The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on the winter heating payment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance regarding the statement. It appears that, once again, the content of a statement has appeared in the media before the statement has been made to Parliament—indeed, I note that the Scottish Government appeared to have an embargoed press release on its website at one minute past midnight.
I raise that because this is not the first time that issues such as the winter heating payment and broader matters have been pre-briefed to the media. If the Government contends that no detail in the statement was not already in the public domain, that begs the question of what point there is to having the statement at all. I believe the principle is that this chamber, and not the media, should be the place where statements are made, so I would appreciate your guidance on the matter, Presiding Officer.
Members are well aware of my expectation, in line with long-established guidance, that, when a ministerial statement has been scheduled, the content of that statement must first of all be shared with this Parliament. I have not had an opportunity to look into the matter that Mr O’Kane raises, but I will certainly do so.
I will pick up where I was regarding the next item of business, which is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on the winter heating payment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:23
I am pleased to make a statement to members today, as asked for by the Scottish Conservatives, on the uptake of winter heating payment during the past five years.
Winter heating payment is the Scottish Government benefit to support people who are on low incomes with the cost of heating during the winter months. Our benefit replaced the Department for Work and Pensions cold weather payment in winter 2022-23. It provides a targeted, reliable and guaranteed annual payment of £58.75 to those who are most in need of help with their energy costs every winter, including people of pension age, disabled adults and families who have responsibility either for a child under the age of five or for a disabled child.
The United Kingdom Government’s cold weather payment previously provided £25 per cold spell, only when the average of the mean daily temperature recorded was equal to, or below, 0°C for seven consecutive days—an entire week. That UK Government benchmark is, of course, totally arbitrary, because temperatures are measured at weather stations that are often miles from people’s homes, and it fails to take into account other factors, such as wind chill and driving rain, that can have a major impact on the temperature of people’s homes—particularly those of people who are on low incomes.
The UK Government’s reliance on an arbitrary and arcane definition of what is cold and what is not meant that, in winter 2021-22, absolutely no payments were made—not a single one—in areas of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Shetland, Orkney, Wick and Fife, for example.
Importantly, when planning our winter heating payment, we listened carefully to feedback from our public consultation and our social security experience panels, as we do with all our benefits, which we co-design with the people who will receive them. That is a marked difference between our approach and that of the UK Government.
People told us that they overwhelmingly supported removal of the cold-spell requirement. Age UK similarly supported that, and it has called on the UK Government to remove it. That is why our winter heating payment breaks the link with an arbitrarily-defined weather dependency and provides financial support no matter the weather, so that low-income households are paid automatically and know that they will be paid, rather than having the uncertainty of waiting for weather readings on seven consecutive days before they receive a payment.
Because of the cold-spell requirement, as few as 4,000 people received a payment in 2019-20 and just 11,000 got one in 2021-22. In sharp contrast, when our winter heating payment was launched in 2022-23, the total number of people who received it was 398,240. Official statistics show that more than 453,000 people got winter heating payments from the Scottish Government last winter, thanks to an investment of £25 million. This winter, we will invest even more—£26.8 million—in winter heating payments, which more than triples the £8.5 million that was provided on average by the DWP in each of the seven years before the introduction of our payment.
As of 15 December 2024, more than 218,000 winter heating payments had been made to people this winter, totalling £12.8 million, with the remaining payments due to be completed by the end of next month. In recognition of the current pressures on household budgets, winter heating payment was uprated by 10.1 per cent for winter 2023-24, from £50 to £55.05, and by a further 6.7 per cent for this winter, to £58.75.
Eligibility for winter heating payment is linked to receipt of relevant reserved benefits, such as universal credit and pension credit. Although Scottish ministers have no formal role in the administration of reserved benefits, the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Scottish people are supported to take up the benefits that they are entitled to. We have committed to investing more than £12 million in the provision of free income maximisation support, welfare and debt advice services in 2024-25, including support for the Citizens Advice Scotland money talk team service, which last year supported more than 9,000 older people as part of our co-ordinated benefit take-up strategy.
