 Weltyste drwy gw meaningful o ni, pol losteis iawn a gyfnod strategiaf yn gysylltwdd thosegwy�ol yng ngyfl fadei yn 2024. Byddwn hi adолod ei cas �endolaeth, HOW Don Meas enw. Itw lEE'r gwi入yn John Mason, ond os fynd i ni sicrhau gydalaywn Aquasiting Minerals. online with us, so our first item of business for today is a decision to take agenda item 4 in private, are we all agreed? Thank you. Our next item is the consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument, the welfare foods best start foods Scotland's amendment regulations 2023. The instrument is subject to the negative procedure, and the purpose of the instrument is to amend welfare foods best start foods Scotland regulations 2019. The main changes are the removal of the income thresholds for qualifying benefits, a further alignment of the eligibility criteria with best start grant, Scottish child payment and some technical changes to how payments are made. Do members have any comments on the instrument? Of course I'm not going to not support this instrument, but I think best start foods can sometimes be seen as a poor relation in relation to investment in supporting children and families across Scotland. It is important to put on the record that the best start grant and best start foods which give voucher support best start grants cash but best start foods is effectively prepaid cash support to children and families has benefited over 400,000 people since its inception, 105 million pounds, 17.3 million pounds benefiting constituents in Glasgow where I represent. If we passed this today, that would be additional 20,000 children and families that will benefit. I know that it makes a real difference, and I think that this committee would be wise sometimes to hear directly from the lived experience of people receiving these types of grants to see the actual focused difference that it makes on the grounds. I really wanted to put that on the record, but also that the value of this will be for women that are pregnant in removing the income threshold on qualifying benefits will get £19.80 every four weeks, and in the first year when they have that child they'll get £36.90. Those are the most generous, the most supportive series of grants anywhere in the UK, and indeed the five grants in the round will see children in Scotland receiving additional £10,000 by their sixth birthday. At the heart of it, best art foods makes a laser-light focused difference to some of the poorest and most vulnerable children that there are in Scotland. We sometimes just pass these things and it goes completely unnoticed. This extends this to additional 20,000 children and it's a £6 million investment, so I think it's important to put these things on the record because it's public money for the public benefit and this really delivers. I very much welcome your comments, Bob, and we will put that on record, so thank you. Are members content to know the instrument? Can I confirm with the members joining us remotely, youth content? Yes. So next this morning is an evidence session on the budget for 2024-25. The committee's pre-budget report was published in November and the Scottish Government provided its response to the report on 19 December. The budget was also published on 19 December, sorry. Today we will undertake scrutiny of the budget with Shirley-Anne Somerville, cabinet secretary for social justice. Can I welcome the cabinet secretary and I hope she's feeling much better? I also welcome officials accompanying you today, Stephen Cair, director of social security, Shirley-Lane, director of tackling child poverty and social justice and Sean Neil, director for local government and communities, Scottish Government. So thank you very much for joining us today. Before we return to questions, I'm going to invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning. This has been a challenging budget setting process given the backdrop we have of a continued austerity act Westminster and, of course, catastrophic cuts to the Scotland's Block Grant. Our Barnett funding, which is driven by UK spending choices, has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since the 2022-23 budget was presented. The UK Government did not inflation proof their capital budget, which has resulted in a near 10 per cent real terms fall in our UK capital funding over the medium term. As a result, this Government has had to make some difficult decisions, but I am confident that we have prioritised our resources to deliver on our three missions of equality, opportunity and community. At the heart of this budget is the social contract between the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, a social contract where the tax contribution is based on the ability to pay and strong public services are understood as enabling a strong society and growing economy, from free prescriptions to free access to higher education to the baby box and the Scottish child payment. That is why, in the coming year, the draft budget allocates more than £3 billion to policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible during the on-going cost-of-living crisis. That includes supporting households by providing 114 hours of funded childcare for all three-in-four and eligible two-year-olds, providing free bus travel for over 2 million people and offering free school meals to all children in primaries one to five plus eligible children in other years. We continue to build a Scottish social security system with dignity, fairness and respect. In line with the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast, we are investing a record £6.3 billion for benefits expenditure in 2425, providing support to over 1.2 million people, money that will go directly to those who need it most. We are investing just over £1 billion more than in 2324, supporting disabled people, supporting older people to heat their homes in winter and helping low-income families with their living costs. That investment is £1.1 billion more than the level of funding forecast to be received from the UK Government through the social security block grant adjustments. That includes increasing our unique benefit, the Scottish child payment, in line with inflation, to £26.70 a week, giving more support to over 329,000 under-16s who receive it. That investment continues to underline our commitment to everything within the scope of our powers and budget in order to meet our statutory child poverty targets and be relentless in that