Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for that answer and the previous answers to which she refers.

According to PAMIS—Promoting a More Inclusive Society—when the funding was initially announced in 2021, the average cost of equipment for a changing places toilet ranged from £12,000 to £17,000. The minister will be aware that significant rises in construction costs and the costs of equipment over many years have vastly increased the overall cost of building a changing places toilet.

The Government has caused delays. There has been repeated reprofiling of the fund, which has caused exasperation for disabled people, as the minister has heard and well knows, and it is clear that projects across the country now cost more money and that the fund has been devalued.

Has the Government done any analysis of how many projects it would expect £10 million to fund? How many fewer projects might there be as a result of the delays around the issue?

Good morning. I want to follow up on the commissioner piece that we have been discussing. The committee will seek to influence colleagues and help to shape some of what is looked at within that, and it is important that we give the various stakeholders the opportunity to do that. My sense, from the discussion, is that we want to take a broader look beyond the mechanics of commissioners and the financial implications. Angela O’Hagan’s points about the root-and-branch approach are important.

We have heard—because we have a duty to consider commissioners’ proposals, which often come before us—that access to justice is missing. We have touched on that already today. Do you want to see your piece of work on access to justice for everyone form the basis of conversations and recommendations within that wider piece of work? Do you want to highlight, on the record, anything specific in that at this stage?

That is helpful to the committee in thinking about how we engage. I am grateful.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. The cabinet secretary and colleagues have said much in recent weeks about the impact of winter pressures and cold temperatures, but today’s statement appears to be old numbers put together in a new way to suggest that the Scottish Government is taking action on those issues; perhaps that is why it was pre-briefed to the media.

I want to ask the cabinet secretary about this, because we have had this conversation in the chamber before. Scottish Labour has been calling for a package of measures to support people this winter from that £41 million consequential that the Scottish Government received from the household support fund, which the cabinet secretary said did not exist. Instead, the cabinet secretary seems to have announced simply the plugging of gaps that were created by real-terms cuts in the previous budget. We have had no detail since that statement on the practical measures to deploy the funding. Will the cabinet secretary therefore outline how much of that funding is already out of the door and how many people it is supporting?

Finally, the cabinet secretary is aware that we have called for those consequentials to be used to reinstate the fuel insecurity fund as an alternative mechanism to target those who are most in need. Freedom of information responses have shown that, when the Government made the decision to cut that fund, fuel insecurity partners expressed great concern that they could no longer

“deliver innovative measures that were taking people out of crisis situations”.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that that move was regrettable? Will she confirm whether the Scottish Government has looked at the option to revive that fund in line with calls from this side of the chamber and campaigners?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance regarding the statement. It appears that, once again, the content of a statement has appeared in the media before the statement has been made to Parliament—indeed, I note that the Scottish Government appeared to have an embargoed press release on its website at one minute past midnight.

I raise that because this is not the first time that issues such as the winter heating payment and broader matters have been pre-briefed to the media. If the Government contends that no detail in the statement was not already in the public domain, that begs the question of what point there is to having the statement at all. I believe the principle is that this chamber, and not the media, should be the place where statements are made, so I would appreciate your guidance on the matter, Presiding Officer.

I appreciate what you are saying about the move to a steady state. We know that the main benefit that still needs to be devolved is employment injury assistance, and we have just touched on the Government’s intention to mitigate the two-child limit. We had this discussion before the Christmas break, but that decision was taken a week and a day before the budget was announced—you may want to correct me if I am wrong about that. To what extent has that decision been factored in, given the potential delay that could be caused to the closure of the programme? Was planning done prior to that decision being made? Were projections considered on the impact of the decision on the wider programme?

I have a question about future changes. As you rightly point out, it is for any Government to decide what to do when more mainstream social security becomes devolved. I noted that the Deputy First Minister made some public comments yesterday about the two-child limit, suggesting that the reason why it had not previously been considered was that the DWP was not willing to give information.

Regarding long-term planning for social security, we have had a discussion about costs and we know that there will be structures for that. Has the cabinet secretary been planning that for some time? Has she considered the preparation of some of that? That seems to be what the Deputy First Minister was alluding to yesterday. Within that, has the cabinet secretary previously asked the DWP for those powers?

The point is that the Labour Government has been in power for six months but the two-child limit existed for many years before that. We also know that the Scottish child payment came in in 2021, so my question to you is whether you asked for those powers at any point.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I will move on to the theme of planning and administration of social security in Scotland.

The gateway review in February 2024 concluded that

“successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues ... exist requiring management attention”.

In your view, have those issues been addressed? What progress has been made?

Finally, regarding the Deputy First Minister’s comments yesterday, is she confused about the position? She seemed to think that the powers had been asked for previously, but you are saying they had not been asked for.