 Good morning everyone. Welcome to the 35th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Our only item of business this morning is the consideration of a statutory instrument, the Winter Heating Assistance Low Income Scotland Regulations 2023. At last week's committee meeting ahead of our consideration of the regulations, we took evidence from Energy Action Scotland and the Scottish Commission on Social Security on Winter Heating payments. I welcome Ben Macpherson MSP, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and I also welcome officials Daniel Blakey, Solicitor Scottish Government, who is joining us in the room today, and Owen Allen, Winter Heating Benefits Policy Manager, and Angela Keane, Service Manager, Winter Benefits Scottish Government, who are joining us remotely. Hello all, thank you for attending this meeting. A few points to mention about the format of the meeting just before we begin. Angela and Owen online, please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you start to speak if the minister wishes to bring you in. For our members attending remotely, please wait until I say your name before speaking, and colleagues in the room should indicate to myself or the clerk if they wish to come in and ask a supplementary question. Members online should use the chat box or WhatsApp group. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate that follows. I will now invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Good morning, colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the draft winter heating assistance low-income Scotland regulations today. Those regulations will introduce our 13th Scottish benefit called winter heating payment. That will support around 400,000 people replacing the UK Government's cold weather payment. In contrast to cold weather payments, which are dependent on certain weather conditions, winter heating payment will be an annual, reliable £50 benefit delivered by Social Security Scotland beginning in February. Our approach will differ from that of the DWP, because to receive a single payment of the DWP's cold weather payment, someone must be living in an area where the average of the mean daily temperature for seven consecutive days is zero degrees or below, identified through weather stations, which often do not represent local conditions. By comparison, for winter heating payment, we have removed the requirement for any period of a specific temperature being reached. Instead, we will provide stability to people on low incomes who are less likely to be able to afford additional heating costs during the winter. We know that the cost of living crisis has had a significant impact on everyone, but those who are likely to feel the increase in energy prices the most are those with the lowest incomes and the highest need for additional warmth. That includes older people, disabled people and households with young children. Our new winter heating payment targets those groups, ensuring that they receive a reliable contribution towards their winter heating expenses and do not have to hope for periods of cold weather to be sustained for seven days just to trigger a payment, as is the case with cold weather payments. Indeed, between 2015-16 and 2021-22, an average of only £8.3 million was spent on cold weather payments in Scotland, supporting on average around 185,000 people each year. By comparison, we anticipate that our reliable £50 winter heating payment will provide at least £20 million to, as I have said, 400,000 people every year. We face challenging times and we are working with an largely fixed budget in Scotland. An investing £20 million each year is significantly more than the corresponding level of funding that we are forecast to receive from the UK Government under the block grant adjustment, again representing our principles that social security is an investment in people and can contribute to tackling poverty. For context, in four of the last 11 years, low-income households received less than £1 million from cold weather payments to help with their heating bills. Of course, as a Scottish Government, as well as the £20 million that we have allocated for winter heating payment, we are also spending tens of millions of pounds, hundreds of millions of pounds, on devolved source security, including our Scottish child payment, child winter heating assistance, carers allowance supplement and other benefits that are only available for people in Scotland. My officials and I are also very grateful to the DWP for their collaboration in delivering winter heating payment as part of our joint delivery of our devolved social security programme. Our ability to meet our target of beginning payments in February is based on DWP providing the right data at the right time to the Scottish Government. To ensure that payments can begin in February, it is critical that DWP maintain their commitment to providing data to Social Security Scotland by 31 January to allow us to conclude our internal assurance of the 400,000 records. That is really important. We continue to work closely with DWP to ensure a safe and secure transition. Lastly, members will be aware that the draft regulations were referred to the Scottish Commission on Social Security in June and we received their report in August. The Scottish Government response to their recommendations was laid in Parliament on 16 November, along with the final draft of the regulations. As always, I am extremely grateful to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its scrutiny and recommendations. I welcome the opportunity to be with you today and to take any questions as part of your consideration of those important regulations. We will now move straight on to questions from members. Our questions will be directed to you, but you are of course welcome to bring in any official. I will move straight to questions from our Deputy convener Emma Roddick. Since last week's meeting, we have had some really helpful information from Spice around which weather stations have triggered cold weather payments in the past and how many times. Six of the seven areas with the highest fuel poverty are in my region of the Highlands and Islands, but some of those areas, such as Stornoway, have not triggered a cold weather payment in many years. When they have in Wick, Lyric and Kirkwall, it tends to be one trigger a year, despite the challenges that we know exist there. Is winter heating payment then going to be a move in the right direction in tackling fuel poverty? I think that those are some important points that get to the heart of the weakness of the cold weather payment system in that it is unreliable and dependent on, as I said in my opening statement, the weather dropping below zero degrees Celsius for a seven consecutive day period. That 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, issues such as windchill are not factored into the considerations. The fact that Lyric and Shetland have only had three triggers of cold weather payments in the past 10 years has been mentioned in other areas in your region. For example, Wick has only had two since 2010-11, so that shows the weakness of the current system. What we are seeking to do, moving away from cold weather payments and into winter heating assistance, is to provide that support in a reliable way. Two areas, particularly with regard to the constituents that you represent, will be an improved position. There are areas of Scotland that experience fuel poverty where the weather is perhaps not quite as cold but also cold. What we have sought to do is to make a change here that helps low-income households in a more comprehensive way, of course, increasing the amount of people who, on average, will benefit from the winter benefit from around £185,000 to £400,000, so an increase of more than 200,000 people receiving the support, but also the fact that it will be reliable. That is the key change that we are making today. On the point about reliability, looking at the likes of Abymor, who this winter might only have triggered one or maybe no cold weather payments but in other years could be looking at three or four, is there extra help available to people in those places if there is a very bad winter? I appreciate that point. The way that the question was correctly worded there around if and should demonstrates the fact of why we need to go to a reliable position for people. I appreciate that Mr Balfour asked that question in the chamber just yesterday about areas that are under the cold weather payments system. If there was a prolonged period of several instances of seven consecutive days, which is unusual, we would have received support from the cold weather payments system then. However, in Scotland, we also have our fuel and security fund, which we have doubled when we would encourage people to engage with that support system. We also have the different support mechanisms that are detailed in our cost of allowing website campaign. We would encourage people to look at that package of support and access all of the support that they are entitled to. Many households would have received cold weather payment in such a scenario if the weather was extreme to the extent that cold weather payments would have been initiated. A lot of those households will receive additional support from the Scottish Government through the social security system. For example, through the Scottish child payment and through the cares allowance supplement, potentially their household. There is a lot of additional support that those households rightly are receiving from the Scottish Government. Thank you. We will now move online to questions from James Dornan. Good morning, minister. I do not know who or what higher power I have upset, but my heating has been off for the last 24 hours and no immediate sign of a thaw to the pipes. Now, I appreciate that I quite rightly would not qualify for this benefit, but given that I am sure there will be a number of my constituents in through the same experience right now, when I called my faculty and said that hundreds of those calls over the last two days, could you tell me, A, when is the last time that my constituents would have received or Glasgow City itself last received the cold weather payments and, B, would my constituents now benefit from the winter heating payment? First of all, the challenge is that the relevant weather station for most of Glasgow and some of Remfisher is, well, for Remfisher and most of Glasgow is Bishopton, but I would also take this opportunity to emphasise that as part of the weakness in the cold weather payment system is that the weather stations are related to certain post codes and it is not based on local authority area and there is challenge around that. The Bishopton weather station is the one that serves Glasgow to the largest extent. There was a cold weather payment in 2021—one of £25—and in 1819 there was one, £25. 