Chamber and committees

We have had to make very difficult choices to balance the budget this year. Although the fuel insecurity fund is not committed for 2024-25, the further support that we are providing includes maintained investment in national fuel poverty schemes, warmer homes Scotland and area-based schemes, as well as funding in social security benefits.

Over the course of this parliamentary session, we are allocating at least £1.8 billion to heat and energy efficiency measures in support of people who are least able to pay, and we will continue to provide that. However, many of the powers to make a difference at source remain with the United Kingdom Government. It is not the only one, but one of the most obvious calls that we have made to the UK Government is in relation to the importance of a social tariff, which, unfortunately, the UK Government has chosen not to move forward on.

The modelling estimates that, as a result of Scottish Government policies, 90,000 fewer children will be living in relative or absolute poverty this year. Of that number, 50,000 are connected directly to the Scottish child payment, so we can see the difference that the benefit is making.

In the interests of brevity and of preserving my voice, I point to what I said earlier about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. If universal credit was done right, and if it was fit for purpose and included an essentials guarantee, we would not have to spend that money on the Scottish child payment, or elsewhere.

Our modelling suggests that the payment is making a difference. I am happy to provide more detail in writing about where we are in relation to our targets, but we can certainly prove that the Scottish child payment and our other anti-poverty measures are making a difference.

However, there is no room for complacency, because child poverty rates in Scotland remain too high. That is something that the Scottish Government, and the UK Government, must be cognisant of, as we make policy decisions.

As I said in my opening remarks, the decisions about the affordable housing supply programme have been some of the most difficult that we have had to undertake. We continue working with partners to mitigate the impacts that have led to the construction supply issues, workforce challenges and increased mortgage costs that are having an impact on the deliverability of affordable housing.

We are still investing £556 million from within the budget in affordable housing next year and are undertaking a great deal of work with partners to increase the delivery of affordable homes, the vast majority of which will still be for social rent. That includes supporting the acquisition of existing properties.

On homelessness, I point to the fact that the level 4 figures for homelessness have remained similar to those of the past financial year, so we have protected that investment. However, although we have a good record in delivering affordable homes, the issues with the affordable housing supply programme continue to be among the most challenging areas of the budget.

We still have that target, but, as the Deputy First Minister said when she appeared before the committee, it is at risk. We have arranged a review to ensure that that is looked at. The review is not a review of the target, but of how we can deliver it. It goes much wider than capital budget challenges—although we have those challenges—and considers the impacts on workforce, construction inflation and increased mortgage costs. The review will look at deliverability.

A great deal of work is going on to ensure that we are looking at more innovative finance measures and at boosting investment from the private sector, for example. We want to do everything that we can to bring in further investment not just from the Scottish Government but from elsewhere. There is a continued focus on deliverability to ensure that we are doing everything that we can with the budgets that we are given.

With the greatest respect, Mr Balfour, if the UK Government is slashing the level of financial transactions that we have—which has been one of the key ways in which we have been able to deliver affordable housing—and we are also seeing a real-terms capital budget decrease of 10 per cent over five years, where will that money come from?

If the member is disappointed by the figures for housing, I suggest that there is a genuine challenge when the capital expenditure budget from the UK Government is falling off a cliff. Difficult decisions have had to be made, and the Deputy First Minister has said that affordable housing will be prioritised in the budget should further capital money be found or made available to the Scottish Government. However, with a decreasing budget, increasing construction inflation and the workforce challenges caused by Brexit, there will inevitably be implications for the number of capital programmes that the Scottish Government can undertake.

As we have gone through the budget, we have looked at a number of aspects in terms of their impact on different groups. For example, in its entirety, the cutting of the financial transactions of the Scottish Government by 58 per cent just for next year inevitably has an impact on how much we can do. We look at the topic in the round. It is not about just equality impact assessments; it is about our wider budget and the decisions that are made across different portfolios.

I appreciate that the JRF and others have given their critiques, but our budget decisions are based on fiscal sustainability, legal requirements, contractual obligations and previous commitments, as well as a range of social, economic, political and environmental issues. Those factors sit alongside aspects that involve equality impact assessments. I am happy to provide the committee with information on the analysis that we do to ensure that we deliver the budget in the best possible way.

There is always analysis of impacts on budgets.

We are making good progress on that. Clearly, it is still a bit of a moving feast, given that we are still in the financial year 2023-24, but I have a high degree of confidence that that £60 million will be spent on acquisitions.

I am happy to provide the committee with further detail at the end of the financial year about how the acquisitions plan is going, but that is not an area of concern for us at the moment. I can assure you that the money for the national acquisitions plan is being spent as it was directed to be spent.

We absolutely will involve stakeholders in that work. The Government will undertake a review, but it will be done in partnership with stakeholders.

There is much concern about how the Home Office’s streamlined asylum process is pushing people into destitution and rough sleeping. That is greatly concerning for Glasgow.

We have long called for the Home Office to improve the speed and quality of asylum decisions, but the challenge here is the recent change of pace and the lack of support and co-ordination to accompany that. The Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees wrote to the UK Government in October to request funding to support local authorities to manage that pressure. The reply received from the UK Government confirmed that it will not provide additional funding to support local authorities impacted by the increase in asylum support cessations. That is exceptionally disappointing, given that we still firmly believe that the UK Government must recognise the impact of the streamlined asylum process, and other policy decisions, on local authorities.

Shifting the burden on to local authorities and putting newly recognised refugees at the risk of destitution is an unacceptable consequence of the change in Home Office policy, and we will continue working with local authorities to put pressure on the UK Government to recognise the implications of its policies and to fairly support local authorities during the transition process.