focus. Alongside the significant investment, I am pleased to announce additional funding this financial year of over half a million pounds for local projects to tackle poverty and inequality. In 2324, our cash first fund and child poverty practice accelerator fund will support a total of 17 projects across the country to improve flexible local access to cash in a crisis and to develop new approaches to tackling child poverty respectively. The draft budget for 2425 will enable those partnerships to continue to provide vital evidence that can help shape future policy and practice. In housing, inflationary pressures, Brexit impacts and wider market conditions have combined to trigger various issues, including rising construction costs and workforce challenges. The housing sector has done incredible work to deliver homes in these circumstances, and we continue to work with partners to mitigate those impacts. Reducing funding for affordable housing is one of the most difficult choices we have taken. However, I can confirm that more than £555 million will be available in 2425, despite the failure of the UK Government to inflation proof the capital budget. We have also maintained our homelessness and housing support resource budget at broadly similar levels to 2324, the £35 million allocated to specific action to end homelessness and reduced the number of households living in temporary accommodation. That is in addition to homelessness funding provided through the local government settlement and investment in discretionary housing payments of over £90 million, an increase of more than £6 million to mitigate the worst impacts of UK Government welfare reform. We are investing £45 million in Ukrainian resettlement, including £5 million capital through the Ukraine long-term resettlement fund. Working to the principles of a warm Scots future strategy, the Government will continue its partnership with COSLA, the Scottish Refugee Council and the volunteer community. The budget also includes £41 million investment in the Cladding Remediation programme, and we are also committed to delivering fairer funding for the third sector. In 2425, we will ensure prompt notification of grant awards to third sector bodies, increasing the number of multi-year awards and review grant conditions. The agenda recognises the critical role that the third sector plays. The UK Government's autumn statement was the worst case scenario for Scotland following a decade of austerity, a hard Brexit and disastrous economic mismanagement at Westminster. Despite those challenges, I am pleased with the overall package of support within my portfolio and its contribution to the equality mission. I thank the committee for its pre-budget scrutiny and look forward to taking your questions. Okay, thank you very much Cabinet Secretary. I'm now going to invite members to ask questions, so initially I'm going to ask you, I'm intrigued to hear, and if you could elaborate a bit more on the cash first that you announced here. So there are two parts to the funding today, convener. Firstly, the child poverty practice accelerator fund that's supporting nine local authorities with small-scale projects. This is an important fund that was opened for applications last summer, and the announcement today is on those successful applications. And secondly, the part on the cash first programme, which meets our plans towards ending the need for food banks. It's perhaps worth remembering that that's the first plan of its kind in the UK, and that will provide £1.8 million of funding over the next three years to support a number of local partnerships, improve urgent access to cash in a crisis. Okay, thank you very much. Next question is, I mean, to what extent would you like the one billion additional spend on social security benefits that's being funded through higher than anticipated income tax revenue? So the additional spend does not come from one specific revenue stream, so it wouldn't be correct to draw a line between a particular policy on income tax and say that that policy is responsible for funding commitment. Rather, of course, the entirety of the funding position, what we receive from the UK Government, from the block grant and what we choose to raise in taxes, then supports ministerial decisions on government's policy priorities. Some of the changes that have led to that one billion additional spend relate to aspects that impact on the whole of the UK. Therefore, they might be dealt with through block grant adjustments, but not all of them. If I can perhaps draw the committee's attention to the aspect in which I mentioned in my introductory remarks that we intend as a Government to spend over £1 billion more than we receive from the UK Government in social security block grant adjustment. That's because we have taken decisions as a Government that are unique to Scotland. A lot of that is to do with new benefits. For example, of course, the Scottish child payment, but we also have other social security payments such as the Scottish welfare fund discretionary housing payment and the spend above block grant adjustments for social security in areas where there are benefits in the UK. Some of the most obvious examples of that are our higher spending, perhaps, on adult disability payment when compared to PIP. I believe that the Scottish Fiscal Commission gave evidence on that and the reasons why that may be the case. However, much of that is down to the decisions that we took as a Government in terms of eligibility and our encouragement of people to apply for benefits as well. Why is the programme budget increasing when the programme business case suggested it would be falling by this stage? Is the programme still expected to finish at the end of 2025, as stated in the business case? The programme business case covers only resource and capital budgets and was published in February 2023. The 24-25 draft Scottish Government budget includes other costs that are not in the programme business case. Some of the examples of that include depreciation, which is why a like for like comparison is not straightforward. There are aspects within the programme business case that set out forecast resource and capital expending for £99 million, whereas the budget allocation is £162.6 million. The reasons for those costs variation include, for example, the Scottish Government pay awards that have increased staff costs and the fact that we now have dedicated funding for transition