Chamber and committees

That is very helpful. Thank you.

I am finding the conversation fascinating. Paul Sweeney’s questions sparked off a thought in my head. Previously, I was community wellbeing spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. When we looked at how to end homelessness, we decided to approach it through rapid rehousing transition plans, which are similar to the things that Paul Sweeney was just speaking about.

I was going to ask about how we ensure that the strategy applies to all the levels where decisions need to be made, but you answered that when Paul Sweeney asked about who was responsible for that. My argument to health and social care partnerships was that they would need to release some of their funding, which, traditionally, did not include housing. My argument was that the strategy reads across everything.

How do we actually make sure that that happens? If every department is doing its own programme budgeting and trying to figure out the marginal analysis of that, how are those who are debating acute and preventative spend making sure that the read-across is there? I know that that is a big question, but I think that it is important.

I used to be a member of a community planning partnership and was involved with all the issues that we are discussing today. I am acutely aware of all the politics and the issues at play.

The committee has done a survey of integration authorities. In the integration authority that I was involved with when I was a councillor, things worked pretty well, and everybody was signed up to the same big aims, which meant that the decisions that were being taken aligned across the areas. However, we are now hearing from health and social care partnerships, including the one in Renfrewshire, that the current financial climate means that it is increasingly difficult to apply the principles in the Scottish Government’s guidance when they allocate resources. I can see that in the health and social care partnership in my area, as it is taking tough decisions that really do not reflect its overall aims. Do you recognise that? Would a PBMA approach make the process easier with regard to disinvestment, as it would use input from all the stakeholders to inform how that marginal analysis is done?

Given the lack of headroom at the moment, because of the firefighting nature of the decisions that are being taken and some of the barriers that have already been spoken about in terms of understanding the data gaps that we have and the lack of the deep analysis that we need to undertake in that regard, how are decisions about resourcing being made right now across the country? What decision-making process are health boards using to allocate resources at the moment if they are not employing that approach? That might be a difficult question to answer.

Will the cabinet secretary advise what further help can be provided to local authorities to maximise the use of actual housing for temporary accommodation versus the use of totally unacceptable, below-tolerable-standard hotels? I saw that first hand when the North Ayrshire Council homelessness team disinvested from such accommodation. It made a monumental difference to the people being supported by providing a safer and more secure stopover while they waited for a permanent tenancy. Our work reduced overall costs to the council and improved the lives of those involved. Given the pressures on supply, doing such work is even more challenging now, but it is fundamental for people’s dignity, along with deploying the really important prevention measures.

I agree that a rail link between Glasgow city centre and the airport would be fantastic, but does Sandesh Gulhane realise that, due to the limitations of the track coming out of Glasgow, that could impact services to Ayrshire? I am sure that he would not want those services to be impacted. Will he ask for investment in the track itself?

That feels a little intergenerational, if it relates to young people who were perhaps just born or were not yet born at that point.

Mairi, you spoke about not understanding the data sets associated with that. How many of those people who are now on ADP are in work, as opposed to not in work or claiming other benefits? How do we ensure that we have the fullest picture, so that we can fully understand the trends?

The spend on ADP in 2024-25 was £96 million lower than anticipated, but it is not looking as though that will be projected in the long term. The spend is set to rise, so the reduction was just a little blip.

Are there devolved policy decisions that will lead to that increase in spend? You spoke previously about the review process not giving the results that were perhaps anticipated and that that is being looked at again. Are there any other drivers in the devolved space that might lead to that increase in case load and spend?

I will, but, first, as someone who used to be a member of a valuation joint board, I would say that, if there was going to be a full-scale revaluation right across the country, the resources to carry out that work would need to be made available.

David Phillips touched on the growth in disability benefit case load and spending, and several others have mentioned it. I want to revisit that issue to get more evidence from you all. David Phillips, will you expand on your earlier contribution with regard to what progress has been made in understanding the reason for the increase across the whole of the UK in the number of people who are on disability benefits? You said that you looked comparatively at other countries and that you did not see the same significant growth. Can you or Tom Wernham talk about that?

Perhaps the rapid onset of that change has caught everybody on the hop a bit with regard to the need for adequate resourcing to deal with the rise across the board in mental ill health, as opposed to being mentally unwell.