Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you think that £1 a week is sufficient to address that?

On that basis, do you support my Westminster colleagues’ argument that we should have a proper windfall tax, with no loopholes, on those energy companies?

We heard this morning about the support that you have put in place for people across Scotland, and, of course, we welcome the payments that are available here. We will all do what we can to make sure people access them through communication. However, I agree with Energy Action Scotland that it is

“like a finger in a dam.”—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 8 December 2022; col 13.]

When it comes to fuel poverty, we really are falling short for too many people in Scotland. Energy Action Scotland estimates that, even with the financial support, a lot of which has been described this morning, including changes to benefits in Social Security Scotland, one in three households in Scotland will be in fuel poverty by April next year, and one in four will be in extreme fuel poverty. In its submission, it says:

“Higher costs, with inadequate financial support will lead to an increase in excess winter mortality”.

Of the Scottish Government payments, it says:

“None of which recover a position for any household … The Scottish Government through its fuel insecurity fund has provided crisis payments to a relatively small number of households. Important for those that received them but insufficient”.

It concludes that the available support is a patchwork, with one-off payments being normalised and poor targeting. Can the minister commit to reviewing the fuel payments landscape in Scotland to help struggling families today?

It is clear that none of the payments described this morning has addressed the real fuel insecurity and poverty that people across Scotland are experiencing. I was also going to mention the child winter heating payment issue that my colleague Jeremy Balfour mentioned. A number of disabled people, regardless of their age or level of impairment, are having to use more heating now than before, so they are disproportionately impacted by this. The reality is that, from what we have heard in this committee and from what people have told us in our constituencies, 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. Can you commit to reviewing that landscape, very quickly, and to starting to address the fuel poverty that people in Scotland are going to experience?

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. Thanks for joining us.

I will not rehearse the arguments that we have just heard about the differentials. It is important for us all to remember that, for the additional people who will get money, it is £1 a week. That will barely scratch the surface, and Energy Action Scotland said last week that it would be

“a finger in a dam”—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 8 December 2022; c 13.]

against fuel poverty. We really need to bear that in mind when we are talking about something that has also been described as an

“ill-conceived benefit. Aghast that it has ever been launched”.

I genuinely share that concern.

Last week, Energy Action Scotland told us that, during the winter of 2020-21, 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 the winter of 2023-24, the £50 payment will provide only six days of heat. As I said, the offer is not going to be enough for people in need. You say that you have retained the ability to legislate for additional payments for those groups should the need arise. How do you determine need, and how do we know that you will do that, given that, when you gave a commitment about doubling the carers allowance supplement, that never materialised?

Not on this area, convener.

I thank the minister and his officials for answering questions this morning. However, I am afraid that I do not accept that the new payment is better simply because it is reliable. All that people can rely on is a payment for six days of heat. That is £1 a week, which Energy Action Scotland called

“a finger in a dam”.—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 8 December 2022; c 13.]

Furthermore, it will not even be available until February, which is far too late.

The alternative that we have before us is not acceptable. I believe that my constituents in Glasgow will be aghast at the fact that all that they will get to deal with the fuel poverty that they are in is £1 a week. I agree with a Glasgow constituent who has written to the minister and me saying:

“I am aghast that this ill-conceived benefit has been launched.”

On that basis, minister and convener, I am afraid that I cannot support the motion but abstain. I hope that the Government will reconsider its approach.

Thank you. I have no other questions.

I take the point about the data being available, and I sincerely hope that it will be, given what we have heard about the February payment already being too late, but I do not accept that we are having to rush this through. We have had powers over social security in Scotland for a significant number of years and here we are with an opportunity to redesign a benefit, but—yet again—we have fallen short.

For the people who get the £50, that is £1 a week against the rising energy costs. I genuinely share concerns that that is a “finger in a dam”, but I am sure that they will appreciate the pound.

You 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? You said that it would be “administratively burdensome”. Will you set out the conversations that you have had with the Met Office?