costs, which were not part of the programme business case. However, I am happy to ask Stephen Kerr to go into further detail, should the member wish on that. It may be something that the Cabinet Secretary could keep the committee advised on, but I do not know if her colleague has anything that he wants to add at this stage. Audit Scotland and her annual audit pointed out that funding for transition needs to be found as part of the move of services from the programme, which is where they are designed and delivered into the agency. The budget settlement does now start to provide a regular stream funding to allow us to do that. To give you an example of what we mean, it can sound a bit complicated. We design and deliver, for example, a document management system that is then handed into the agency, and that is the way of making sure that all the material, the paperwork that they receive is stored and used correctly by client advisers. When that system gets handed over, potentially in the future it could be improved or expanded to cope with more volumes, so there is a cost that will be involved in that. What we are starting to see now is recognition of those costs and those costs being built into the funding that we receive in the Government. Given that it does seem to be a changing situation, it would be helpful if the committee could be kept closely advised. The other issue that I was wanting to ask about was the new benefits that are coming in, because the Scottish Government is bringing two new benefits this year, as you know, pension age, disability benefit and pension age winter heating payment. How much is it costing to create the systems and processes to deliver those new benefits, and how is it envisaged that those benefits will differ from their DWP equivalents? We do not provide cost estimates against individual benefits, including the two that the member mentions. The reason for that is because the system within Social Security Scotland is an integrated one, so that much of what is used for new benefits is building on what is already there, so we are not building separate systems for different benefits and then attaching them altogether. It is one integrated system. That is important because it allows some of the functionality that we design in that can be used for a number of benefits. For example, application forms correspond to clients, and that helps with costs overall to ensure that we are using the system as effectively and efficiently as possible. When it comes to the differences in it, if I can take pension age disability payment to begin with, there are differences in particular around the inclusive application channels, and one of the most important ones that colleagues will already be well aware of is that in-person support through our local delivery service, and the improving access that we can see by that increased support for people that is provided directly by Social Security Scotland. In essence, that will help to improve take-up rates, meaning that more people get what they are entitled to. Again, some of the improvements that are coming through for pension age disability payment are similar to those that are already there for child or adult disability payments, so new terminal illness definitions and the availability of short-term assistance. Importantly, that helps in gathering supporting information as well. When it comes to pension age winter heating payment, that will replace the winter fuel payment for 24-25 winter. Our intention is to deliver a replacement that will ensure a safe and secure transition of around 1 million eligible people. We have committed to the fact that no one will lose out once we take responsibility for pension age winter heating payment, so under a like-for-like replacement for the winter fuel payment, everyone who would currently be eligible to receive winter fuel payment will continue to receive the benefit that they were entitled to. Thank you. Clearly, the committee will be wanting to continue to scrutinise those new benefits, so again, if the cabinet secretary could keep the committee advice, that would be much appreciated. Thanks very much, Katie. Now, I invite James Dornan, who is also joining us remotely. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, your response to the committee refers to almost £3 billion spending in 2023-24 on tackling and cost of living, but they previously referred to almost £3 billion that has been spent in 2022-23 on this. So, has this figure actually increased, given the background of high inflation, or remained roughly the same as the previous year? It is very important that we continue to recognise the pressure on household budgets, which is why, since 2022-23, we have continued to allocate around £3 billion a year to policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible. Spending in 2022-23 reflected a number of aspects that are no longer included in the budget for this year, just because of changing circumstances. So, for example, in 2022-23, we had the investment in cost of living payments worth £150, which the committee will remember, but we have seen increased spending in other policies, which has meant that the Scottish Government has continued to invest £3 billion a year. This year, in addition to continuing investment, we are also setting aside £144 million in the Scottish budget to reach agreement across local government to deliver the council tax freeze. If I can give some examples of the £3 billion that are forecast for 2024-25, some of the largest contributors to that include our continued commitment on concessionary travel, the council tax reduction scheme, free NHS-funded eye examinations and optical vouchers, the Scottish child payment funding from early learning and childcare, and many more items as well. We do endeavour to ensure that we are providing as much support as we can, given the relatively fixed budget that the Scottish Government has. I wonder if it would be easy for the Government to send an itemised list of the policies included in the figure 23-24 addressing cost of living, along with an indication of the budget for 2024-25 on these items. Yes, I am certainly happy to provide in writing some more information to the committee on where the budget has been for 2023-24 and what is forecast for 2024-25. I am giving Mr Dorn and some of the larger items in that forecast for 2024-25 in my original answer, but we can provide detail to committee that will go through in detail, for