1718 there were two, which would have been £50. So, in the period since 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 they would have received £50 each year if that had been in place. That demonstrates for many low-income households that they will be better off under the winter heating payment system that we are seeking to introduce in asking committee to approve today than they would have been under the cold weather payment system. Is it possible that the reason that most respondents to the consultation, I think of 76 per cent, agreed with breaking the link to the cold weather precisely because a large group of people who could have done with this support have previously missed out? The minister can outline how the feedback from stakeholders influenced the development of the policy, for example, was this unfairness in the CWP, the primary reason that the Scottish Government decided to break the link with cold weather? I should have said that there was also one payment in 1415, so another £25 there, so I apologise to the committee. 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. The engagement with stakeholders and others, I will bring on in in a minute, if I may convener. Of course, the Scottish Government consulted more widely and we really appreciated the feedback and contributions of all those who engaged with that consultation. There was a clear view from the consultation and also through our experience panels, which of course Social Security Scotland consulted on the work that we are doing consistently. Breaking the link with cold weather was very much preferred because of the unreliability of not knowing whether support would be available and the fact that the seven consecutive day requirement often meant that it often meant that there might be temperatures that are freezing zero degrees Celsius or below, for example, for six days, but then on the seventh not so. That would mean that people would get that extra support under the cold weather payment system. Breaking the link with cold weather and the issues around the fact that the weather stations do not—the reliance on the weather stations and the placement of the weather stations geographically means that there are places that are not able to get the cold weather payment even when the weather for people feels and is cold. The way that that is organised logistically just feels unjust for people and that is why we are seeking—I think that it is unjust—to make the change to a reliable payment. Do you want to say a bit more about the engagement that we undertook? Good morning. Just to reiterate what the minister said, the vast majority of respondents who are public consultation agreed with the proposal to move away from a weather-dependent payment towards a payment that was more universal and certain. This was echoed in our social security experience panel survey, which was run at the same time, asking people with lived experience of cold weather payments and the benefit system similar questions. We also carried out extensive engagement with our stakeholder reference group and, again, the views were echoed there. In terms of how that was taken into consideration for the overall stakeholder engagement that was taken into consideration during the development of the policy, it fed back in terms of the timing of the qualifying week and the fact that that was moved closer to the time dependent after the consultation period. Obviously, we will continue to work with stakeholders moving forward once the benefit is being launched. If I may elaborate as well that, of course, the most respondents to the consultation 76 per cent agreed with breaking the link to cold weather. I mean, even if we reflect on last winter, you can understand why. In 2021-22 DWP estimates show that cold weather payments were only triggered on six occasions at only four of the 27 Scottish weather stations. That resulted in payments of only 325,000 in total to approximately 11,000 individuals. If we had winter heating payment last year, it would have been £20 million of investment compared with £325,000, and it would have supported the 400,000 individuals in comparison to 11,000. Of course, the unreliability of cold weather payments means that it is different each year, but I think that by comparison to look at last year compared with what we will be able to do this year should these regulations pass is worth considering. Thank you very much, James, and thank you minister. I'll bring Pam Duncan-Glancy in now, thanks. Thank you, convener, and good morning minister and to your officials as well, and thanks for joining us. I won't rehearse some of the arguments that we've just heard about the differentials, but I will say that, for the additional people who are getting money, I think that it's very important for us all to remember that that is a pound a week. It is barely going to scratch the surface, and Energy Action Scotland said last week that it would be a finger in the dam in terms of fuel poverty. We really need to bear that in mind when we're describing something that has also been described as ill-conceived benefit, a gas that it has ever been launched. I genuinely share that concern. Last week, Energy Action Scotland told us that, during winter 2021, at typical consumption rates for energy, the cold weather payment provided 56 days of heat. A £50 payment to the same community at the current rate provides only seven days of heat. Across winter 2023-2024, the £50 payment will provide only six days of heat, as I've said. The offer is not going to be enough for people in need. You say that you've retained the ability to legislate for additional payments for those groups, should they need a rise. How do you determine need, and how do we know that you'll do this, given that, when you gave a commitment about doubling the carers allowance supplement, that never materialised? I appreciate the questions, and I listened to Fraser Scott's evidence from last week. We have deliberately built in the capacity in the regulations in future years to be able to pay a higher sum if the Government was financially able to. That would require a change to the regulations and another set of amending regulations, but also the ability to pay two payments in winter, if that was the determination of the Government at that time or more. That would require two scans from the DWP of the data available in order to implement that. I've deliberately built in flexibility to be able to pay more and more often in the future, if that was feasible and financially possible. The challenge for all of the Government is that, for this financial year, members are aware, given the two statements made by the Deputy First Minister and Acting Finance Secretary, on how challenging the budget is this year. In future years, the budget for the next financial year will be announced to Parliament this afternoon. Members will know that I cannot comment on that at this point. The Government has a strong record of seeking to do more with Scottish Social Security where and when it can. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to pay an additional Cares allowance supplement this year, but we have continued to pay the additional the Cares allowance supplement, which is not available elsewhere in the UK. Of course, we have increased the Scottish child payment by 150 per cent. We are delivering child winter heating assistance, which has been paid. There are a range of support from the Scottish Government that is over and above what people receive elsewhere in the UK, which are 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 of course within, to a very large extent, a 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 limited resources of the Scottish Government. I would like winter heating assistance to be a higher amount, of course, but we also have to operate within the budgets that we have. For £50 will be more, as I said, for many individuals than they would have received under the cold weather payment system. We are pleased to be able to give them that additional support, with appreciation of the challenging times that people are experiencing. I am sure that the £50 that I will say is £1 a week against the rising energy costs will genuinely share concerns that it is a finger in a dam, but I am sure that they will appreciate the pound. The minister noted that weather stations do not reflect everywhere in Scotland. I share that concern and you will be aware that last week so did witnesses. What other weather-related options did you consider? Did you look at absolute temperature and you have said that it would be administratively burdensome? Can you set out what conversations you have had with the Met Office? On the latter point, I will bring Owen in again in terms of engagement with the Met Office. I should say that I appreciate the point that, if you were to isolate the £50 support, if that was the only thing that the Scottish Government was doing to provide additional financial resource, I appreciate the arguments that the Government should always be looking to do more, but it is important to also consider that the Scottish Government is providing tens, hundreds of millions of pounds of additional social security support that is not available in Scotland, and many of the individuals who will receive our heating payment will also be receiving other support from the Scottish Government. We have doubled the fuel and security fund as well, so there is a lot of other financial resource and support that is available to people. I think that it is important to see 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 on delivery, as I said, I have moved away from the weather-dependent approach because we know the difference between some areas and the location of weather stations, which could trigger a cold weather payment, has been a source of frustration for people previously. We understand that collectively. The exclusive reliance on temperature rather than other factors such as wind chill, as I mentioned, to the deputy convener, has also made some people feel that they were not being treated fairly. Indeed, island communities have particularly lost out under the cold weather payment system, but retaining any weather-dependency aspect when introducing winter heating payment would require a new agreement to be reached with the DWP and the Met Office. It would be much more technically complex to develop and test and would be administratively burdensome scheme for Social Security Scotland to deliver. I think that it is important to be up front about that, whereas a flat-rate payment will be more simple to deliver and administer, but more importantly, it will provide a guaranteed payment to those most vulnerable who have been identified as needing additional support. The guaranteed payment, the reliability of winter heating payment, will be the most significant change that will