Social Justice and Social Security Committee Session 6 Legacy Report

Going into Session 7, we strongly recommend that any Committee with a similar remit meets on a Tuesday or Wednesday.

Despite this, questions remain as to whether the agency is functioning as efficiently as it could be, and we suggest any successor Committee monitors this.

In order for the agency to be successful, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland must ensure they have the data required to understand in greater detail the ways in which social security spending is making a difference. This can help guide decisions about any changes to eligibility and ensure efficient use of public funds. This is especially important when it comes to areas of significant spend, such as Adult Disability Payment.

As we approach Session 7, we have considered topics within our remit that could form the basis of a future People's Panel. We therefore recommend that any successor committee considers issues related to aspects of homelessness, violence against women and girls, and the extra costs of having a disability, which the Committee commissioned research on earlier this session, as possible topics.

Moving into Session 7, although most devolved benefits are now administered by Social Security Scotland, there remain areas within the remit that a successor committee may wish to continue to scrutinise.

The Scottish Government is required to publish the next Child Poverty Delivery Plan (2026–2031) before 1 April 2026, as part of the statutory requirements of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. We would recommend that our successor committee considers this plan, alongside the UK Government’s Child Poverty Strategy, which was published on 5 December 2025, to consider how the measures will impact child poverty and how both Governments can work together effectively to eradicate this in Scotland.

The Scottish Government recently announced that funds that were earmarked to mitigate the two-child limit would be reallocated to tackle child poverty. Consideration of how effective this spending is in reducing child poverty will also require attention.

Across this Session, we also heard about in-built volatility regarding social security spend, given that it is demand-led. Policies at a UK Government level can also impact the predictability of Scottish Government spend, and the Committee should therefore be in regular conversation with the Cabinet Secretary regarding exchanges with UK counterparts.

We also suggest that any incoming Committee could undertake post-legislative scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In particular, it would be useful to consider how well the ‘Ask and Act’ duty, which mandates that public bodies proactively ask people about their housing situation and take early action to prevent homelessness, is working in practice.

Scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill was split between this Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning (LGHP) Committee, and most of our work focused on Part 5 on homelessness prevention. Members felt this split worked really well and recommend that it is separated in this way in the next Session. The Committee scrutinised this part of the Bill at both Stages 1 and 2, and reported to the LGHP Committee, copying in the Scottish Government.

The Committee, along with the Finance and Public Administration Committee, was asked on two occasions this session to share its views on scope to inform the review of the Fiscal Framework. This is due to the Committee’s remit to scrutinise social security spending. We would recommend that our successor committee liaises with the Scottish Government at an early opportunity to enquire when input might be requested, to ensure that sufficient notice is given to enable the Committee to take evidence to inform its response.

The Committee's 2025-26 budget scrutiny looked specifically at the benefits of multi-year funding for the third sector, and given the Fairer Funding pilot is ongoing, it would be useful if the next Committee considers the effectiveness of this model.

The significance of ADP spend on the Scottish Government's budget should also be highlighted, and it would be useful if the next Committee looks at how these payments align with strategies to help disabled people more generally. Following our evidence session on the Scottish Government's response to the independent review, we would also recommend a future Committee scrutinises this in more depth, given we were not able to, due to a lack of time.

We would also suggest an incoming Committee continues to scrutinise the operational elements of Funeral Support Payment and Job Start Payment to ensure these payments are reaching those who need them and are working as efficiently as possible. In this context, a future committee may wish to consider the Scottish Government's benefit take-up strategy due in October 2026.

The Scottish Government was consulting on proposals to improve the National Performance Framework, which is the Scottish Government's wellbeing framework, as part of a substantial review. The review of the Framework is expected to continue in the next parliamentary session, and the next committee may wish to take evidence and/or contribute views on how it can be improved.

Given the scale of the transition and the importance of maintaining a high‑quality, person‑centred Social Security Independent Advocacy service, we recommend that the next committee continues to scrutinise ongoing delivery of the contract with Advice Direct Scotland. Members were concerned that ADS has taken on the contract for less money than VoiceAbility did previously, and the next Committee may therefore wish to consider this as part of its ongoing scrutiny of the service.

In terms of the general format of meetings, we also think that holding evidence sessions in a round table format facilitates a greater flow of conversation, and that this format should be considered where appropriate, depending on the subject matter being discussed.