example the free period products, the baby box, the best dirt foods, which was mentioned earlier on for the secondary legislation, which committee has looked at as well as a number of other items, so we can provide that in writing rather than going through every single road just now. I will ask a question around the fuel insecurity fund. Given the continuing high levels of fuel poverty, can you tell the committee what the Scottish Government has put in place to replace the fuel insecurity fund? We have had to make very difficult choices to balance the budget this year, and while the full insecurity fund is not committed for 2024-25, we are providing further support that obviously includes maintained investment in national fuel poverty schemes, the warmer homes Scotland and area-based schemes, as well as the funding that we have within social security benefits. Over the course of this Parliament, we are allocating at least £1.8 billion towards heat and energy efficiency measures and support those that are least able to pay, and we will continue to provide that. However, many of the powers to really make a difference at source remain with the UK Government. One, not the only one, but one of the most obvious calls that we have made towards the UK Government is around the importance of a social tariff, which, unfortunately, the UK Government has not chosen to move forward on. I do think that it is well worth putting again on the fact that we are making record social security investments in contrast to the welfare cuts that have been made at Westminster, but how do you think the reductions in the employability budget lines will impact an employability support for parents? Decisions to reduce employability budget lines have not been easy, but in a challenging financial context, they have unfortunately been necessary. Every savings decision taken related to employability funding has been taken with the primary aim of protecting investments in front-line services as far as we possibly can. We have seen the number of parents accessing services since parental employability support became a funded priority in April 2020, rise year on year, and we remain committed to increasing the effectiveness of our services for parents in line with child poverty commitments. That is, of course, very much with our partnership with local government. The draft budget sets out our plan to invest up to £90 million in devolved employability services in 24-25, and we will continue to prioritise specific investment aimed at supporting parents during that process. I believe that Mary McNair would like to come in on a supplementary question. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. Alongside the two-child policy and universal credit, the basic cap is a policy that denies families with children the basic subsistence levels in the UK benefits. Having a long-term campaigner for mitigation was delighted when the Scottish Government funded mitigation through discretion of housing payment. In what way does this budget maintain this mitigation, and how effective is it in tackling child poverty? The budget ensures that we continue to mitigate against some of the worst excesses of UK Government decisions. We will continue that next year. We have funding to continue to mitigate the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. We have the Scottish welfare fund as well. I raise two points alongside that. Clearly, I would class the Scottish child payment in effect as a mitigation measure, because, quite frankly, if universal credit was at the rate that it should be, we would not need to be coming in with additional funding for the Scottish child payment. That is money that would therefore be able to be spent elsewhere. The aspects around—not the Scottish child payment, but just the other aspects around mitigation, for example, on 23-24, cost £127 million. That is the financial year that we are currently in. That is clearly money that we could have spent in a different way this year, or we could spend in a different way next year, if the UK Government had agreed with the proposal for an essentials guarantee that would ensure that universal credit was at the level that allowed people sufficient money to deal with essentials. We are simply talking about essentials at that point, not a high standard of living. When we look at the money that is being spent on mitigating measures, and we look at the money that is also being spent on the Scottish child payment, that is money that the Scottish Government could be using on other poverty measures, not just on child poverty, if we were not having to mitigate against that. Again, I am happy to provide further detail on the mitigation cost to committee in writing as well. That Joseph Rowntree Foundation report backs up the report into the poverty levels in the UK, obviously making the case for, as you say, the essentials guarantee. In Scotland, the Scottish welfare fund helps to mitigate against destitution in a way that is not available in the other parts of the UK. How is the Scottish welfare fund being supported in this budget? Has it been an important contribution to helping those experiencing the worst forms of poverty? The member is quite right to point to that recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. For example, GRF estimates that if universal credit standard allowance was set at £120 per week for a single adult and £200 for a couple, it could lift 1.8 million people out of poverty, including 600,000 children across the UK. The recent report brings to stark figures the number of children that are being held in poverty because of the fact that universal credit is not fit for purpose. When it comes to the Scottish welfare fund, we will protect the investment that we are making on the Scottish welfare fund for £41 million, and that will deliver support rights across Scotland. That is on top of the continued investment in discretionary housing payments as well, which mitigates against the bedroom tax, as well as a number of other measures. Thank you. I am just going to stop you there. I am just really conscious of the time. I am just going to my next question. Before I do that, I am Paul O'Kane. I would like to come in on a supplementary. I am very grateful, convener, and good morning to cabinet secretary. I can just briefly return to the point on employability funding and reductions in those lines for employability funding. The First Minister and the programme for government made much of economic growth being the hallmark of his Government and the importance of economic growth in terms of poverty reduction. