Chamber and committees

Given the scope of my portfolio, there are different outcomes for different parts. In the housing portfolio, we have ongoing work in our action plans, which we are determined to move forward on. I have been working closely with homelessness organisations on a statement of intent and an outcome-based way to ensure that the Government delivers on that. We will be happy to provide further information to the committee as we move forward. Again, we have our targets on the delivery of 110,000 affordable homes, which the committee will be aware of.

On child poverty, our targets are clear and set in statute. We are undertaking a review of the type of targets that we have, but we are absolutely determined to meet them.

In social security, our intention is obviously to continue to develop our services to be more efficient and effective, and to ensure that we are using public service reform to deliver better services for people at the first opportunity.

On cladding, the committee will be aware of the management information that came out in the past few days to provide update on the issue.

I am guessing that that was more than three outcomes, but, given the breadth of my portfolio, I hope that the convener will forgive me.

There is no shortfall in the budget. The budget is fully costed, and it moves forward based on the decisions that the Government has taken. The investment that we make in social security is affordable and sustainable. I made it clear in my opening remarks that a limited amount has to come from the Scottish Government budget that is not covered by the block grant adjustment or funding from the UK.

You are right, convener, that we have taken policy decisions. Students are currently returning to colleges and universities, and one example of that type of policy decision is the fact that student carers in Scotland can apply for support that they cannot find in the rest of the UK. That is a conscious decision that we have taken and, therefore, it is one of the items that we need to cost. Another example of a decision that the Government has taken is the Scottish child payment, and I mentioned in my opening remarks that the Scottish Government makes that investment because of its impact on families. We recognise that the investment that we make in social security has an impact in supporting people. We continue to ensure that we deliver an effective and efficient service and that its costs are closely monitored.

Aspects around people who are in the asylum process and where they go as part of the process are for the Home Office. I have asked to meet Home Office ministers to discuss the issues, but I have not had an agreement to have a meeting. However, it is important that we work together, which is why I reached out to Home Office ministers recently on the issue. If there is a further update on a meeting between the Governments on the issue, I will of course provide the committee with that in due course.

I have a close working relationship with the planning minister, as I do with the chief planner and economy officials, and we recognise the importance of planning in the Government’s desire for barriers to be removed from the system. Some of that is about planning and some of it is not, but it is important that we continue to work together on those issues.

The targets are exceptionally challenging for us to achieve, but even the Fraser of Allander Institute report said that it is still possible for the Scottish Government to achieve them both. We are working to improve the situation, and not just through planning policy. For example, we are working directly with private investors to encourage further investment in Scotland. Although much of that can be undertaken in the affordable housing supply, it is also about improving investment in housing in general. Investors are being attracted to Scotland to invest in housing here. That will have an impact not just on the housing supply but, given our planning policies, on affordable homes.

Different parts of Scotland have different challenges in housing. We have mentioned some of our larger cities. There are other aspects that I discussed when I visited the south of Scotland during the summer. Through more homes Scotland—but not only through that agency—we will ensure that we are an activist Government that is looking at the challenges throughout Scotland. We will look at infrastructure, planning, skills and affordable housing supply, and we will do everything we can to assist with the challenges that are being felt, which vary in different parts of the country.

We are currently consulting on the draft guidance that will help to inform and support the rent control assessments that are due to be submitted to Scottish ministers by May 2027, as was set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025. Before formal consultation took place, there was close work with local authorities on the practical delivery of their responsibilities. The consultation is being undertaken, and, as part of it, we will continue that work with local authorities as we move forward with the measures in the 2025 act.

We will work with local authorities on the support that might be required for effective implementation. The issue of whether a local authority then desires rent controls is based on the rent control assessment that will be undertaken, which is an evidence-based process. I appreciate that some people are supportive of rent controls in their areas and others are against them, which is why the assessment is important. It is an evidence-based assessment that the local authority undertakes before moving to discussions with the Scottish Government. We will continue to engage with local authorities to discuss the support that they feel they need as we go through the implementation of the rent controls.

We are still waiting for the results of the evaluation of those projects, which I think—and I will check with my officials—will be complete by the end of this year.

There are benchmarks in our affordable housing supply programme. Because that is a regional aspect to that work, the officers who work on that programme work carefully with local authorities, RSLs and developers. The benchmarks are there, but there is then detailed discussion about why costs might differ. In an urban area, it might be because the land is contaminated; in a rural or island community, it will be because of the cost of building there rather than elsewhere or because the scale of the site presents challenges. Although there are national benchmarks, there is then detailed discussion about why it will be more expensive to build on one site than on another. We challenge to ensure value for the public purse in everything that is done, but there is absolutely a recognition of the greater expense of building in some areas.

I can give an example of how more homes Scotland will continue that work. We are keen to look at what that agency can do to assist with the aggregation of sites in rural and island communities or to work with employers that are moving into an area. That is so that we can ensure we are looking at inward investment at the same time as housing, so that we understand what temporary housing may be required as development continues as well as how that housing can be used in the longer term.

The work that we can do on housing in specific sites is important, but it is also important to take a step back and look at how to achieve the most overall. That may be through pulling sites together or through working with employers to meet the challenge of building costs.

Building costs have gone up everywhere. Construction inflation has been substantial, particularly since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and that is having an impact everywhere, but I appreciate that that is most keenly felt in rural and island communities.

At the moment, we are working with stakeholders to determine the targets that will best encompass the work that makes an impact on poverty. The work that is being undertaken on the targets at the moment has been exceptionally important. The fact that the Parliament passed those targets has driven a focus, and policy initiatives have allowed us to drive forward the work that we do. It is important to recognise that there are also many policies that we can undertake that do not directly impact on the targets and that can lead to a skewed debate.

09:45

Income-related targets will be impacted most obviously by increasing social security expenditure. Such expenditure is exceptionally important in reducing child poverty levels, but we also need to focus on other drivers of child poverty. For example, the expansion of childcare, which I mentioned in a previous answer, does not have a direct impact on people’s incomes. As we have developed our work, it has seemed strange to me that our targets do not measure the impacts of a number of policies that affect a household’s overall cost of living pressures. Having targets that relate to one driver of poverty but that do not help us to look at the overall picture is a challenging position to be in.

One challenge that income-based targets present relates to, as I said in my introductory remarks, how we deliver policies that not only help people at the moment but drive systemic change. How do we address intergenerational poverty within families? That is best done not through increases in social security spending but by ensuring that people have the right skills and are in well-paid and respected employment. Income-based targets are not easily impacted by those types of areas. That is why we are looking at such issues.

Income is a very important part of our work, but our stakeholders are coming forward with a number of different suggestions on how they wish our approach to develop, and we are in close consultation with them. I do not want to pre-empt that consultation, because it is in its early stages. As we go through that process, we will keep the committee informed on the timescales for the review that will be undertaken.