Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I am happy to. We have chosen to increase the child winter heating assistance by 5 per cent, which is above the rate of inflation, as we wanted to do all that we can to help families of the most severely disabled children and young people cope with rising energy costs. Those rising energy costs are clearly a big concern for people at the moment. That was the thinking behind that, and I think that that will be important for those in that position.

I will come back to the committee with more detail on that. The point that I am making is that new standards are better at meeting the needs of people with mobility requirements.

The housing to 2040 strategy is clearly a journey that will take place over a longer timeframe for meeting higher standards. I want to get to the position that is set out in the vision for housing to 2040 sets out, which is that at the end of the journey, all homes, particularly new homes, should be barrier free. We are on a journey on that. I will come back to the committee with a bit of detail on targets and timeframes along the way to housing to 2040.

No, not that we are aware of, although we will always encourage the UK Government to do that. We are doing what we can to support carers—I am happy to go into that in a bit more detail at some point during this evidence session.

On Marie McNair’s earlier point about mitigation, the Scottish Government has invested £114 million in the past financial year to directly mitigate the impact of UK Government cuts through discretionary housing payments, which I mentioned, but also through the Scottish welfare fund. That investment is part of £367 million that has been invested above funding through block grant adjustments received from the UK Government to deliver financial support through social security.

We continue to do what we can, but we cannot mitigate everything. Whether on carers or other benefits, the UK Government needs to step up to the plate.

I am certainly not aware that there is a cohort of people who would lose any benefit, but I might bring Kevin Stevens in on that. I am happy to write back to the committee with more detail on that. If anything, the ADP criteria mean that, as I laid out in previous answers, people moving across will be more likely to retain, rather that lose, their entitlement. I am not quite sure where the evidence that Jeremy Balfour mentioned has come from, but I am happy to look into that.

Does Kevin Stevens have anything to add on the specifics of that?

Okay. I am happy to write to the committee with more information.

That is always a concern because of the hybrid system. Any reduction in benefits spend by the UK Government will have a direct impact on what is available here in Scotland. That has always been the case and is one of the difficulties of the system. Emma Roddick will no doubt be aware of the green paper that has been produced.

There could well be divergence between policies north and south of the border on disability benefits. At the moment, we do not know what that would mean for the quantum that would be spent by the Department for Work and Pensions. If it were to increase, that would clearly be of benefit to the Scottish budget, but if it decreased there would be a reduction. That would be extremely difficult, given that we have already spent beyond the money in the block grant and have put additional Scottish Government money into social security. The block grant’s being reduced would clearly make our situation very difficult. That is one of the challenges with the current system; it is a big concern.

First, no money for homelessness services will be lost. The money that will support them is guaranteed, and however and whenever it is paid, it will certainly not be lost.

A general point on the local government settlement—Miles Briggs is obviously aware of the exchanges that we had with the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee—is that we have tried to ensure that local government gets a fair settlement within a very difficult fiscal and financial environment. We recognise that our partnership with local government is critical to delivering many of the services that relate to poverty. A lot of the money that I have talked about today will be routed through local government. I have mentioned a number of examples of that, including discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund, both of which support people who require support.

We have made additional moneys available for advice services and we expect them to be maintained. We recognise the role that local government has in ensuring that people have access to the information that they need. That is in addition to the work of our third sector partners and our work to make sure that people are aware of the support that is available, including the national campaigns that are run. We will continue to have those discussions with local government, but the advice services are an important aspect of that.

Any changes that increase funding for social security at Westminster have a positive benefit on our budget and, of course, as we talked about earlier, the reverse is also true. I would encourage a review of the 20m rule as part of the green paper. Having the DWP reviewing disability benefits from a positive point of view at the same time as we look to review the ADP and its criteria would be very helpful.

If we could reach a common understanding and agreement, that would allow people’s reserved benefits not to be put in jeopardy. If the UK Government’s direction of travel on disability benefits were more flexible and more generous, that would, of course, help the situation here in Scotland on the budgetary position and on the scope of change of criteria as well.

As I have mentioned on a few occasions, all of these things will be entered into the resource spending review, which provides the opportunity and the platform to discuss them. It is not just the third sector that is wanting to move to multiyear settlements; it is local government as well. Kate Forbes has already agreed with local government that we will start discussions on a multiyear fiscal framework, if you like. Therefore, through the resource spending review, we will want to have a parallel discussion on moving in that direction with the third sector.

Let me try to answer those questions in turn. The Scottish welfare fund provides a vital safety net for people experiencing a financial crisis or needing help. Obviously, it cannot be a regular source of income for someone, but it can help in crisis situations.

In 2022-23, we are investing £41 million in the Scottish welfare fund. Forty-five per cent of crisis grant applications are made by people requiring help due to their benefits or income having already been spent. Local authorities are able to carry forward any underspend from the previous year’s budget, which means that the total available in the current financial year is £45 million. Last year, more than £49 million was paid out from the fund and more than 200,000 individual awards were made to low-income households. Of course, a number of councils add to the fund.

In addition, £25 million of flexible funding, which is part of the £41 million winter support fund, is available to support people experiencing financial insecurity. We recognise that this winter will be tough because of rising costs, and that £25 million of flexible funding should help local authorities to meet people’s needs.

The distribution of funds is based on the number of low-income benefit recipients in each local authority and has been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, so any changes would need to be agreed with COSLA.

We committed to undertake a full independent review of the welfare fund to ensure that it works as well as possible across the country, and it will look at issues such as funding, administration, promotion, take-up and accessibility. I can tell the committee that, following our competitive tendering exercise, a preferred contractor has been identified to undertake independent research, and we are finalising the contract with the organisation. I am happy to update the committee when that is done and the work begins. I expect the work to start imminently—by the end of the month—and the final report is expected by the end of this year.

A key element is about gathering the views of applicants to the fund to hear what they have to say about whether the fund is successful or not, and a review advisory group has been established to provide oversight of the research process. That will include membership from the key organisations that you would expect.

I hope that all of that helps us to address any issues that need to be addressed in improving the welfare fund.