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would reflect that reducing employability funding does not actually contribute to that overall strategy of economic growth. In fact, is this not a rather short-termist approach in terms of what we are trying to do to get people back into work and drive that growth in the economy? As I said in my remarks earlier, we have very much endeavour to protect the investment in the front-line services as much as we possibly can. That includes the focus that we have on parental employability support and that being a funded priority. I totally appreciate that members may have views on what budgets may be increased. I am happy, as I am sure colleagues are right across the cabinet to work with Scottish Labour should they wish to come forward with costed proposals about how they may wish to see those employability budget lines changed. As always with those aspects, there is an ask to increase employability or, indeed, other budgets, the changes that could be made elsewhere in a budget that would allow that increase to be made on those lines. However, I am happy to work with Mr O'Kane should he feel that something should be done on that, as I am sure my colleague Neil Gray would be. I am conscious of the time, but I know that Bob Doris wants to come in with a further supplementary before we move on to the theme of housing and homelessness. We have got until roughly about 11.15, so I remind everyone to be as clear and succinct with their questions and answers. Cabinet Secretary, I do not see how we can scrutinise the Scottish budget and not ask specifically the £457 million in the Scottish budget for the Scottish child payment in the coming year. I hope to benefit those £300,000 children in the previous year. That money spent on that is money not spent on something else. I welcome spending, but it has to be evidence-led. Our parental employment inquiry heard that modelling work for the Scottish Government has child poverty at 19 per cent. In Scotland, 28 per cent—understand not modelling work, but available figures for Wales was 28 per cent and maybe 31 per cent for England—appear to be evidence that the investment is paying off. Can you give us the latest update in the impact on tackling child poverty that £457 million is making? If I get time, I will come back in for another supplementary, but I will have to look at the convener in relation to that. If you can make your questions more direct, thank you so much. Certainly, the modelling estimates that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year as a result of the Scottish Government policies. 50,000 of that is to do directly with the Scottish child payment, so we see the difference that that is making. I would point just for the benefit of brevity in my voice of nothing else as well. The points that I made earlier on about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and if we got universal credit right and it was fit for purpose and allowed essentials to be carried over, then we wouldn't have to be using that money on the Scottish child payment or elsewhere. Our modelling suggests that it is making a difference. I am happy to provide more on writing about the targets and where we are at in terms of the targets today as well. However, it certainly proves that the Scottish child payment and indeed other parts of the anti-poverty measures that we have are making a difference. Finally, there is no room for complacency. However, the child poverty rates remain still too high in Scotland and that is something that the Scottish Government and the UK Government need to be very cognisant of as we continue to make policy decisions. Cabinet Secretary, perhaps in this follow-up question you could reply in writing to save the rath of the convener and your voice. Ironically, the more we invest in the Scottish child payment, the better off-calculation that has been done for parents, for example, as they try to get back into employment off of universal credit. There is an increasing cliff edge as that financial support is taken away. An unintended consequence, but a consequence nevertheless, could be when we get the Government's thinking in how we can smooth out that cliff edge. I know that it requires money, for example, for the tapering of benefits as people move back into full employment off of universal credit. It is something that the committees might have to look at in months to come. There is certainly an aspect around how the Scottish child payment could develop in the future. Clearly, the way that the Scottish child payment was introduced does make that rather impossible. However, the statutory underpinning for the Scottish child payment can possibly change when the bill comes to Parliament soon on those statutory underpinnings, and then we could look to see a more nuanced approach. However, I would point out that the Scottish child payment was delivered in the way that it was to make sure that it was delivered as quickly as possible. From policy decision to implementation of only 18 months was the quickest introduction of a benefit in Scotland or the UK—an important aspect in our anti-poverty measures that we take as a Government. I am going to cover the press and the issue of homelessness. There are great pressures here. For example, we had a briefing prior to this meeting from the homeless charity crisis, and we heard about the devastating impact of the UK welfare policy on homelessness, and we heard about the positive impact that the Scottish child payment is having. Given the importance of the new affordable housing to reduce poverty and homelessness, does the Scottish Government have concerns that the pressures on capital spending will hamper efforts in Scotland to provide the affordable housing that is desperately needed? As I said in my introductory remarks, the decisions around the affordable housing supply programme have been some of the most difficult that we have had to undertake. We continue to try to work with partners to mitigate the impacts that we have seen that have led to construction supply issues, workforce challenges and increased mortgage costs, which have an impact on the deliverability of affordable housing. We are still investing £556 million in affordable housing next year, and we are undertaking a great deal of work with partners to