Chamber and committees

I will be happy to provide further information in writing on, for example, the energy efficiency aspect of the question. However, it is important that, as we look at programmes across Government, we see how we can support low-income families as part of that work. There are some aspects and services that can be universal, and there are some aspects that should be targeted at low-income families.

I can give one example. Yesterday, we had a very interesting discussion on housing at a meeting of the housing to 2040 board. We sat with stakeholders to discuss the budget for next year and the priorities for how we should spend that to assist low-income families in the context of there being a housing emergency. There were discussions on targeting, on temporary accommodation and on all the aspects of how we could use capital, financial transactions and revenue differently.

We had an exceptionally good discussion with stakeholders on the need, as many of them suggested, for the Government to spend money in a way that would target those who are in greatest need, and areas of the country that have the greatest need. We are now reflecting on the feedback that we received yesterday on housing and on how we will use the housing budget to assist us to look at child poverty and low-income families.

I give that as one example, convener—I think that the other part of your question mentioned energy efficiency—but I am happy to provide some of that in writing, if that would assist the committee.

I will not attempt to forecast what a regulator will say, because that would get me, as a Government minister, into difficult territory. However, I will attempt to provide reassurance about the work that we are doing, because I recognise that the regulator has opined on the issue in the past.

You will be well aware of the different ways in which homelessness services can be funded. The majority of funding for homelessness services comes from councils. For 2025-26, we have provided record funding of more than £15 billion to councils to support the delivery of a range of services, including homelessness services. There are also lines in the Scottish Government’s budget that sit separately from the local government settlement. There is funding for homelessness prevention activity, there are rapid rehousing transition plans and there are the additional resources that we will provide to councils with the greatest temporary accommodation pressure. There are those lines in the budget.

In answer to the convener’s previous question, I spoke about the discussions that we had yesterday with stakeholders about how that money could be spent. We looked not just at those lines but at the overall housing budget. I appreciate that that is within another committee’s remit, but that funding very much has an impact on how we tackle homelessness and, in particular, the challenges with families in temporary accommodation.

In relation to how we spend the increase in capital funding, for example, we consulted stakeholders yesterday on how they wish us to spend that money, overall, to assist councils in alleviating the pressures relating to homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation, particularly by families. We are reflecting on yesterday’s discussions, and that will allow us to come to conclusions on how to use the money. There is also additional money in the budget for assistance with empty homes, which will help to tackle homelessness.

Various lines in the Scottish Government’s budget outwith the general funds for local authorities and the lines that relate specifically to homelessness all add up in providing assistance in tackling homelessness. As you pointed out, I am sure that many of those lines will be discussed when Mr McLennan appears before the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee next week.

That is another of the points that we discussed yesterday when we were talking about the balance between how much should be spent on increasing the supply of new homes and of homes overall, and how much should be used to tackle voids and to look at acquisitions and empty homes. Acquisitions do not increase the overall supply of housing, but they are a quicker way of getting people out of temporary accommodation than building new homes is. The balance between spending on new supply and spending on voids, acquisitions and empty homes was part of the discussion.

We have been clear that the Government wants to ensure that we have a pipeline of new affordable homes—and of new homes in general—which will assist the construction sector and the overall delivery of homes. However, the point was made to me and the Minister for Housing yesterday that, in a housing emergency, we may wish to spend the money differently. That discussion focused on acquisitions, for example, as a quicker way to have stock available in the affordable housing supply.

The discussions are on-going, but the feedback that we received yesterday was helpful. Yesterday will not be stakeholders’ only opportunity to feed back us, but it was good to have around the table everybody with their different views having a discussion. We did not come to a consensus—as you may expect, given the number of people around the table—on how to balance the budget, but we are determined to ensure that we are delivering on the supply of new homes and also considering what needs to be done in a housing emergency.

I would not go as far as to suggest what the Auditor General will find in that report. However, if I can talk again about the assumptions on which the forecasting is based, I think that we can see an overall increase in the number of people who are coming forward for disability benefits in total, and also an increase in Scotland.

