Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise if I did not make it clear, but the Scottish Government’s view is that local authorities should undertake their duties in assessing the situation as thoroughly and as sensitively as possible, and should make their decisions based on that.

I also mentioned that nobody should be liable to pay anything that they clearly cannot afford. Councils have the right to write off council tax debt. The Scottish Government supports the position that, if it is deemed and assessed that that debt should be written off, it should be written off.

There are significant pressures. Given that the member represents a Glasgow constituency, he will be aware that there are particular pressures in the central belt, which we recognise.

We have targeted funding in 2024-25 to the local authorities with the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures. Eighty per cent of the £80 million in capital funding for voids and acquisitions during 2024-25 and 2025-26 has been targeted to areas with the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures, to increase the supply of social and affordable homes through acquisitions and, where appropriate, to bring long-term empty social homes back into use.

That policy is designed to reduce long periods in temporary accommodation, especially for families with children. We recognise that temporary accommodation is not a suitable place for children and families, especially those who are experiencing or fleeing from domestic violence.

The biggest barrier is the policy of no recourse to public funds itself. As you will be aware, that condition is applied to people who are subject to immigration control under UK immigration law, and “public funds” is defined in the UK immigration rules. As the committee will be aware, those who have no recourse to public funds can experience extreme poverty. They are more prone to rough sleeping and are even more prone to domestic abuse and labour exploitation, as well as the social isolation and exclusion that can go with being part of the immigration system, such as it is. They cannot even access the basic supports that are available for those in crisis.

We know all that, and our opinion is that the UK Government should immediately remove and cease to apply the no recourse to public funds condition to people who are in vulnerable situations, particularly in the case of children and families, vulnerable adults and women experiencing domestic violence.

I reiterate Scotland’s long history of welcoming people of all nationalities, including those who are seeking refuge and fleeing war, religious persecution and all of that. We know that they want to rebuild their lives. The UK Government should cease to apply the no recourse to public funds condition immediately.

I absolutely take that on board, Mr O’Kane. You will be fully aware, from the evidence that I have given to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, that I am committed to supporting and challenging my colleagues and providing support for them in relation to overarching equalities themes. I believe that Ms Brown will appear before that committee next week, when she will be able to provide further detail on legal aid reform. Beyond my overarching commitment to embedding equalities, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to delve any deeper into the issues, but there will be that opportunity next week with Ms Brown.

Are you referring to legal aid funding?

You raise an important issue. I do not know whether any of the officials would like to comment, but I can take the issue away. I apologise that I cannot give you a fuller response with regard to social security, but that sits in the cabinet secretary’s portfolio. If you would like a further response, I am more than happy to take that away.

I will have to get back to you once I get that information.

There would be costs associated with free legal aid, but I will give a brief answer on that. If free legal aid was given to the person at risk, to ensure that there is equality of arms, we might also need to give free legal aid to the person who is causing the risk. An application for a civil protection order might be part of a wider family case—it could be about child contact, for instance. If there was free legal aid for the civil protection order element, that might also need to be extended to the whole case, which would further increase costs.

From my understanding—this is not my portfolio area, and you quite clearly say that it is complex—there are intersecting threads that need to be unravelled and carefully considered.

Yes, I am always happy to write to the committee. As I said, I was aware of the wide scope of the evidence session today, and I was ready to do that.

The DWP’s child maintenance system is, of course, reserved to the UK Government. The Scottish Government does not hold the full powers over social security, so our ability to make changes is somewhat hindered, but we welcome the UK Government’s plans to carry out a complete review of universal credit. It is a common view that universal credit has been failing the people who need it the most, so we hope that the review will address the issues that the Scottish Government has raised in the past. As I said, we are always ready to work with the UK Government in order to achieve that goal.

I have mentioned that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice met Sir Stephen Timms, the Minister for Social Security and Disability, to discuss the UK Government’s planned review, and she highlighted some of our key concerns. The cabinet secretary will be writing to Sir Stephen Timms, but it is also within the scope of the committee to write directly to the UK and Scottish Government ministers, because the issues are in that reserved and devolved space.

That is a good question. There are two main strands to the work to increase accountability for human rights under the bill. The first involves establishing an approach that shares human rights leadership and responsibility among several bodies. We therefore propose expanding the powers and remits of a number of bodies, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and other oversight bodies. Our hope is that that will strengthen their ability to provide accountability and support for human rights in Scotland.

The second strand of the work involves developing measures that will enable courts and tribunals to deliver effective and appropriate remedies when it is found that a duty bearer has failed in its duty under the bill regarding protected rights. Before the summer, we will publish a discussion paper that will set out in greater detail our approach to policy in the bill.