make a difference for many, as well as, of course, the extended number of people who will receive support by, we project, more than 200,000 more people will receive support. Owen, do you want to say anything more about the Met Office, please? I'll just make one point, minister. I think that you covered the majority of the main points. During the policy development of winter heating payment, we did engage with the Met Office on other ways of changing co-weather payment. The weather dependency aspect of co-weather payment is the most complex aspect of the eligibility. The conclusion of our discussions with the Met Office was that adding anything further or changing anything further in terms of weather, adding in windchill, feels-like temperature, adds significant complexity to how that is calculated and identified by the Met Office. Obviously, it is the opposite of the approach that we have taken to simplify the benefit itself to ensure that it is delivered quicker. I move now to questions from Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Faisal Chowdhury online. Can I just follow up that question from my colleague Pam Duncan-Clansey? How many meetings did you have with the Met Office and how many meetings did you have with DWP to discuss other methods of doing it? I will bring on in in a minute, because engagement would take place more at the official level. The development of winter heating assistance in terms of the decisions that were made was before I was appointed as minister, so it would not have been me personally. However, I will bring on in to discuss official engagement, and perhaps you can also refer to any engagement that Ms Imreville undertook as cabinet secretary. As far as I'm worried, there was no engagement at ministerial level. There were multiple meetings at official level, initially pre-Covid and then late in 2021. Can I clarify for you, minister, whether that meeting is with the Met Office and with DWP, or just with the Met Office? Owen, do you want to answer that on behalf of Mr Balfour, please? I apologise, but that was specifically with the Met Office at official level. Then can I clarify again for you, minister, how many meetings did officials have with DWP officials to discuss how that would work? Owen, if you could answer that, Mr Balfour, if you are not able to identify how many meetings, perhaps you can allude to approximately the number of meetings. I wouldn't have the specific number at hand. There's constant engagement between Scottish Government officials and DWP officials across policy and programme, so the specific number wouldn't have to hand. I should say, if I may, Mr Balfour, that engagement between the Scottish Government at official level and the DWP has been strong and constructive on this, the delivery of this benefit. I alluded in my opening remarks how important it is for us to get the scan that we require from DWP before the end of January in order to deliver it. We had them wished that we could have got that scan earlier in January, but we also appreciate and understand the demands on colleagues in the DWP at the moment in terms of delivering the cost of living support, which is a significant undertaking for the DWP. There's an understanding of the priorities and needs of both Governments at the moment to deliver support, and we're working to do that in a constructive way. I'm grateful for that, Minister. In the policy memorandum set out at the start of this policy, one of the things that the Scottish Government committed to was to leave nobody behind and to leave nobody worse off. The figures that we have from SPICE and the figures that you've been using show that there will be people who are going to be worse off because of this introduction of this new benefit. Why has that happened, and would you like to apologise to those individuals this morning? I can appreciate the question in that cold weather payment has, in certain areas, initiated more than two payments in a winter in parts of Scotland on a consistent basis, because there's nothing consistent about cold weather payment. That's one of the inherent weaknesses in it. I appreciate that there are areas that have received support from cold weather payments that exceed £50 in certain years. However, we don't know what the weather is going to be like even in those places in winters to come. I encourage those who may, in certain weather conditions, have received more than £50 under the cold weather payment in certain places. I encourage them to utilise the other support from the Scottish Government, such as the fuel and security fund. However, it is important to recognise that, overall, hundreds of thousands of more people will benefit from the winter heating payment than they have done under the cold weather payment system. Do you accept the evidence that we heard last week that there will be people this year who will be worse off than they would have been in previous years? We don't know this year, Mr Balfour, and I don't mean to be flippant or anything around that, but this week we would have initiated a cold weather payment in certain places in Scotland because there have been seven consecutive days whether at zero degrees Celsius or below. However, we don't know if there will be another two weeks of that in winter in Scotland, even in those places. I appreciate the evidence last week and the stats that there are places that have historically in the years past. Some years past, not all years, some years past received more than £50, but there is no guarantee that that would happen this year, the year after, the year after that or the year after that, even in those places. Although I appreciate looking at the weather and analysis, it could be likely, and I accept that. However, overall, as I said, tens of thousands of more people will benefit from winter heating payment than did under the cold weather payment system. My final question, minister, is that you started with a blank piece of paper—or well, your predecessor started with a blank piece of paper—in regard to designing a scheme. I accept that there were thoughts within the DW scheme, and I think that you highlighted those. However, the system here has got criticism from a number of the third sector charities around it. I would be interested to know, did you look at any other scheme of deciding how to get a payment? For example, rather than taking seven days as a limit for having, at a certain temperature, did you look at, say, three days or four days of looking at that temperature? Why, in the end, did you come up with a scheme that, possibly, on certain years, will leave a number of people in the coldest parts of Scotland less well off? I will bring Owen in in a minute in terms of the history of the considerations, but it is important to recognise that the considerations around this benefit were, of course, impacted by the pandemic period. We have a work programme that we want to fulfil to meet Parliament's expectations and those of the public and our ambition and determination to devolve social security in a way that is safe and secure, but also as expedient as possible within that. More importantly, there was a recognition that the cold weather payment, and I should say that, of course, I would want to recognise that, with regard to my answer to your former question, I would want to recognise that I do appreciate that, around the Breamer station, there have been most years' initiations of several cold weather payments, and I recognise that fact, and I do appreciate that. However, with regard to the considerations of your question in terms of how we continue what considerations were there around the delivery of this benefit, I think that the overarching recognition was the unreliability of it, the fact that it didn't guarantee low-income families' support and low-income households' support, and that there was a need to build in a consistency of having a measure that helped those who need assistance in different parts of Scotland with a reliable payment to help them with their heating assistance, not the only payment, because there are other supports, but there is a reliable payment within that to provide that support. Owen, do you want to come in on the considerations in the development of this benefit? Thank you minister. There were multiple different options considered during the development of the policy. I will just reiterate what I said earlier in terms of retaining any kind of weather dependency aspect and making changes to that to change the number of days a cold weather event is recorded over the temperature and what is considered alongside the temperature, such as wind chill, and rain would add significant complexity to how the benefit is delivered. Thank you minister. Can we move now to questions from Foisal Chowdry? Thank you convener. Good morning minister, colleagues and the team. Last week, the committee was given evidence of the rates of the fuel poverty across Scotland. Is the move to break the link to the weather not going to further disadvantage some of the already fuel poor areas in the highlands and islands, for example? A lot of that already, so I'd be grateful if you could keep the response to this quite brief as we're running low on time. I appreciate the sentiment of the points raised by Mr Chowdry. I would refer him to my previous answers to Mr Balfour. That's helpful for experience. Thank you very much. I'm good with that. When you're online sometimes you miss a few things, but thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move now on to theme 2. I would just ask members and the minister if he could please keep questions and answers quite brief as we are running quite low on time. Theme 2, I'll move first to questions from Paul McClellan. Thank you, convener, and good morning. Minister, I'll keep the questions to what you concentrated on last week as well in terms of this. You've obviously mentioned about the other schemes that are there to help people, obviously within the Scottish Government and within the UK as well. I suppose the question for me is how do we maximise the opportunity that they're aware of that to make sure that they are aware of the winter heat payment but also other benefits that are out there? I know that there was a scheme that was raised during the week trying to say something about making people aware, but generally on-going, what can we do in that regard? In terms of winter heating payment, people won't need to be aware that they'll just get it. We'll write to them and they'll get it. Of course, we have discussed this in a very constructive and helpful way as a committee, as a Parliament, and the public discourse is engaged in how we raise awareness of what supports are available more generally. Of course, the Scottish Government's hosting website of listing all the support that is available to people and encouraging to utilise it is something that we should