It is important to look at the assumptions on which the forecasts are based, and I am happy to provide further information on that. Our budgets are based on the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecasts; those assumptions are all laid out by the Fiscal Commission.

There might be recommendations, particularly in the review of the adult disability payment, that would not incur additional expenditure—they might be about improving the way in which the system works—but I absolutely take your point. You have raised two very important and significant pieces of work that could well come with significant price tags for certain aspects.

Inevitably, the Government will need to review the recommendations and consider the delivery requirements. We will also need to consider whether the Government agrees with the timescales for the recommendations, because, clearly, the more radical the recommendations, the more challenging they will be, given the fiscal environment in which the Scottish Government is working. Considering the affordability of changes will be an important next step in the process after the reviews are published.

As you alluded to in your question, the reviews are independent and will come to conclusions and make recommendations for the Government as they see fit. It will then be important for the Government to reflect on the recommendations and to look at their affordability and deliverability to ensure that, if we agree with them, we can analyse when they could be effected. That is the cold, hard reality.

Liz Smith talked about the investment in the mitigation of the two-child cap. We have decided to do that and it will have financial implications for the Government, which is why we will have to look very carefully at significant reviews such as those that we are discussing when we consider them.

The gateway review is a very important part of our process of ensuring that we are delivering the programme effectively, and I am confident that we are. Part of the gateway review looks at the closure, in effect, of one of the Scottish Government’s most significant work programmes, which is the devolution of social security. It is a significant programme and therefore requires careful handling. The gateway review rated the social security programme in general at amber-green status in meeting its existing delivery requirements.

The closure of the programme is, clearly, very challenging, for the reasons that I have set out. I will give some examples of what has already been put in place between the programme and the agency, Social Security Scotland. There is close working on the change process that will need to take place to move things from the social security programme to the agency. The staffing has been changed to ensure that that can happen effectively. The relevant people have already been working exceptionally closely together, but the move from the programme to the agency as part of the change function is well under way. I have had a number of meetings with both the programme and the agency to talk about the closure of the programme.

We need to remember that although the devolution programme will come to an end, in effect, adaptations to social security will not. Therefore, we will continue to deliver any policy changes that are instructed by ministers through the change function in the agency. I am confident about where we are at present with the move and I am very confident in the work that the agency is undertaking to ensure that it has the right skill set, which once sat within the programme but which now needs to move to the agency. A change in the skill set will be required as the programme moves and once social security is at more of a steady state. Clearly, we will never be in a position where there will be no changes, but we will reach a steady state for the overall social security programme and will look to make changes within what is devolved at that point.

That will require regulation here, but it will require legislation at Westminster, as well. In essence, the regulations will be Scotland Act 1998 orders.

Unless James Wallace can help me with that directly, we might need to get back to you in writing.

The UK Government has in place its task force, which is due to respond reasonably soon. I still hope that the UK Government will do the right thing. As I laid out earlier, it has been clear from all the evidence over many years that that is the single biggest intervention that the UK Government could make to lift children out of poverty. If it does so, I would, of course, welcome that.

The UK Government has already made exceptionally minor changes to universal credit. Mr O’Kane referenced one of those changes in his speech during the Tuesday debate. That points to the fact that changes could have been made earlier, but the UK Government has chosen not to make them. In that space, we will continue to work as quickly as possible to mitigate the two-child cap. However, I still call on the UK Government to abolish it, because continuing to mitigate the bedroom tax, benefit cap and two-child cap are key challenges for the Scottish Government.

Separate to the task force—I know that it is looking at social security—there is an on-going review of universal credit. Unfortunately, the devolved Administrations do not have a seat at the table of the overall task force, which is for UK Government ministers. There is a four-nations sub-committee, which precludes Scottish Government ministers or officials from being aware of what is being discussed at UK Government level.

In some ways, that is fair enough—it is the UK Government’s task force—but the challenge for all the devolved Administrations is that changes that could be made in the task force because of the reserved and devolved complications that we have mean that what is decided by the UK task force could have significant implications for what happens up here. There is a real need for that task force to take account of what is happening in Scotland, and I hope that that is happening. Those are the points that I and other devolved Administrations make in the four-nations sub-committee.