Of course, winter heating payment is not the only form of support that the Scottish Government provides to help people to meet their heating costs. In November, I announced that the Scottish Government would invest a further £20 million in the Scottish welfare fund’s budget, to be distributed to councils in the current financial year in line with the existing distribution arrangements that have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That increase will help councils to meet increased demands on the fund and will go some way towards providing vital support to people who are in crisis.
I also confirmed that we would invest an additional £20 million in the warmer homes Scotland scheme, which is our national fuel poverty scheme, taking the total investment in the scheme to £85 million in the current financial year. The scheme focuses on long-term, sustainable measures, and that additional funding will help approximately 1,500 additional households to install energy efficiency measures and more efficient heating systems, which will save households about £400 per year on average in energy bills.
Most important, I announced in November that I will bring forward regulations to introduce in winter 2025-26 a universal pension-age winter heating payment of at least £100 for every Scottish pensioner household, with those in receipt of a relevant low-income benefit receiving £200 or £300 depending on their age. That universal benefit will provide much-needed support that is not available anywhere else in the UK. It will deliver support to all Scottish pensioner households, as we always intended to do before the UK Government’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment.
We are also continuing our child winter heating payment, which, last year, provided £7.8 million to support more than 33,000 children, young people and their families who had higher energy needs due to disability or a health condition. That benefit is not available elsewhere in the UK.
In total, this winter, we are forecasted to invest more than £65 million in our three winter heating benefits, which will provide vital support with energy bills to more than 630,000 people. All those programmes provide valuable support with energy bills to people across Scotland but, as I have previously highlighted in the chamber, we all recognise that households across the country acutely feel twin pressures: first, cuts to the social security budgets that have been made over many years by successive UK Governments—Conservative and now Labour—and, secondly, rising energy costs, despite Labour’s promise before the election that people’s energy bills would fall if it was in government; of course, those bills are set to rise again this month.
Already, this year alone, the Scottish Government has spent £134 million on mitigating the effects of UK Government welfare decisions. In doing so, we are working closely with our partners in local government across Scotland to support people who are in crisis.
Although we cannot mitigate every decision that is made by the UK Government, we are determined to provide support for the people of Scotland. Our winter heating payment is just one example of how we are using our devolved powers to make a positive difference and to support the people of Scotland with their rising energy costs. It is reliable, guaranteed, not dependent on arbitrary temperature readings, and designed in partnership with the people who are receiving it—and it provides support to more than double the number of people who previously got help under the DWP. Our winter heating payment is a very clear example of how the Scottish Government is doing more to support the people of Scotland through the long cold winter months.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will move to the next item of business. Members who wish to put a question should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement, but the Scottish Government’s proposed pension-age winter heating payment for winter 2025-26 is not a reinstatement of the previous UK Government’s winter heating payment. That payment provided £200 to every pensioner—£300 to those over 80 years old—while the Scottish Government’s policy gives £100 as a universal payment. What criteria did the Scottish Government use to make the policy decision that, obviously, does not reinstate the previous payment?
Secondly, even if it disagreed with the previous criteria, did the Scottish Government give any consideration to whether the winter heating payment should include extra support for extreme weather situations?
I am a bit confused about the principles behind where the Scottish Conservatives want to go on social security. In budget debates and in First Minister’s question time, we are continually challenged to cut social security expenditure, but Liz Smith seems now to be asking me to spend more money than we are already providing to a scheme. If Liz Smith genuinely wishes to do that, budget negotiations are continuing, so she can explain to me and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government where the money would come from to deliver that.
Previously, we have gone over in great detail the details of the pension-age winter heating payment, and I am very pleased that the Scottish Government will reintroduce a universal winter heating payment for all pensioner households. That is exactly what people would expect their Government to do.
Given her questions about overall winter heating payments for those on low incomes, I take it, again, that Liz Smith thinks that we should be doing more than we are already doing and therefore spending more on social security. In my statement, I went through why I think that the principles behind our policy, based on co-design, have provided extra support and financial certainty for people at important times. If Liz Smith wishes us to spend more money on social security, I am happy to have those discussions with her, but we must be honest about the intent behind those questions and about whether she genuinely wishes me to deliver that. If she did, that would involve taking part in budget discussions; to date, that has not happened.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. The cabinet secretary and colleagues have said much in recent weeks about the impact of winter pressures and cold temperatures, but today’s statement appears to be old numbers put together in a new way to suggest that the Scottish Government is taking action on those issues; perhaps that is why it was pre-briefed to the media.
