Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I just say clearly that I want that to continue.

To get to the heart of why the decisions to go above that have been made, it is because the Scottish Government wants to use its powers over social security and its budgets to help people as much as possible. It is a policy commitment that is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s determination to make Scotland a better and fairer place. We see the mission to tackle poverty as a collective one for everyone in Scotland: the Government, business, Parliament, the third sector, wider civil society and the public sector. It is the collective responsibility of us all and, as part of that, the Government should utilise resource and power where it has it to make an impact.

The instruments that are before us today to uprate not just the benefits where there is a statutory obligation to uprate by CPI in the 2018 act but those where we have discretion are demonstrative of that commitment to provide additional support. Ministers across Government, and particularly in the social justice and finance portfolios, have had discussions in order to make sure that we can utilise our resources and allocate the £428 million to provide that additional support.

I referred to the fact that, last year, we also uprated several of our discretionary benefits by an amount higher than CPI to help people with the rising cost of living at that time. Then, of course, there is the Scottish child payment, which is not just an additional benefit but one that we have increased by 150 per cent in year as well as extending it hugely, with more than 300,000 children now eligible for it.

The eligibility criteria for carer support payment, when it launches, will broadly mirror those for carers allowance until we have transferred everyone’s awards. That is the reality, because we cannot have a two-tier system, just as we cannot have a two-tier system for adult disability payment and personal independence payment until case transfer is completed.

Of course. I appreciate the costs that face those households. I hope that the delivery of child winter heating assistance and the changes that we made last year in increasing the number of people who were eligible for that has helped, but I appreciate the challenges for those households.

Just to correct the record, I should have said that there was also one payment in 2014-15, so that is another £25. I apologise to the committee, but, again, the amount of support that would have been paid through the winter heating payment system would have been £50 reliably per year, which would have accumulated to significantly more.

If I may, convener, I will bring in Owen Allen in a minute to talk about the engagement with stakeholders and others. The Scottish Government consulted more widely, and we really appreciated the feedback and contributions from all those who engaged with that consultation. From that and through our experience panels, which Social Security Scotland consults consistently regarding our work, there was a clear view that breaking the link with the cold weather payment was much preferred because of the unreliability of not knowing whether support would be available.

Under the cold weather payment system, the requirement for seven consecutive days of cold weather often means that, because there may be temperatures of 0°C or below for six days but not for a seventh, people do not get the extra support. There are also issues because the reliance on and geographical placement of the weather stations mean that some places cannot get the cold weather payment even when the weather feels—and is—cold. The way in which that is organised logistically feels unjust to people, and it is unjust, which is why we are seeking to make the change to a reliable payment.

Owen, do you want to say a bit more about the engagement that we undertook?

Those important points get to the heart of the weakness of the cold weather payment system: it is unreliable and, as I said in my opening statement, it is dependent on the weather dropping below 0°C for seven consecutive days. That is combined with the fact that the weather stations do not necessarily capture the feelings of cold and the experience of cold weather that many communities are subject to. For example, wind chill is not factored into the considerations.

In the past 10 years, Lerwick, in Shetland, has had only three triggers for the cold weather payment. You mentioned other areas in your region, and Wick has had only two triggers since 2010-11. That shows the weakness of the current system.

In moving away from the cold weather payment and towards winter heating assistance, we seek to provide support to areas in a reliable way. Particularly for the communities that you represent, that will be an improved position. However, other areas of Scotland experience fuel poverty, although the weather is perhaps not quite as cold—albeit that it is still cold.

We have sought to make a change that will help low-income households in a more comprehensive way. It will increase the number of people who, on average, will benefit from support from that winter benefit from around 185,000 to 400,000, as I said. That is an increase of more than 200,000 people who will receive that support. The payment will also be reliable. That is the key change that we are making today.

I ask the member to be mindful of the turmoil that the UK Government has been in through the winter months and the challenging circumstances that that created for intergovernmental engagement, and in relation to new ministers being appointed and then brought up to speed in their departments. I assure you that my officials regularly pressed the point that we would have preferred to have the data earlier and that we needed it to deliver the benefit. However, we have also been sensitive to and mindful of the pressures on the DWP in delivering its cost of living support.

I want to be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has made the case strongly that we would have preferred to get the data at an earlier juncture, but we were respectful of the demands on our DWP colleagues and we have come to an agreement. We are grateful to them for their strong commitment that they will give us the data that we need on 31 January.

I appreciate the questions, and I listened to Frazer Scott’s evidence last week. We have deliberately built into these regulations the capacity to pay a higher sum in future years if the Government is financially able to do that. That would require a change to the regulations—another set of amending regulations. The ability to pay two payments, or more, in the winter, if that were the determination of the Government at that time, would require two scans from DWP of the data available in order to implement that. I have deliberately built in flexibility to pay more—and more often—in the future if that is feasible and financially possible. Members are aware of the challenge for all of Government in this financial year, given the two statements that have been made by the Deputy First Minister and acting finance secretary about how challenging the budget is this year. The budget for the next financial year will be announced to Parliament this afternoon, and members will know that I cannot comment on that at this point.

The Government has a very strong record of seeking to do more with Scottish social security where and when it can. Unfortunately, we have not been able to pay an additional carers allowance supplement this year, but we have, of course, continued to pay the carers allowance supplement, which is not available anywhere else in the UK. We have increased the Scottish child payment by 150 per cent. We are delivering child winter heating assistance—that has been paid. There are a range of supports from the Scottish Government that are over and above what people receive elsewhere in the UK, utilising the social security system to provide additional support to people who need it. We are always looking at ways in which we can do more, but that is, to a very large extent, within the restricted budget that we have to operate within. That is the reality of the situation that we face in these financial times and with the limited powers and resources of the Scottish Government.

Would I like winter heating assistance to be a higher amount? Of course I would. However, we have to operate within the budget that we have. As I said, £50 is more than many individuals would have received under the cold weather payment system, and we are pleased to be able to give them that additional support. We appreciate the challenging times that people are experiencing.

We do not know about this year, Mr Balfour. I do not mean to be flippant about that. This week would have initiated a cold weather payment in certain places in Scotland, because there have been seven consecutive days of weather at 0°C or below, but we do not know whether there will be another two weeks of that this winter in Scotland, even in those places. I appreciate, from last week’s evidence and the stats, that there are places that have, historically, in some past years—not all years—received more than £50, but there is no guarantee that that would happen this year or in the years after that, even in those places, although, looking at the weather and analysis, it could be likely, and I accept that. Overall, however, as I said, tens of thousands more people will benefit from the winter heating payment than did under the cold weather payment system.

Again, I will bring in Owen Allen in a minute because, of course, engagement takes place more at official level. The decisions on the development of winter heating assistance were made before I was appointed as minister, so it would not have been me personally. I will bring in Owen to discuss official engagement and perhaps he can also refer to any engagement that Ms Somerville undertook as cabinet secretary.