disseminate widely and raise awareness of within all regions and constituencies of Scotland. I know that that's happening and I appreciate members' engagement on that. Of course, the Government, working with local authorities and the third sector and other bodies is constantly trying to raise awareness of what support is available. In terms of making sure that people are aware of the fuel and security fund, it's something that we should all be doing as well as appreciating that there are payments that have already been initiated. Child winter heating assistance has gone out from Social Security Scotland to around 25,000 households, so that's additional support that's been paid just in recent weeks. Of course, there are other supports available that require an application, so on the Scottish Government's side, we continue to raise awareness of the various family benefits in particular that require application. Scottish child payment, the response has been remarkable and the number of applications has been extraordinary. Social Security Scotland is working to deliver and pay those as quickly as it can. However, I would cite that there is a campaign under way to encourage people to make sure that they are applying for pension credit from the UK Government. I would take this opportunity to commend DWP for the proactive way in which they are encouraging people to undertake pension credit. Of course, that's helpful because it's also a benefit that unlocks some Social Security Scotland benefits. There's a range of work under way, and I would encourage all parliamentarians, everyone who has a network, and if there are people listening to social networks, whether that's word-of-mouth or online or otherwise, to continue to raise awareness of what supports are available, because this Government absolutely wants to get every pound of support that people are entitled to them, particularly at this time. That's fine for me, convener. Thank you very much, Paul. We'll move back to Faisal Toudry, who is joining us online. Thank you. I think that we did talk about it in the last one, the operating of the 50-pound payment. Is there any planned framework for this, or uniting payments? I think that the minister did talk in the last one, Mr Walford, about that question. Is there any plan for operating this 50-pound plan? Again, an important point. Of course, considerations around operating are for the budget process. Of course, there will be a budget statement this afternoon, and I'm sure that members can appreciate why I can't comment on this or any of the devolved benefits that are within our discretion in terms of operating. Thank you very much. I'll wait for the budget report. Thank you. Move now to Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, convener. The rate, as we've discussed, is at 50 pounds in the current rate of heating. That would probably heat a house for six days, as I said earlier. Can you set out why specifically at 50 pounds? In line with costs, the payment should be at 125 pounds. What would you say to people who are struggling with their bills on the basis of that just now? As I alluded earlier, we considered increasing the payment to 25 pounds and 100 pounds in the consultation. However, that would increase the forecast annual expenditure from £20 million to £30 million and £40 million respectively. We're just not able to finance that within this financial year. As members know, the Scottish Government budget is under significant pressure with regard to this financial year. However, we have made a choice to invest over and above the corresponding level of funding that we forecast to receive from the UK Government with regard to cold weather payments. However, that limits our scope for additional increases to the value or frequency of payments because of the nature of our very significantly fixed budget. I would say that, of course, 50 pounds is, on average, more than what people would have received from the cold weather payment. The majority of people who received from the cold weather payment was 25 pounds, so we have doubled that to 50. I would like to come in with one of my own questions on that. One of the things that was raised a lot last week and one of the things that I was slightly concerned with was the payment date in terms of that February date. Obviously, the minister has already alluded to the increased number of people who are going to benefit from this, and that is a hugely positive thing. However, in terms of that February date, that does seem a little bit late in the winter, so could the minister outline how we came to that February date, please? I understand the focus on that. During our consultation, we engaged with several stakeholders as well as people with lived experience of cold weather payments through our Social Security Scotland experience panels, as I mentioned. We do appreciate that there were different views on when would be the best time for this benefit to be delivered. There have been arguments from different consultation feedback that we have had, and we have also considered widely that it can be colder in January and February, and it could be helpful for people who get quarterly bills that the largest of those tend to land with people in February. However, I know that there are differing opinions on that, and that is something that we will consider ahead of future years. I know that there are those who have expressed a preference for such a payment to be made earlier in the winter, and I have committed to review that ahead of delivery next year and in future years. The regulations deliberately state that we would deliver this benefit in winter to create that flexibility so that we can consider when would be the optimum time. In terms of this year, we have a congested delivery landscape. I talked in answer to Mr Balfour earlier about the fact that DWP is also under pressure delivering their payments of additional support, although I am in no way suggesting that DWP has determined our timetable. We set our timetable for February because of what I have said previously, but we also had to consider the fact that we were delivering child winter heating assistance and needing to deliver that payment. We were delivering carers allowance supplement and had to consider that payment. We have, of course, rolled out adult disability payment this year, and that has increased the demands on the agency and, of course, significantly launched the second phase of Scottish child payment on 14 November. We always have to consider how we deliver benefits safely, securely and reliably. The agency has to, in this instance, deliver a new benefit with winter heating payment where we provide enough time to ensure that we have developed the capacity to process the 400,000 cases when we receive the data scan from the DWP and to ensure that essential system testing is completed prior to commencing any payments. There is a wide range of considerations that went in to why, in this instance, the payment will be made from February. However, as I said, I have committed to considering when we would want to change that for next year or future years. I have listened attentively to the feedback on that and I appreciate the evidence that the committee has heard. Thank you very much, minister, for providing that clarity. It is important to know that that flexibility is there. I will now move to questions from Miles Briggs. Good morning, minister. Good morning to your officials as well. On that point, convener, you raised that it is concerning, because it does not seem to be flexibility. From what we have heard, Scots living in some of the coldest communities in Scotland are going to lose out. I think that that is deeply concerning. Bremar has recorded minus 15 this week. Today, as we speak, it is minus 2. Do you accept that these rural communities are going to lose out and that those payments are not going to be even in their bank till potentially February? I wanted to specifically ask why is there not that flexibility that DWP can pay within 14 days for this money to be put out now? As I said, because we are increasing the amount of people who will receive support from the Scottish Government, it is a large data scan that we need to receive from DWP and we are working collegially with DWP on receiving that data. We then need to receive that data, assurance, check it, make sure that it is to do all the appropriate system testing and system alignment that has to happen to deliver a benefit and then deliver it from February. DWP has committed to provide that scan to us before 31 January, and we are grateful for that, because we need that scan in order to deliver it. I think that the comparison with the 14 days from cold weather payment is not appreciative of the fact that we are initiating this benefit this year. There will be flexibility in future years, as I said, if we wanted to change the payment to a different juncture in the calendar, to November, December or January, but that would also be contingent on agreement with DWP that we would receive the scan in those years in advance of being able to deliver that payment. I am not saying that DWP would not, but we would have to agree that with them in a collegiate manner. As I said, that flexibility has been built in. I appreciate the points around approximately 1,000 people who are served by the Bremar weather station with regard to cold weather payments. However, we have made a policy decision to expand the amount of people who will receive support in a reliable way to approximately 400,000 people. It is a significantly higher amount of people who will receive support, who will also experience cold weather, perhaps not to the same extreme, but who will certainly experience the need for additional heating costs. That is the policy decision that we have made and are asking committee to approve today. Thank you, minister. I take that on board, but it does seem a very much process argument rather than people who are living in those conditions. That is concerning. I do not see how that is the case. Communities that are facing temperatures now would receive payments within two weeks under the old system. It is February now that they will receive one payment of £50, so it is quite clear that a data scan would not be in a better place without the DWP current system. I think that that is a balance, because I appreciate that you could argue that a smaller number of people would be better off under the cold weather payment, but then, of course, more than 200,000 people are going to receive support from the winter heating payment that would likely have received that under the cold weather payment. Those are people in the coldest communities in Scotland. I think that there could have been more flexibility to take that into account now, rather than in future years. The Scottish Government told Scots that it may take a few weeks in February to process those