I want to ask the cabinet secretary about this, because we have had this conversation in the chamber before. Scottish Labour has been calling for a package of measures to support people this winter from that £41 million consequential that the Scottish Government received from the household support fund, which the cabinet secretary said did not exist. Instead, the cabinet secretary seems to have announced simply the plugging of gaps that were created by real-terms cuts in the previous budget. We have had no detail since that statement on the practical measures to deploy the funding. Will the cabinet secretary therefore outline how much of that funding is already out of the door and how many people it is supporting?
Finally, the cabinet secretary is aware that we have called for those consequentials to be used to reinstate the fuel insecurity fund as an alternative mechanism to target those who are most in need. Freedom of information responses have shown that, when the Government made the decision to cut that fund, fuel insecurity partners expressed great concern that they could no longer
“deliver innovative measures that were taking people out of crisis situations”.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that that move was regrettable? Will she confirm whether the Scottish Government has looked at the option to revive that fund in line with calls from this side of the chamber and campaigners?
The reason that the figures in today’s statement are already in the public domain is because we regularly produce and publish statements. I am here today because I was asked whether the Government could give this statement, and here I am, delivering it. I genuinely do not get why Paul O’Kane is surprised that the figures are already in the public domain; he usually complains that we do not publish enough information.
In relation to the £41 million, again, we are going over old ground, but let us go over it again, one more time. Until there is certainty about the totality of in-year consequentials, then I am sorry but I do not think that it is sensible for the Government to start talking and putting money out the door. That is the difference between being responsible about the public finances in Scotland, and what Mr O’Kane is asking me to do.
I go back to the point that I made to Liz Smith and note that the budget for next year has not yet passed. If Mr O’Kane wishes to see money going into the fuel insecurity fund, perhaps that—as well as mitigation for the two-child cap and the introduction of universal payments—might tempt him off the fence and away from abstaining and cause him to actually vote for the budget.
The best way to support people who are having difficulty with energy costs, however, is the social tariff. The Scottish Government, along with energy providers, is getting on with that work—to the benefit of the UK Government, which should be doing that work. We will get on and do that work; however, once we have that working group and its recommendations, the UK Government better get on with delivering that.
I welcome the universal £100 winter fuel payment for 2025-26 for all pensioners who are not able to access the Labour Government’s means-tested UK winter fuel payment—which was not, of course, in its pre-election manifesto, and suddenly left many pensioners literally out in the cold.
However, many pensioners, such as me, were fortunate enough not to require the previous £300, and we paid it over to local charities. Although that option—that is, to remit to local charities—would still be available with the £100, would it be possible for the Scottish Government to provide a means by which pensioners such as myself could repay that money to the Scottish Government or, indeed, opt out?
I thank Christine Grahame for that question, because that is a very important aspect as we try to look at the best way to use the finances that we have in order to support people.
Under our plans, clients will be able to opt out of our universal pension-age winter heating payment if they do not wish to receive it. In order to opt out of a payment, clients will first need to be on the Social Security Scotland systems. For that reason, for the first year of launch, clients will not be able to opt out until after Social Security Scotland has received and processed the client data from the Department for Work and Pensions. From year 2 onwards, we are working towards the introduction of a system within the agency where we will have the data available to manage client opt-outs.
I hope that that responds to the direct ask from Christine Grahame; it is an important point that we are endeavouring to build into the system in future years.
According to the statement, as of 15 December, more than half the people entitled to the winter heating payment had not received any money, and it will be another five weeks until everybody receives the entitlement that they are due. Why is there such a delay in the payments coming through? In the year ahead, will the payments be made earlier than they were this year?
We have already moved the payments forward because, in the first year of the payment—2022-23—the payments did not come through until spring.
The reason that the most recent payments are being made in February is that we take a second sweep of data from the DWP to ensure that those who are fully eligible at the time of entitlement are gathered up in the final payments. The reason why there are five weeks until the final payments are made to people is that we must wait for that DWP information to ensure that we have swept up absolutely everybody who is entitled to the payment. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we get as many people paid as possible.