increase the delivery of more affordable homes, the vast majority of which will still be for social rent, and that includes supporting acquisitions of existing properties as well. When it comes to homelessness, I would point to the fact that the budget for homelessness, the level force for homelessness, has remained similar to those in the last financial year, so we have protected that investment. However, the issues around the affordable housing supply programme, although we have a good record in delivering affordable homes, continue to be one of the most challenging areas of the budget. How are you with the target to deliver the 110 affordable homes, £1,000 by 2032, is realistic? We still have absolutely that target. It is at risk, as the Deputy First Minister said, when she was also at committee. That is why we have brought forward a review to ensure that that is looked at and that is around how we achieve the deliverability of that, not the target itself. That review is not a review of the target, but how we can deliver on that. We need to look at aspects around that. It goes much wider than capital budget challenges, although we have those challenges around the impacts around workforce construction, inflation and increased mortgage costs. That will look at the deliverability. There is a great deal of work going on to ensure that we are looking at more innovative finance measurements and boosting investment, for example in the private sector, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to bring in further investment, not just from the Scottish Government but from other methods elsewhere. There is a continued focus on that deliverability to ensure that we are doing everything that we can within the budgets that we are given. Before I bring in Paul Cain, I believe that Jeremy Rennie would like to come in with a supplementary. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. It is very briefly on this. There is clearly a very clear link between homelessness and housing. We know that, for example, here in Edinburgh, people are turning up who are homeless who cannot get accommodation. If you cut the budget in regard to housing supply by 27 per cent, the long-term effect is that we are going to have more homeless people because there are not the homes for people to live in. Is it not a short-term measure that is going to have immense long-term repercussions for homeless people across Scotland? With the greatest respect, Mr Balfour, if we have a UK Government that 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. I simply say to you where will that money come from? If the member is disappointed in the figures that are coming for housing, I would suggest that there is a genuine challenge when you see a budget that is falling off a cliff from the UK Government when it comes to capital expenditure. The difficult decisions have had to be made, and the Deputy First Minister has said that affordable housing will be the aspect of the Scottish Government budget that is looked to as a priority should further capital money be found or be made available to the Scottish Government, but with a decreasing budget, increasing construction inflation and the workforce challenges due to Brexit, there will inevitably be implications for the amount of capital programmes that the Scottish Government can undertake. With respect, Mr Balfour, it was agreed in the chamber last night that the Scottish capital budget has actually gone up this year, not going down. I refer for the sake of the amount of time that we have to go into it. I am more than happy to once again furnish the committee with the forecast for the Scottish Government budget for capital and why we continue to have to take difficult decisions on this issue. If Mr Balfour would like to see that increased, he will have to then suggest from this committee's portfolio or from another committee where that money will come from. If you could provide that, it would be helpful. I am obviously really conscious of the time. We still get a lot of questions to go through as well, so can I bring in Paul Cain, please? In relation to the 27 per cent cut, at the Finance Committee, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that it was baffling that an affordable housing supply programme should be the victim of such a brutal cut as the one in the budget. Given the impact that we know that this will have on children and families in poverty, has the cabinet secretary and our officials undertaken a quality impact assessment of the impact of that cut? Well, clearly, as we have gone through the budget, there are a number of aspects that are looked at in terms of the impact that it will make on different groups. The impact, for example, is an entirety for the Scottish Government about seeing our financial transactions just for next year being cut by 58 per cent. It inevitably has an impact on how much we can do. Clearly, we look at that in the round, not just about the quality impact assessments but the wider budget that we have and making the decisions across different portfolios. I appreciate that the GRF and others have given the critique that they have, but when you look at budget decisions, they are based on, for example, fiscal sustainability, legal requirements, contractual obligations, previous commitments made, as well as a range of social, economic, political and environmental issues. Those factors sit alongside aspects around quality impact assessments. I am happy to provide the committee with information on analysis that we do to ensure that we can deliver the budget in the best way that we can. For clarity, there is no quality impact assessment of that £27 million cut. That has not been done. There is always analysis of the impacts on budgets. On the specific measure and the specific cut to the health and supply budget? We were well aware of the decisions that we took would mean a decrease to the budget. What we are still working through is how we can perhaps use that budget in different ways to allow more innovative finance to ensure that we are getting the maximum number of homes for the budget that we have. That work is still on-going and it is important that we continue to look at those different ways of financing to ensure that we get the maximum amount of homes. I will perhaps bring in Sean Neil on that as well, but we are still continuing to work to see how we can maximise that budget. Of course, that will then vary the impact assessment at