payments. Will the eligible recipients receive their payments before the end of February? I am going to bring Angela Inge in at this point. Of course, contingent on receiving the data scan from the DWP and the data being in order and the processes being initiated in the way that we intend, all of that considered that we will aim to pay everyone as quickly as possible within February, but I cannot guarantee that everyone will receive the benefit within February, but that is certainly our intention to get the support to people as quickly as we can. Angela, do you want to say a bit more about that, please? We will receive the data, as the minister described, from the DWP at the end of January, following our assurance of the data. We will then start making the payments in batches. That is to allow, first of all, a safe and secure transition of that data into the automatic payment system so that we get as many people paid automatically as possible, but, as the minister has already mentioned, taking into account Social Security Scotland and the capacity that it will have to handle processing of that data and queries and comments from our client group. We want to make sure that we are able, across the piece, within Social Security Scotland and our technical delivery, to be able to get those payments out as quickly as possible. They will start from February in those batches, and we will continue to do that as quickly as possible. On the previous points that Mr Briggs made, I would just emphasise as well that those who are requiring a bit of extra support to please engage with the fuel and security fund, which, of course, we have doubled in the whole meeting support fund. We want people to get support if they are entitled to it. I think that it might be important if the minister leaves this meeting to write to those communities, specifically with that information. People might not be aware of that, so I think that it would be useful, especially for postcode areas that we are talking about, to make sure that households are aware of that. It is not in my gift to write to communities in that way. Ministers are not able to write to individual households in that regard. We can lize with the councils, maybe. But, certainly, the Scottish Government lizes with local authorities on these matters regularly. I am, of course, keen to support both those local authorities and local members to raise awareness of what supports them. I appreciate Mr Briggs' context and constructive suggestion. Before I move on to questions from Jeremy Balfour, we are running slightly behind time. I was going to ask the minister if he would be able to grant us an extra 15 minutes just to get through the rest of our questions. Members have had a lot of questions this morning, obviously. I will move on to Jeremy Balfour. Could you take us into theme 4? I am slightly concerned by that last answer to Mr Briggs, because I did not hear from either yourself or from the official a guarantee that these payments will be made in February. We have seen slippage in other payments by Social Security Scotland already. I am just wondering. You said that you have had a very sudden official idea. You do not seem to have engaged with DWP, but with officers and with officials. You said that there has been a good relationship with DWP. Why are we waiting until the end of January to get this information? Why are we not getting it now or at the beginning of January so that we can guarantee that these payments will be made in February? Why are we waiting until the end of the month? I think that that is a very good question, Mr Balfour, and that is certainly, as I said, we requested the data from DWP from early January in order to give us more time to make sure that we could deliver the benefit as quickly as possible. However, DWP officials have relayed to my officials that, because of the other demands on the DWP with the cost of living payments, they were only able to guarantee us the scan by the end of January. So, we are grateful to them that they have guaranteed and committed to giving us the scan by the end of January, but we did wish for it earlier, but we also appreciated the demands on them. As Angela has articulated, once we have the data scan, agency will work as hard and as proactively as it can to get payments out to people as quickly as possible in a safe and secure way. I have said that I cannot guarantee that everyone will get their payment in February, but what I can guarantee is that we will seek to get payments to people as quickly as possible and to as many people as possible in February. Can I, just again, just piece of that, have you had discussions with your ministerial colleagues in London about this transfer of information? Have you discussed this with your counterpart within DWP? Yes, of course. There have been a number of ministerial changes at UK level. The winter heating payment was, as far as I can recall, an issue that I discussed at points with Ms Smith in previous bilaterals, but the issue of data is something that I did not discuss with her because the concerns around us not getting it until late January had emerged at that point. However, I had a very helpful bilateral with Mr Pursglove this week, who is the new minister, and I am grateful to him and his officials for their confirmation during that bilateral that we will receive the data scan on 31 January, as agreed. If I can move on, as I am conscious of time, just to two questions around the next area. You may not have this information to hand, minister, so I am happy if you want to write to us. You helpfully say that there are other benefits available, you mentioned several of them. Do you have a number of people who wish to be the only winter payment that they will receive, so that they are not entitled to any of the benefits around children? Do you have a breakdown of whether that is the only payment that they will receive in regard to winter heating? I do not have that data to hand. We can take that away as an action to get back to the member and the committee on that. I would point out that, of course, there will be benefits that they will receive from the UK Government in this situation, too. My final question, minister, and I think that you and I have discussed this both when you were on committee and since you have been minister, is your Government's view on extending the child winter heating assistance to include disabled adults as well. Obviously, there are many adults who are in receipt of some kind of award, either mobility or care, but will not receive this winter heating payment. They will often be at home more and will have higher heating costs. Is there any policy intention to include this in disabled adults? I appreciate not this year, but maybe next year. Is it somewhere that the Government would like to get to in the next two or three years? I am interested to see the committee's engagement on that point. Of course, child winter heating assistance was delivered on a 2016 S&P manifesto commitment to extend the eligibility for the winter fuel payment to families with children in receipt of the highest care component of disability living allowance. Obviously, today we are talking about introducing winter heating payment, which is about supporting those on low incomes who are most vulnerable, including adults with disabilities. That will be followed, as members know, by the introduction of pension age winter payment in 2024, replacing winter fuel payments. We have to deliver that in the period ahead. How we continue to support both children and disabled adults through the social security system is a point that we are all concerned about. We want to provide support where we can in terms of the direct question of extending child winter heating assistance to disabled adults. That is not something that we have considered directly at this juncture, but I appreciate the committee's interest in the matter. For our last theme, I will move to questions from Pam Duncan Glancy. Thank you, convener. We have heard this morning about the support that you have put in place for people across Scotland. Of course, we welcome the payments that are available here, and we will all do what we can to make sure that people access them through the communication of that. Ultimately, Energy Action Scotland, and I agree with it, said that it is like a finger in a dam, so when it comes to fuel poverty, we really are falling short for too many people in Scotland. They estimate that the financial support that has been described a lot of which this morning, including changes to benefits in social security Scotland, that, even with all of that, one in three households in Scotland will be in fuel poverty by April next year and one in four in extreme fuel poverty. They have gone on to say that higher costs within inadequate financial support will lead to an increase in excess winter mortality. Of the Scottish Government payments, they say that none recover a position for any household. The Government, through its fuel and security fund, has provided crisis payments to a small number of households, important for those who receive them but insufficient. They conclude that the support that has been available is a patchwork with one of payments being normalised and targeting being poor. So, can the minister commit now to reviewing the fuel payments landscape in Scotland to help struggling families today? Just in terms of that last question, how would you envisage that taking place just for us? I am absolutely clear on what you are asking. I think that it is clear that none of the payments that you have described this morning have addressed the real fuel and security and poverty that people across Scotland are experiencing. I was going to also mention the child winter heating payment issue that Jeremy Balfour, my colleague, has mentioned. A number of disabled people, regardless of their age or level of impairment, are having to use more heating now than before. They are disproportionately impacted by that, but the reality is that what we have heard in this committee and what people have told us in our constituencies is that they do not have enough money to get by, and none of what we are doing in Scotland is getting there. It is like a finger in a dam, as we have been told. Will you be able to review the landscape very quickly and start to address the fuel poverty that people in Scotland are going to experience? I thank the member for raising those important points. Of course, those are considerations that myself and my colleagues are engaged in. We are seeking with the mechanisms and resources that we have, the limited resources that are in a largely fixed budget to provide additional support to people, and I appreciate that you recognise that in your question. We will always seek to consider what we can do, but also with mindfulness around how there are demands on other aspects of the public