I hope that that gives Mr Balfour reassurance that this is a sensible final step in the process to ensure that people get the money that they are entitled to.
Having spent the past week at home in the Highlands, I know just how harsh the cold is that many of my constituents are facing right now. I am glad that the Scottish Government continues to deliver different winter heating payments to them, despite the Labour Government’s inexplicable decision to remove funding from pensioners across the Highlands and Islands this winter.
Can the cabinet secretary share what the uptake has been like for the different Scottish winter heating payments in the Highlands and Islands region?
The best way to respond to that is perhaps to repeat what I said to Mr Balfour: within five weeks, once the final payment session is through, I will be able to give Emma Roddick the full picture of what is happening in the Highlands and Islands region.
She points at a very important example, which I alluded to in my statement, which is that many communities, particularly those in islands authorities, did not receive any payments in previous years. That is the difference that we have made. For example, communities in Orkney and Shetland are receiving the benefit that they would not have received under the previous scheme.
However, I will respond to the member in writing once this year’s payments are fully completed to give her that information and, I hope, reassurance about how we are delivering across the Highlands and Islands.
The cabinet secretary referred to funding for the warmer homes Scotland scheme. What discussions has she had with her colleagues on the Government’s consistent failure to spend the budget that it sets aside for area-based energy efficiency projects? Does she not agree that the failure to spend £62 million of the £192 million allocated in the past three years is appalling, as is the fact that research by the Chartered Institute of Building shows that fewer than 40 per cent of older people are even aware of the Government’s energy efficiency schemes?
Colin Smyth makes an important point about raising awareness of the schemes that are available. That becomes even more pressing in the cases of people who are no longer entitled to other forms of support. If the member will forgive me, I will get back to him in writing—or perhaps one of my colleagues will, as the specific aspects of that policy are within the net zero portfolio. I will ensure that he is provided with a response in writing.
When Labour ditched the universal winter heating payment, it abandoned many vulnerable older people—not least those who qualify for but do not claim pension credit, who can be particularly vulnerable. Pension credit uptake might be a UK Government responsibility, but will the cabinet secretary give details of what the Scottish Government will do to maximise uptake among Scottish pensioners and boost their income so that, unlike the UK Government, we continue to do the right thing by them?
Bob Doris raises an important point about the need to encourage and support people to get the benefits that they are entitled to. That is why Scotland has a benefit take-up strategy in relation to our devolved benefits; it is the only part of the UK that has such a strategy.
Even where we do not have responsibility, as Mr Doris points out, we are keen to make sure that we are doing as much as possible. Work within Social Security Scotland on encouraging the take-up of pension credit is one example of that. I put on record again my thanks to councils, which have also worked exceptionally hard to attempt to increase the level of take-up of pension credit. That is an important piece of work that they have been undertaking, and I thank them for doing so.
This payment in Scotland is undoubtedly welcome, but should we not be looking beyond mitigation at what we can do to ensure that everyone lives in comfortably warm homes, whatever the weather, whatever the season and whatever their income?
Too many homes are poorly insulated and drafty. A warmth audit of all domestic properties, perhaps starting with the properties of those in receipt of winter heating payment, might be a more transformative approach if that audit was then responded to systematically. Is that something that the cabinet secretary would consider?
I thank Maggie Chapman for that suggestion. That points to the ways in which statements can lead to potential solutions to the challenges that we share. I am sure that she and her colleagues in the Scottish Greens are also taking part in budgetary discussions with the Scottish Government as we move forward with our budget process. If she wishes that suggestion to be looked at as a priority by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and by my colleague Gillian Martin in her role as the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, we will be happy to take that under consideration in our budgetary discussions.
Although help with fuel bills is welcome, we must do more to bring down the overall cost of those bills. Area-based energy efficiency schemes have proven their worth, and more funding for those is welcome. However, too often, councils have insufficient notice of funding allocations and some councils appear unable to spend what they are given. Orkney Islands Council, in an area with the highest level of fuel poverty in the country, has consistently made full use of the area-based funding available. Like Colin Smyth, I urge the Government to review the scheme’s operation to ensure that councils get more notice, or indeed multiyear funding, and that, where there are risks of underspends, reallocation of funds takes place in a timely fashion.
