Seòmar agus comataidhean

With regard to that last question, how do you envisage that taking place, just so I am clear on what you are asking?

The scan is essential to being able to deliver the benefit, because, as members will see in the regulations, the eligibility criteria are based entirely on reserved benefits, so we absolutely have to have that scan in order to deliver the benefit. Significant preparation has been undertaken to date and will be undertaken over the weeks ahead until we receive that scan. This is probably a good time for Angela Keane to illuminate the practical issues from an agency perspective.

The challenge is that the relevant weather station for Renfrewshire and most of Glasgow is Bishopton. I emphasise that part of the weakness in the cold weather payment system is that weather stations relate to certain postcodes and are not based on local authority areas.

The Bishopton weather station is the one that serves Glasgow to the largest extent. There was one cold weather payment of £25 in 2020-21. In 2018-19, there was one payment of £25. In 2017-18, there were two payments that totalled £50. In the period from 2011-12 until last year, your constituents who are served by the weather station at Bishopton would have received only £100, whereas, under our system, if it had been in place, they would have received £50 each year. That demonstrates that many low-income households will be better off under the winter heating payment system that we are seeking to introduce—which we are asking the committee to approve today—than they were under the cold weather payment system.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I can appreciate the question in that the cold weather payment has, in certain areas, initiated more than two payments in a winter in parts of Scotland, although not consistently, because there is nothing consistent about the cold weather payment—that is one of its inherent weaknesses. However, I appreciate that there are areas where, in certain years, support from the cold weather payment has been received that exceeds £50. We do not know what the weather will be like, even in those places, in winters to come.

I encourage people in certain places who may, in certain weather conditions, have received more than £50 under the cold weather payment to utilise other support from the Scottish Government, such as the fuel insecurity fund. It is important to recognise that, overall, hundreds of thousands more people will benefit from winter heating assistance than have done under the cold weather payment system.

On the latter point about engagement with the Met Office, I will again bring in Owen Allen. I would appreciate the point if the £50 support were the only thing that the Scottish Government was doing to provide additional support, and I appreciate the argument that the Government should always be looking to do more. However, it is important to consider also that the Scottish Government is providing hundreds of millions of pounds of additional social security support that is not available outside Scotland and that many of the individuals who will receive a winter heating payment will also receive other support from the Scottish Government. We have doubled the fuel insecurity fund as well, so a lot of other financial resource and support is available to people, and it is important to see the winter heating payment in that wider context, because it is a contribution to the costs that people are experiencing, along with other support.

On the question of delivery, as I said, we have moved from the weather-dependent approach because we know that, in some areas, differences in the location of weather stations that could trigger a cold weather payment have previously been a source of frustration for people. We understand that collectively. As I mentioned to the deputy convener, the exclusive reliance on temperature rather than other factors such as wind chill has also made some people feel that they are not being treated fairly. Indeed, island communities, in particular, have lost out under the cold weather payment system.

Retaining any weather dependency aspect when introducing a winter heating payment would require a new agreement to be reached with the DWP and the Met Office, and it would be much more technically complex to develop and test. It would be an administratively burdensome scheme for Social Security Scotland to deliver. I think that it is important to be up front about that. A flat-rate payment will be simpler to deliver and administer, and, more importantly, it will provide a guaranteed payment to the most vulnerable people, who have been identified as needing additional support. The guaranteed nature of the payment—the reliability of the winter heating payment—will be the most significant change, and it will make a difference for many, alongside the fact that we project that more than 200,000 more people will receive support.

Owen, do you want say anything more about the Met Office?

I appreciate the sentiment of the points that Mr Choudhury has raised. If it is helpful for expedience, I refer him to my previous answers to Mr Balfour. Are you content with that, Mr Choudhury?

As I said, following the consultation, we considered increasing the payments to £25 and £100. However, that would increase the forecast annual expenditure from £20 million to £30 million and £40 million respectively, and we are just not able to finance that this financial year. As members know, the Scottish Government budget is under significant pressure this financial year. We made the choice to invest over and above the corresponding level of funding that we forecast that we would receive from the UK Government for cold weather payments. That has limited our scope for making additional increases to the value or frequency of payments because of the nature of our significantly fixed budget. I should say that, on average, £50 is more than what people would receive from the cold weather payment. The majority of people would have received £25, and we have doubled that to £50.

Well, I think that there is a balance here, because I can appreciate—

I appreciate Pam Duncan-Glancy’s stated view that she does not believe that £50 is a high enough figure, but does she appreciate that the winter heating payment will deliver more support for her constituents than the cold weather payment did?