sector and the strong demand across the board in terms of what people are needing during this cost of living crisis. We have provided a significant amount of extra support over and above what we have from the UK Government in terms of the block grant adjustment for social security, approximately £0.5 billion, £460 million in the financial year that we are in. I think that the evidence of creating the child winter heating assistance benefit, the evidence of seeking to provide this benefit of winter heating assistance to more households, the evidence of introducing the Scottish child payment and increasing it by 150 per cent, shows that the Scottish Government is doing what it can to provide additional support, but we appreciate that people are really under a significant challenge at the moment, and we absolutely recognise that and are working to identify resources where we can to support people in extra ways. When it comes to addressing fuel poverty, there are wider aspects around people's dwellings and energy efficiency. I know that there was a lot of discussion on those matters quite understandably in the evidence that you took last week. I would encourage engagement with my ministerial colleague, Mr Harvie, and I am sure that he would be interested to come back and speak to the committee on what the Government is undertaking in that regard to help people with their heating costs, with their dwellings and how we reduce energy consumption in order to help people with those cost pressures. It follows on from the line of questioning that Jeremy Balfour had. I wanted to raise, in the ministers, I am sure, aware of Marie Curie's campaign with regard to Scottish Government looking to extend eligibility for the assistance to terminally ill people and to make sure that that is also including people under the age of 65. I just wondered where the Scottish Government was on that and if that is something given what he has outlined to committee about potential reforms and changes, the Government is mindful to take forward. First of all, I thank Mr Briggs for raising this issue and for his work in this area. I know that, over the course of the past year, there have been a number of different areas in which Mr Briggs has questioned the matter of terminality, and perhaps we can arrange a meeting in 2023 to discuss these issues more roundly. I think that that would be helpful. Of course, we all want to make sure, as much as we can, as we can do it, that no terminally ill person should have to worry about their finances in such a difficult time. Of course, as a Government, we recognise the specific requirements of those living with life-limiting conditions and the call for greater support. However, there is also consideration around whether winter heating payment is the correct vehicle for extending provision in those circumstances. Of course, the case is that some people who receive disability benefit in relation to their terminality may already be eligible to receive a winter heating payment through entitlement to one of the qualifying low-income benefits and relevant premiums. More generally, we have introduced a range of support measures for terminally ill people and their carers. For instance, in introducing our Scottish disability benefits, as members know, we have changed the definition of terminality to be more sympathetic to enable people to access the social security support that we want them to receive. We have done that by removing any time requirement from our definition of terminality in Scotland, which, of course, allows child disability payment and adult disability payment to provide people who are terminally ill with fast-tracked access to financial assistance at the highest rates that they are entitled to, ensuring that accessing financial support for them is as straightforward as possible. Our person-centred approach to child disability payment and adult disability payment relies on the judgment of clinicians, as I said, rather than on fixed periods of life expectancy. Any potential improvements, including extension of the eligibility criteria, will be considered once the new benefit of winter heating payment is delivered and its initial evaluation is complete. I thank Mr Briggs for raising it and, as I said, more generally, I would be happy to meet him on issues surrounding terminal illness in the new year. Thank you, minister. It would be very helpful. This week, I met with Caroline Hunter, who the minister will be aware of, who very much highlighted the 5,000 families across Scotland who have children and who have equipment at home, which is seeing their energy bills go up. No, I know that this is not directly for this assistance, but it is also something that I am quite keen to progress and look to do a round table next year with the cross-party round table on. So I hope that the minister is happy to take up that meeting and hopefully these things can be discussed going forward. Given the energy cost, it is an important issue to try to look towards a solution as well. Of course, I appreciate the cost facing those households. I hope that the delivery of child winter heating assistance and the changes that we have made in terms of increasing the amount of people—the changes that we made last year—increasing the amount of people who were eligible for that has helped, but I appreciate the challenges for those households. Thank you very much. We just have one final question from Deputy convener Emma Roddick to finish us off. Thank you, convener. I want to go back to the timeline issue, because the minister touched on the data. First, could he outline what preparations are taking place at Social Security Scotland in order to be ready to make the payments in February and how reliance on DWP for that data adds complexity to the delivery? I will bring in Angela Constance in a moment to talk practically from an agency perspective. The scan is absolutely essential to being able to deliver this benefit, because the eligibility criteria, as members will see in the regs, is based on reserved benefits to a large extent. We absolutely have to have that scan in order to deliver the benefit. Significant preparation has been undertaken today and will be undertaken over the weeks ahead until we receive that scan. Angela, that would probably be a good time to bring you in, just to illuminate on that a little more. Yes, thank you minister. The data, once we've received it, as we've discussed previously, has a period of assurance. That's to make sure that we can actually put the data into the system and make as many automatic payments as possible. In conjunction with that, our agency colleagues have been identified and are being trained currently to assist with processing of any cases that are not able to progress through the automatic routes and to take any questions from clients in relation to those payments that are about to be made to them all. Finally, we did hear last week about how those with the highest need for help paying energy bills are affected by other issues such as needing energy efficiency measures in their home and improvements in the wider context of UK energy policy. Could the minister outline how he is working with other portfolios in government to make sure that investment to reduce the need for social security is going on? Absolutely. As part of the net zero agenda, as well as the tackling child poverty national mission that the Government has, ministers, along with partners, are working collegially on how we reduce demand and how we improve the quality of people's dwellings and energy efficiency within them. My cabinet secretary, Shona Robison, has social security and housing in her remit. The engagement between Mr Harvey's work and the work of Social Security Scotland and how that all comes together to help to reduce both demand for energy and demand for social security is absolutely part of the focus of those two of the main pillars of the Government's work, which are the net zero agenda and the mission to tackle child poverty in particular. I would say as well that it is about efficiency of housing and the cost of housing that the Government has by investing capital in significantly more social housing than anywhere else in the UK, which means that costs are lower for people, which means that their costs overall are reduced. That is an important aspect of what the Government has delivered in recent years, in fact, over the last decade. However, the recent action that the Government and the Parliament have taken on rents is important to consider in this overall scenario as well. Thank you very much. That brings us to a close on that agenda item. I thank the minister for giving us that extra time there. We will move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-06818. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the winter heating assistance, low-income Scotland regulations, draft 2023, be approved. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion. I refer members to my opening statement and the discussion that we have had, and I urge colleagues to pass the motion and move it in my name. Thank you very much, minister. I now invite contributions from members. I see Jeremy Balfour who would like to come in. I thank the minister for his answers today. I think that there is clearly mixed views around this benefit in regard to how it has been handled and how it has been implemented, and although the minister has given some helpful answers today, I am not sure that he has actually grasped the disappointment that has been amongst many people about how this new benefit has been implemented. Clearly, it is the only thing on the table, and so I won't be voting against it this morning, but I won't be supporting it either. I will be abstaining, because the Government could have done a lot better on this, and I think that what we need to say to the Scottish Government is that we understand that this will happen hopefully in February, but, going forward, we need to see new regulations that actually address some of the issues that have come up in questions today. As the minister has pointed out, this is a new system. This is a new benefit created by the powers within this Scottish Parliament. I find it slightly strange that we have a system that has been designed that fails in wonderful policy objectives of the Scottish Government, which it put down in writing, and that was to leave no one behind. However, the minister wants to argue it. As a final lawyer, he has argued it very well. The fact is that there are people going to be left behind behind the rest of the system, particularly around Bremar and the surrounding areas of the Highlands. I do not know what discussions took place within the Scottish Government, and I appreciate that the minister was not involved with his predecessors. However, to go from a system that was not working particularly well, to go to a system now