the end of the day. There are a range of factors that we are trying to work through. The committee will be aware that there is complexity in the supply chains and bringing forward the number of houses for this budget. We will work with stakeholders to try to understand things like supply chain issues, cost-related issues, because overall the cost of building the houses has gone up. We need to try to find a way to mitigate and manage some of those costs as much as possible to make sure that we are getting the most out of the budget. That is one of the challenges around value for money, impact and effectiveness. As the cabinet secretary was outlining sitting alongside that, we need to see whether there are other tools and other ways that we can leverage in private sector finance to help support and supplement the overall ambition around the affordable housing target. That works under way, and we will happily keep the committee involved and up to speed as that work develops. I am particularly interested in the £60 million commitment in the affordable housing supply programme for the national acquisition plan to increase the supply of affordable homes. I wonder what progress has been made on spending that money. Given some of the commentary this week from various people in the housing sector about the need to speed up our acquisitions in particular, it would be useful for the committee to understand what progress is being made. 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. However, I have a high degree of confidence that that £60 million will be spent in acquisitions, but I am happy to provide the committee again in due course at the end of the national year with further details on that and how generally the acquisition plan is going. However, it is not an area of concern for us at the moment with regard to spending the money. I can assure you that the money is being spent and being spent as it was directed to do for a national acquisitions plan. One more. One more and then we are moving on to the theme of refugee and asylum seekers. If you could make it. I certainly will. Given what the cabinet secretary said about her intention to maintain the number in terms of the target for house-build starts and given the report this week by Scottish Homes about the unrealistic nature in some ways of that target, is it her intention to review that with key stakeholders in the sector to ensure that that target is as realistic as possible? I think that there has been commentary from West Scotland housing associations that said that the Government has essentially surrendered in terms of this space because of its decisions in the budget. I think that I could draw committee's attention to one of the caveats in the Home for Scotland report, which specifically says that they do not think that the headline figure that was given in that report is the number of homes that are needed in Scotland. I appreciate that it was a figure that attracted a lot of attention, but I would caveat that with the part of the Home for Scotland report, which says that that is not the belief that many homes are actually required. If you will forgive me, Mr O'Kane, my post full-brain has forgotten the other part of your question, so could you just, apologies, convener, see what the other part was again? It really is the point about maintaining to the target, but I think that absolutely stakeholders are asking for engagement on that. My apologies. We absolutely will be involving stakeholders in that work. It will be a review that is undertaken by the Government, but it is very much done in partnership with stakeholders as well. My apologies. Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware that Glasgow has declared a housing emergency in large part as a consequence of the UK Home Office fast-tracking asylum and refugee applications leading to hundreds of decisions, hopefully positive decisions for many, around the same time putting huge pressures on homeless services in the city, letting down the refugees and letting down other homeless people in the city. I know that there is a wider issue across Scotland with homelessness and refugees, so what additional funding the Scottish Government is providing local authorities to address homelessness amongst refugees? There is very much a concern about the Home Office's streamlined asylum process, pushing people into destitution and rough sleeping. It has clearly been one of the aspects that is concerning Glasgow greatly. We have, of course, long called on the Home Office to improve the speed and quality of asylum decisions, but the real challenge that we have here is that recent change of pace and a lack of support or co-ordination that accompanies that. The migration and refugees minister wrote to the UK Government in October to request funding to support local authorities to manage the pressure reply that was received from the UK Government has confirmed that they 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. Another policy decision is on local authorities and shifting a burden on to local authorities and putting newly recognised refugees at risk at the point of destitution is an unacceptable consequence of a change to Home Office policy. We will continue to work with local authorities to put pressure on the UK Government to recognise the implications of its policies and for local authorities to be fairly supported during the transition process. We can discuss that in a private session when we consider the evidence welfare. Just one final question given the time constraints that we have, convener. In your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, you mentioned support for Ukrainian refugees. There was previously, I think, a time-limited £10 million commitment, which is no longer there. Could you explain the Scottish Government's thinking in relation to that and just put on record what support will be available in the coming financial year? We continue to recognise the important work that is being undertaken to support Ukraine and refugees. There remains a commitment by the Scottish Government to work with our local authorities on that. In 23-24, we invested £3.2 million in local authority resettlement teams. That builds on the investment that we had in 22-23. The funding of £30 million has been made available to local authorities in 23-24 to support Ukrainians into longer-term housing and prevent homelessness. There is funding that comes from the UK Government. We