Liam McArthur raises an important point about certainty of funding. To focus on the request for multiyear funding, the Government takes that very seriously. The call for multiyear funding is being made in a number of different parts of different Government portfolios, and I recognise the point that he makes.
Clearly, it is challenging for the Scottish Government to move forward with further multiyear commitments when it is given only a one-year budget. That is why the work that the UK Government has been undertaking on spending reviews is exceptionally important. That will, I hope, provide some degree of certainty about what is happening in Scottish Government budgets over future years and will therefore allow us to take more decisions about where multiyear expenditure can be undertaken. We are endeavouring to do that already, both in revenue and capital, in different areas of Government—in the third sector and in culture, for example—but I take Liam McArthur’s point about the need for that type of certainty in this area, too.
Labour promises a new direction, but now we see that what it means is that it will rush in brutal cuts to winter support for pensioners. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that betrayal underlines just how important it is that decisions on winter heating benefits are made here, where our devolved Parliament can listen to vulnerable households and make the right decisions for the people of Scotland?
Marie McNair quite rightly recognises that Labour is now talking about a new direction. I take it that Labour realised that its change line was not quite working, with people realising that no change was happening.
Marie McNair raises an important point that goes to how we talk about social security. We had a near consensus—with the exception of the Scottish Conservatives, I think—on talking about social security as an investment in people and in our communities. We now have Scottish Labour—and, I see from the front pages of some of the papers today, the UK Labour Government—talking about handouts and cuts to social security. That highlights an obvious difference between this Government, which is, with the financial resources that we have, attempting to deliver for people who are still being impacted by a cost of living crisis, and a UK Government and Scottish Labour, which seem to be in step, talking about handouts and increasing stigma towards people on social security. That is a deeply disappointing new direction for Labour.
In 2024, a number of energy suppliers restarted the process of installing prepayment meters without consent for customers who had fallen into debt. Given that those on prepayment meters are often the poorest and most vulnerable in society, and that they often pay more per unit for gas and electricity, will the cabinet secretary work with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to identify how many pensioner households and other households are on PPMs? Will she press for an amnesty to allow existing customers to opt out of prepayment meters, and explore a ban on the future involuntary installation of such meters now and in the future?
Craig Hoy raises an important point. One challenge that we face is that a great deal of the powers in such areas lie not with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament but down at Westminster. However, that does not prevent this Government from using its convening and facilitation powers to work with energy providers. I recently met with energy providers to discuss housing issues, for example.
Craig Hoy raises an important point about the difficulties that those on prepayment meters have, and the impact that such meters can have on people’s debt levels and their ability to heat their homes. It is another area where we need to look carefully at what the Government in Scotland can do, using its convening and facilitation powers, as well as looking at the issues that we must continue to persuade the UK Government or Ofgem to take forward.
Under the previous UK cold weather payment, payments for residents of East Kilbride were conditional on the weather as it was recorded at Bishopton. Given the different winter climates in those areas, that approach disadvantaged people in East Kilbride, who often got no payout even when it was below freezing in the town. Can the cabinet secretary outline how many more people across the country are benefiting from the Scottish Government’s winter heating payment, and can she assure households in East Kilbride that the injustice of the old Westminster scheme is now a thing of the past?
It is fitting that we have a question about East Kilbride from Collette Stevenson on that matter, because I remember clearly that, as we debated what the new benefit would look like when it was devolved, her predecessor, Linda Fabiani, was one of the most vociferous campaigners to ensure that we got rid of the injustice of the previous arbitrary system, because it did not reflect what was happening in her local area.
I am very pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to deliver that certainty for Collette Stevenson’s constituents and the constituents of members across the chamber. I will respond to her in writing—as I will respond to Emma Roddick, too—about the totality of the provision both in her constituency and throughout Scotland in order to reassure her about the difference that we have made, once again, this winter.
That concludes the ministerial statement.
Air ais
Topical Question TimeAir adhart
Support for the Culture Sector