that is not working particularly well seems to me a rather odd situation. Why were we able to sit down and come up with a scheme that includes more people and does include more people, but at the same time protects those who are the most vulnerable in regard to cold temperatures in Scotland? There will be people in other parts of the United Kingdom in the next couple of weeks that will be getting money from DWP, while residents in Bremar are hoping that we might get £50 in February. That seems to me not treating people with dignity and respect. I would just say that I appreciate the argument that the member is making. I would just state that people who are entitled to winter heating payment will not need to hope that they will get it, and that is the different nature of the benefit in that it will be delivered safely and securely to those who are entitled and will not rely on weather conditions. With respect, minister, that is not what you said this morning. You said that you hope that we will get it in February, but you were not willing to guarantee that we will get it in February. That seems to me again a failing within the system. Again, I appreciate that a lot of this work was done before the minister came into place, but I would have thought with an issue of this importance in regard getting the information from DWP, but at some point over the last few months, not just this week, but actually July, August and September, the minister would have picked up a telephone to his counterpart in London and said, actually, can you make this more of a priority? I appreciate that we have got a good relationship between DWP, Scottish Government and Scottish Good Scotland, but could you get this information to us two or three weeks early? I will not. I have just asked the member to be mindful, of course, of the turmoil that the UK Government was in through the winter months and the challenging circumstances that created for intergovernmental engagement and with regard to new ministers being appointed and then brought up to speed in their various departments. I can assure you that my officials pressed on a regular basis on the need that we would prefer the data earlier and would need the data in order to deliver the benefit, but we have also been sensitive to and mindful of the pressures on DWP in terms of delivering their cost of living support. I would just want to be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government has made the case strongly that we would have preferred the data at an earlier juncture, but we have also been respectful of our DWP colleagues rather, of the demands on them. We have come to an agreement and we are grateful to them for committing strongly that they will give us the data that we need on 31 January. I appreciate that, minister, but again my point is that you did not pick up the phone and there was opportunity. That is a point that you did not pick up your phone, which obviously was not seen as a priority for yourself. I am conscious of the time that you need to move on to other things. The final point that I want to make is that if I was sitting here a few years ago with the minister when he was on the committee and DWP had said, we hope to get the payment by February, but we cannot guarantee that it might be March before we get it. There would have been an outrage, rightly so, from the committee, but it seems to be that this committee is quite happy to say, well, maybe February, maybe March, let's just wait and see. I think that we are treating two systems completely differently. I do think that it is time that the minister to responsibility, we are seeing payments not happening on time, we are seeing that on Twitter, we are seeing people going on Twitter saying, I haven't received it then, I haven't received it when I should have. It's now time for Social Security Scotland to deliver this. I would have hoped that the minister would have been able to be a bit more positive in regard to this payment being made to everyone in February. I am asking the minister to go away with his officials and see if he can come up with something better for next year. We won't vote against it, because clearly that would just leave people even worse off, but I'm not sure if this is what we envisage when we hope for new benefits coming out of Scottish Government. Thank you, Jeremy. I now have some comments from Pam Duncan Glancy. I thank the minister and his officials for answering the questions this morning. I'm afraid that I don't accept that this is better simply because it's reliable. All people can rely on is a payment that pays for six days' heat, £1 a week, a finger in a dam, as Energy Action Scotland have called it, and not even until February, which is far too late. No, I don't think that the alternative that we have here in front of us is acceptable. My constituents in Glasgow, I believe, will be aghast at the fact that all they're getting to deal with the fuel poverty they're in is £1 a week. I agree with a constituent from Glasgow, who I know is written to both the minister and I, and I share this, that I am aghast that this ill-conceived benefit has been launched. I'm afraid that, minister and convener, on that basis, I can't support the motion in front of us and I will abstain and hope that the Government will reconsider its approach. Her stated view that she does not believe that the £50 is a high enough figure. However, would she appreciate that this winter heating payment will deliver more support for her constituents than the cold weather payment did? First of all, I'm not sure if the minister has been outside in Glasgow in the last few days, and we are heading for a very cold period. I think that we'll wait and see what happens with the weather. However, what's also important is that, regardless of that, what you're offering people in Glasgow, 36 per cent of whom are living in fuel poverty just now, is £1 a week. I don't think that anyone who looks at the offer from the Scottish Government can look at that and think that you had an opportunity to redesign a fuel payment, a winter heating allowance that could genuinely have had an impact on fuel poverty in Scotland, and that is what's being done. I don't think that they'll accept that. On the basis of the past 10 years, the evidence shows that a winter heating payment will provide more assistance than cold weather payments have and would have if they'd continued on average. However, does Pamdang Wenglansi also welcome that, by creating that new benefit, we are creating the framework that, should the Scottish Government be able to finance a higher payment in a future financial year, that the mechanism is now there that would provide more support to her constituents in Glasgow than would have been the case under the cold weather payment system? I accept that the technical detail that the minister has set out, which says that there is a mechanism there. I don't believe on the basis of what I've seen since I've been in this place since May 2021 that commitments such as that have ever come to fruition in this time. I will wait and see and I'll hope that those mechanisms that are in the regulations will be used to support the people who live in Glasgow. I take the point about the average weather in the city over the past 10 years, but I would also say that I shared the concerns about the way in which the data is collected and the weather stations that it is collected from. The point that I made is that we had an opportunity to change the whole way that we did in Scotland, and I believe that the offer in front of people of Scotland is insufficient and will leave thousands of families freezing this winter. I will abstain on this motion for all of those reasons. I want to address first, because a few colleagues have talked about the coldest parts of Scotland missing out and often referring to my region, the Highlands and Islands. We need to be clear that cold weather payments are not going to the coldest places in Scotland. They are certainly not going to the coldest homes in Scotland. They are going to the coldest weather stations. The minister addressed the fact that when chill is not measured, six days of minus two is not going to trigger a payment and so on. The people who struggle most with energy bills in my region are in the western Isles, the northern Isles and areas of the Highlands. They have not been getting cold weather payments and they are going to get 50 quid this winter. Does the member think that a pound a week is sufficient to address that? I thought that is what Pam Duncan Glancy was going to say and it is exactly what I am about to address, because is it going to go far? No, but I think that we need to be clear that energy does not need to cost this much. I would much prefer that the UK Government takes some action on energy companies instead of allowing them to take advantage of this situation and bankroll their eye-watering profits. If we are going to sit and listen to criticism today that there is not enough social security going on to the problem, we need to at least acknowledge the cause. On that basis, would the member support my colleagues in Westminster's argument that we should be having a proper windfall tax on those energy companies that have no loopholes? Yes, I would support a windfall tax and a stronger one than has been proposed already. Would she support the Scottish Parliament having the powers to do so, which are not reserved in this Parliament but down south? That would be the ideal scenario. Pam Duncan Glancy mentioned a finger in a dam, but I think that we need to at least ask why there is a flood. More money is going to be spent on this scheme than was on cold weather payments, more of my constituents are going to benefit from it, more of hers are. It is not the only measure aimed at supporting people through winter. There is fuel and security, the island's cost crisis funds and other benefits being delivered by Social Security Scotland. Just to make it clear that people in receipt of this are not just going to receive 50 quid, that is 50 quid more as a winter uplift of sorts. A couple of things Emma raised a few of the points that I was going to raise. I have been an opposition politician. I was a councillor for a number of years in Glasgow, and I understand why Jeremy and Pam are looking for a reason not to support this, to abstain on it. Jeremy's reason seems to be that the minister never made a phone call. Pam seems to be that her constituents are now getting extra money than they would have been before so that she is going to abstain. That does not make any sense to me whatsoever. That is not an ideal policy, but it is the best policy that we are going to get with the fixed budget that we already have, and I would have liked to have seen the committee vote as one to support it. If you want to put your make-on to… Sorry. Do you remember taking intervention? Yes, of course