continue to press the UK Government to ensure that any funding decisions that are made by the UK Government also have a fair settlement for Scottish local authorities. We have a concern about some of the recent announcements from the UK Government to support our local authorities. We are continuing to work with our Welsh counterparts to encourage that fair settlement. We will continue to support local authorities next year. There is a difference clearly in the budget for that, because the number of Ukrainians within welcome accommodation has clearly been decreasing. We will continue to decrease as we move people out of welcome accommodation and into more settled accommodation. The budget and its profile will change over time as the number of Ukrainians in welcome accommodation changes. I have no more questions. I will take some of that in writing. Cabinet Secretary, just because of the specific £10 million, it seems that there is a larger global spend and there is a connection between the UK Government commitments and the Scottish Government responsibilities. I will take some of that in writing with a bit of clarity. We will be really helpful. I am really conscious of the time that we are running behind. I will bring in Jeremy now on the theme of the third sector. Just before that, you talked about that you want to help and work with local authorities, but I did not hear any money that lay behind that. Perhaps again, for time, you could in writing put down what extra money local authorities will be getting to help with the Ukrainian refugees. You talked about working with local authorities, but there did not seem to be any money behind that. I appreciate what you are going to move on. Last year, the Cabinet Secretary wrote to us saying that she was determined to move forward with fair funding in the next financial year for the third sector, i.e. 2023-24. Can you give us a brief progress on what has been made and how much third sector funding will be made as a two-year grant in the 24-25 budget? For the sake of brevity, I would say that there is continuing support to local authorities in the next year in terms of revenue and capital for Ukraine, but I am happy to provide that in writing and some of the challenges that we have over the decreasing level of support coming from the UK Government to support our local authority partners in that as well. For the sake of timing, I will move on to the third sector. The First Minister reiterated our commitment to fairer funding at the gathering last year. We are absolutely determined to pursue the commitments that the First Minister made at the gathering during that budget process. Clearly, we are still going through that process, but we are absolutely remain committed to the aspects that he discussed at the gathering that includes further work on multi-year grant awards and very much working on the fact that we need to provide communication to third sector organisations on their levels of grant funding as soon as practically possible and before the end of March. The commitments that the First Minister made are the ones that we are working on as this budget process continues. I am a fourth financial cabinet secretary minister who has made his promise that we will get multi-funding for the third sector. That is probably three or four years now down the road, and we still do not seem to be happening. What, in your opinion, for the third sector is the likely date that the Scottish Government will get to actually providing multi-year funding, rather than just simply saying it is a commitment? We do see a number of funding streams provided in the multi-year basis. I am again, for the sake of time, happy to provide committee with some of the examples of how multi-year funding has been introduced. It is not something that is a blanket approach and there has been movement on that. I suggest that one of the main ways that can help the Scottish Government has certainty over its budget and allow it to have further work done on the multi-year funding is for the Scottish Government to receive multi-year funding packages so that it has better knowledge of the funding that it would have, but there has been a great deal of work and implementation of that. I can provide the committee with some of the examples of where multi-year funding is introduced for different third sector streams over the last few years if that would assist with the committee on that. It is a work in progress. I am sure that I would assist. My final question is probably the easiest one of the day for you, cabinet secretary. Will you keep the committee informed of the number of funding notifications for 24-25 made before the end of March 2024? We will certainly be able to provide the committee with information about how we have made progress on that. I am grateful. Okay, thank you very much. Just finally, based on transparency, accountability and participation, the equality and fear of Scotland statement is intended to consider the impact of budget decisions. However, it does not really identify how and why budget allocations have changed and how these changes have an impact on equality in human rights. Why is that the case? I set out in response to an earlier question about how some of the budget decisions can be very interconnected, not just in quality and fairer Scotland impacts, but on some of the other factors involved as well. I would point to the fact that, alongside the budget, we published an analysis showing the impact that tax and social security measures had on households of different income levels and characteristics. In response to feedback, this year's equality and fairer Scotland statement also had eight case studies that set out the rationale for budget decisions in a transparent and inaccessible way to social security was one of those. There is clearly a great deal of work that goes into the statement itself that has also included, for this year's example, a cabinet-level workshop on the equality and fairer Scotland considerations. We will continue to make sure that we continue to process on the equality and fairer Scotland statement, and we will continue to make changes to that in the years ahead to further develop that work. Thanks very much, cabinet secretary. I really appreciate that response, and you will be happy to know that that has us concluded all our questions. Basically, our public business for today has also been concluded. Thank you for attending, and thank you to your officials.