���˿���

We are keen to work on that area, because I think that it will benefit the Government, too. We have done a little bit of that, and I have no doubt that we will do more of it when we come to our budget scrutiny, given the many asks that are made of Government and the many challenges that the Government faces in delivering on those asks. Such considerations are not just financial but practical with regard to how long it will take to implement a policy, whether primary or secondary legislation will be required or, indeed, whether changes to the agency’s social security system will be required. We are very thoughtful about such things.

I would think that a great deal is already being published. I would be happy for Julie Humphreys to come in, as the work that we do around this annually is really important.

It is an area of great concern. The levels of homelessness and the number of families in temporary accommodation are a particular concern. That is why the Government established a temporary accommodation task and finish group, which set out some actions for the Government to take. We have responded to that—I gave some examples in relation to the £60 million that was made available this year to support the national acquisition plan and to ensure that we work with social landlords to deliver a new programme of stock management. We see that working very successfully in particular local authorities, although it is not being used to the same extent right across the 32 council areas. Every council will have its own stock management process and policies, but, where that policy has made a clear impact, it serves as an example of local government and national Government working together to share good practice.

We will continue with the affordable housing supply programme, and we are working with particular local authorities that have hotspots—as Mr Balfour mentioned. Edinburgh is a key example. We are working with the local authority and asking about the specific support solutions that it would wish to see in place. Clearly, we have to work in the financial context that we are all in, but we are working at the national level and with particular local authorities where either there is good practice or there are specific housing needs. The Minister for Housing is meeting housing conveners and many others from local authorities to take that work forward with each local authority that requires it.

I appreciate where the member is coming from. All the consequentials that are given to the Scottish Government are used. If the member wishes to see more money going into childcare, the simple fact is that it will have to come from somewhere else, and that will have to be taken into account. The consequentials are not sitting unused. We have already invested in childcare, as Ms Don has said, but the money must come from somewhere, if the member is suggesting that more should go into childcare.

We work closely with the UK Government, despite our many differences on policy issues. The area around devolved social security is a joint programme, so we need to work very carefully.

This is just a simple matter of fact about where the powers lie in devolution and about what we can do without there being consequences for reserved issues. It is a statement of fact that we have all worked hard to see where the boundaries could be pushed, but no one wants to get into a position where we are endangering people’s benefits.

I am afraid that the parental transition fund has just run its course as a concept. However, the principle behind it was to support parents, and we have already tried to do what we can in that area. From the member’s time on the previous Social Security Committee, he will be well aware of the job start payment and the work that we undertook on that. We do what we can within the powers that we have, but there are limits to that. Then it is about making sure that what we have can be used most effectively. That goes into Neil Gray’s responsibility on employability and further support that we can give.

I mentioned in my introductory remarks—Julie Humphreys has just touched on it, too—the modelling that is being done on the 90,000 children who have been lifted out of poverty because of Scottish Government policies. It is a very important aspect of what we do.

Let me put that in context with regard to the impact on the Scottish Government budget of delivering such policies. We have allocated almost £3 billion last year and this year to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible from the cost of living crisis, and we recognise that as a very important aspect of the Government’s work. That is a significant investment and it is the right thing to do, but everything that we do in that area means that we are not doing something somewhere else.

A specific example is the £127 million that we used to mitigate specific UK Government welfare policies. I think that it was Mr Doris who suggested, in a recent debate, that we should view the Scottish child payment, which amounts to more than £400 million, as a mitigation measure, because—to be frank—if universal credit was at a sufficient level, there might be no need for the Scottish Government to continue to support children to the extent that we are doing.

Mitigation is clearly important, and we need to do it, but it is not without its implications for other parts of the budget. I am happy to go into more detail on that almost £3 billion, either now or in writing, should that be of use to the committee.

The member again raises a very important point; that is exactly why this area is one that we and local government were very keen to have at the heart of the Verity house agreement, in which we have a shared objective on tackling child poverty. There is a great deal of work that goes on within that scope between the Government and COSLA and, separately, between the Government and local authorities.

The committee will be aware of the requirements around local child poverty action reports, which are local government’s responsibility, but the issue is not just about local authorities—there are many other aspects to it. Julie Humphreys, do you want to provide any further detail?

It is a simple process during the budget process. If the member wishes money to be moved, if she is not satisfied with what is in childcare when she sees the budget when it is produced, then it needs to come from somewhere else. I suggest that, if the member wishes to use consequentials differently, her party should produce a balanced budget suggesting where that money would come from.

The monitoring for “Best Start, Bright Futures” that we have already discussed will pick up the impacts of that. The Scottish Government is investing almost £3 billion, which would be having more of an impact if we did not have high inflation, the UK Government’s welfare policies and other external factors that are impacting on people. That modelling work will pick up the fact that, although the Scottish Government is making an impact, it is clear that we would be making more of an impact if the financial context was not so difficult.

I hope that that explains the position to the committee in the time that I have available, but I am happy to provide more information in writing about how that modelling is done, if that would assist.

I am not aware of any concerns about levels of temporary accommodation and the impact that Mr Balfour suggests our work on rent caps will have. I am happy to liaise with Mr Harvie and Mr McLennan on that issue to see whether any further updates are required.

It is very important that we take action to support people in the private rented sector. Higher rents affect people not just in Scotland but throughout the UK, and it is important that we take the issue very seriously. We also have to take very seriously any impact that rents have on the size of the private rented sector and on landlords. That is why the Minister for Housing regularly meets private landlord representative bodies and others to ensure that he clearly hears any concerns or suggestions that they might have. I hope that we all have a shared interest and responsibility in providing support to those in the private rented sector in the context of exceptionally high rent level increases.

I am giving active consideration to that, but the member is quite right to point to the challenges. The current system is literally based on paper sitting in a large warehouse—even if we wanted to lift and shift Scottish cases from that paper-based system, it is not set up to enable us to do that. The system is untouched and quite archaic in the way in which it is currently administered, which is a real challenge.

The committee will be well aware of the costs of the devolution programme for social security and would be right to question me on them. Inevitably, there would be more cost involved in providing a benefit up here when we are not able in any way to lift and shift the information from a digital programme down south. Devolving the benefit presents us with great challenges, and we therefore need to be cognisant of the cost of that and what that would mean. That is why I am looking carefully at how it could be done. We need to look at the cost not just of the benefit but of the implementation. That can be approached in several ways, but, as I said, it would not be without cost.

I am giving consideration to the matter, but, at this point, I am unable to provide the committee with a date when any consultation would go live.