indication that it understands or has commented in any way in detail on any of those concerns? Obviously, other members have mentioned the importance of trying to get to the bottom of this problem and trying to find if there is a way of introducing some faith back into the process around the Sewell convention. Has the UK Government offered any commentary on your concerns? The second letter that Michael Russell wrote to the UK Government was sent on 6 December, which he once again wrote on 12 September. He, in those letters, had detailed suggestions and proposals on how the trust could come back to the Sewell convention. It deals with one of the aspects that the convener mentioned, which is just a convention, and that it would have suggested, including the strengthening of the Statutory of Private Protection in Scotland 2016 act, for example. Those suggestions have been made to the UK Government. My understanding is that, as yet, Mr Russell has had no reply to that letter. As the convener said, it is always useful to look at the detail. It is an obligation to do that. However, if we pan out for a second, there are two really quite sad things happening here. One is the diminution of the rights of EU citizens because of the direct impacts. I do not think that I should pass without comment. The other is about the LCM that has been interested in the cabinet secretary's view. In 2010, if you remember, we were told that there was a respect agenda. After the referendum in 2014, we were told that there was going to be a very powerful parliament with its rights enshrined in law. Shortly afterwards, we had Lord Keane in the Supreme Court saying that this convention was merely a self-denying ordinance on the part of the UK Government. Given what you said about the way that the LCM is now viewed by the respective Governments, do you think that it is now just a dead letter or is it retrievable in any way? Do you see any signs that the UK Government is going to change its attitude towards LCMs? I think that it is absolutely possible for the Scottish and UK Governments to get to a position where there is trust in this again. However, that takes both parties to be able to redefine that trust. I think that it will take movement from the UK Government, as Mr Russell has defined in his letter, to ensure that this is embedded and much more than just a convention. That is an area that we will undoubtedly come back to in all our committees in the Parliament and in the wider setting, because that was up until the withdrawal bill, a very important aspect of how relations between the Scottish and UK Governments worked. We need to get back to that. There is certainly a will within the Scottish Government, as shown by the letters that Mr Russell has written, to get back to that. We have come up with concrete proposals about how that could happen. It takes the UK Government to respond to that and to be able to fill that trust to be built up. That is an aspect that involves both parties. Thank you, convener. I just like to say that I fully understand and endorse the Government's view that it cannot recommend that Parliament consents to the provisions of the bill. I, too—I think that this is incredibly sad. I have great regret at the removal of freedom of movement and the potential damage that that has for our communities and services. We have had a discussion on that. It is very serious. You can say something simply as a convention, but it is sometimes those softer things that build relationships and trust. When you discard something simply because you can, because you think that there are no consequences—I mean, I think that that is far from the case here—there are consequences. I just like to understand that there has been a discussion on the LCM protocol more widely, but on that particular matter, will the cabinet secretary be corresponding further with her counterparts in the UK Government? I certainly had a conversation—I think that it was the day before this bill was introduced in Westminster. I was informed on a phone call that there would be social security aspects, although officials had had previous contact. Since then, officials have been in a great deal of contact to stress to their counterparts the Scottish Government's position and our approach to legislative consent motions in general, and it would be unlikely that the Scottish Government would consent. That was the point that I made on my phone call. Obviously, once the process has gone through committee, we would, of course, be putting that in writing and raising our concerns and why we have got here. I do not do that lightheartedly and I do not do that unawar of the consequences, but there is a wider aspect that we need to look at for the LCMs in general and before any cabinet secretary could take a different position. I have two brief questions. I can get clear in my head that it is imprincibile to get all the kind of stuff around consent and all that, but it is imprincibile that the power that this world could give to the Scottish Government is imprincibile that it has no problem with and would welcome. We are not here because I am not recommending the power. I am not objecting to the power. I am not refusing consent. It is because of the wider constitutional aspects that we are here. Secondly, if the bill goes through as it is and becomes an act, that power comes to the Scottish Government if the bill is unamending. That is clearly a decision for the Westminster Parliament, but if the bill works its way through and becomes an act and stays exactly as it is at the moment in regard to those particular regulations, that power comes to the Scottish Government. It is up to UK ministers to decide whether that power stays in or not. Well, presumably it is up to the Westminster Parliament because it is a bill that becomes an act and that would be a decision for the UK Parliament to make. You are quite right for the UK Parliament. Yes, UK ministers will have a view, I am sure, but it is indeed up to the UK Parliament. It is up to the UK Parliament. Any more questions on that? I thought that we had a good airing of the issues there. That concludes our consideration at this point. I thank you Cabinet Secretary and officials for coming along to discuss these matters with us when I moved to agenda item 4, which we previously agreed to taking privates when I moved into private session.