I will, Jeremy. Do you recognise that this is a new system devised by the Scottish Government that we have had a number of years to devise a scheme? Do you believe that this is the best scheme that could have been devised by the Scottish Government to cover everybody in Scotland, not just your constituents in Glasgow? I cannot say that, for sure, it is because I have not been involved in the discussions, but what I do know is that it is better than we had previously. It does not deserve the criticism that has been getting from some members of the committee just now. When we could be saying that we think that it could be improved, we will be keeping an eye on it for next year and future years, but we are working to a very tight, strict timetable. The other thing is that you cannot make guarantees about February if you are not getting the detail to the 31st of January. It is just not feasible that we will not make a promise such as that. I thank the member for taking the intervention and I take the point about the data being available. I sincerely hope that it will be given what we have heard about the February payment being already too late. However, I do not accept that we are having to rush that through. We have had powers over social security in Scotland for a significant number of years now, and here we are in a situation in which we have an opportunity to redesign a benefit and yet again we have fallen short. Where does this extra money come from? What we are talking about is that you are talking about £1 a week, finger in the dam, using all the phrases from the witnesses last week, and that is fair. Where does this extra money come from? This is extra money that has come from the Scottish Government to pay 200,000 people more than we were getting paid before, and I accept that there are some losers in this, potential losers surely, but we can see that the best is being done under the circumstances that we have. Thank you, James. I have contributions left from Miles Briggs and to be followed by Paul MacLennan. To pick up the point that James Dornan just made, the Government had said that there would not be losers. There clearly are going to be. I am concerned, and I think that the discussions that we have been trying to have as a committee on this is leaving many parts of rural Scotland who currently benefit because of that extra cold weather that they experience behind, and they will be financially worse off. I think that that is not a system that we should have been seeing developed, and that could have been corrected before now. I am concerned what that means for some low-income families living in communities such as Braymar and Avymor, and across rural Scotland, especially the weather that we have seen. I think that that is a problem that should have been fixed. I think that the committee has expressed that frustration Minister today that we are putting in place this system, which, yes, I accept, is moving towards a universal payment system for people, but it is not taking into account that previous targeted support based on the coldest weather communities across Scotland often do experience. That is not acceptable. I hope that the minister takes on board the debate that we have had this morning in terms of the changes that support will be provided, and the additional support that people will be made aware of, which I think that many people will not be aware of, or how they apply for that and not necessarily aware of how to do that, and that the Government commit to come back as soon as possible to try to fix this and put in place a better system, because I think that all of us on this committee hoped and wanted to see a better system put in place, and this does not feel like that has lived up to that expectation. Like Jeremy Balfour has said, I will not vote against these, but I will be abstaining today, because I do not think that we should be approving the system as it stands. I think that we have to sometimes take a step back from some of the discussions that we have and look at the context of the discussion. 400,000 people get in benefit as against 185,000 automatically. £8.3 million was the estimate spend now 20 million, so that is the first context. I think that we have also got to look at the part of the wider benefit context that has been mentioned as well. The payment that we are talking about today is obviously part of it. We have mentioned the Scottish Government looking at child payment and other benefits that I have brought forward. We heard around about the EWP talking about pension tax credits, and now we understand about a quarter to a third of the people who are entitled to benefit pension tax credits do not claim it. Emma Roddick touched on the point of energy costs. In the energy rich Scotland, we face the highest energy costs in the UK, if not in Europe. We need the powers to tackle that first and foremost. I will take the mention at this stage. The member represents a very rural part of Scotland. It has not triggered payments necessarily to the same extent as communities north. Would he want to see if his community is losing out in a way that we do not have Aberdeenshire members here, for example, on this committee? What that will do and where we were led to believe that no one would lose out, communities will lose out. Why has the Government not taken that on board? I have looked at my own areas in that regard. I think that the fact that it is automatic and it goes to more people is an important point. A few weeks ago, we were talking about a fixed budget. We operate with a fixed budget. Of course, we would like to pay more, but we would not put it within a fixed budget. Only a few weeks ago, the committee voted against additional borrowing powers in the budget scrutiny, which would give us the opportunity to have demand-led services and poor money towards that, such as the payment. We need to look at that. The key thing is that 400,000 people, as against 185, spent previously £20 million. It is not a perfect scheme. It is part of an overall package, but we need to look at the overall causes of why energy costs in Scotland are so high. We need the powers to deal with that in Scotland. I will be supporting the legislation this morning. I will now invite the minister to sum up and respond to the debate. I thank all colleagues for the discussion that we have had today and for the evidence that the committee heard last week in the constructive way in which it has been given. There are several parts of the contributions that I would seek to challenge. I have done that in interventions. I appreciate the time constraints and I will not dwell on them all. I would like, however, to pick up on the point that Mr Balfour made about engagement with the UK Government. It is completely unfair and unreasonable to challenge ministerial engagement with the UK Government during the period that we have been through, in which there has been such turmoil at ministerial level in the UK Government with changes. I assure Mr Balfour and the committee and Parliament that my officials regularly engage with the UK Government counterparts on the need for us to receive a scan in good time. We came to an agreement on that and we are grateful to DWP for that. I took the two opportunities that I had to have a conversation with my new ministerial counterpart to raise that point. However, of course, he has only been in post for a number of weeks and the scenario in the summer made ministerial engagement very challenging. I assure the committee that I undertake engagement with ministerial colleagues when I can in a very serious way to press the issues of concern to the people of Scotland and to make sure that we deliver Social Security Scotland safely and securely. On the wider points, as I have set out in my open statement and through today's discussion, the changes that we are making today are going to help significantly more people, tens of thousands of more people, on a reliable basis. People will be able to rely on winter heating payment from the Scottish Government. They will be able to budget knowing that it is coming. It will not be dependent on weather conditions and will therefore be a part of, along with other support, helping people in situations of fuel poverty and financial challenge. I am grateful for this guaranteed, because it is not guaranteed. If DWP was saying, we will try to get payment to you, but we might be several weeks late, would that be acceptable? If it is not acceptable for DWP, why is it acceptable for Social Security Scotland? It is guaranteed that winter heating payment will be paid to people every year and will not be dependent on weather conditions. We have gone through the points around delivery in the month of February. I have made a strong commitment that we will seek to and do what we can to get payment to people in the month of February. That is our ambition and our strong ambition and our determination and the commitment of Angela Keane and all of her team at Social Security Scotland. We will do what we can to get that payment to people as quickly as possible, but delivering to 400,000 people is a significant amount of people, and we want to make sure that we get that support to them. The financial commitment of the Scottish Government is, of course, higher at £20 million than the average of £8.3 million spent on cold weather payments. With regard to that benefit, we are spending more than would have been the case under the UK system. I thank members for their constructive engagement today. I urge the Parliament to put the committee to pass the regulations so that we can deliver winter heating payment for around 400,000 people in Scotland. The question is that motion S6M-06818, in the name of Ben Macpherson, MSP, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, so we will move to a division. The choices are for, against or abstain. We will proceed with the vote on a roll-call basis in alphabetical order and move to Jeremy Balfour first. Miles Briggs Pam Duncan-Glancy I'm staying, convener. Paul MacLennan And my vote is four. Oh, sorry, I've missed, I've missed, I've missed. The Deputy Convener, Deputy Convener Emma Roddick. I would like to vote for the motion. Thank you, convener. Thank you. And my vote is four. As there is a tie, as convener, I have a further casting vote. Oh, I'm so sorry, this is my first time doing a vote like this, so forgive my mistakes. So we are agreed that the motion is passed. Just for the record, I would like to know that I will be seeking to bring the regulations to the main chamber when they come after recess so that the whole chamber can consider whether the regulations are appropriate or not. Thank you for that, Jeremy Balfour. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft of the report for publication. Thank you minister and thank you to your officials for attending this morning and I now close the meeting.