Chamber and committees

I want to go back to the timeline issue, because the minister touched on the data. Could he outline, first, what preparations are taking place at Social Security Scotland in order to be ready to make the payments in February and say how reliance on the DWP for that data adds complexity to the delivery?

Yes, I support a stronger windfall tax than what has been proposed.

That is really clear. We need to recognise that -1°C will feel like -1°C in a lot of places but that, in many island and rural communities, it will feel like -5°C and there is no protection from wind. Will the winter heating payment be easier to build on than the cold weather payment? What would you like to see happen to make it more effective at tackling fuel poverty?

I want to pick up on a few things that Frazer Scott said. He mentioned the fabric of houses a few times, and there are obviously a lot of other factors that contribute to fuel poverty. However, in an ideal world, if we could tackle the issue from every angle, how big a role should social security play, compared to the regulation of energy companies, dealing with the fabric of buildings and the overall design of energy policy? There is really no getting away from the fact that energy is expensive right now, regardless of whether it is individuals or the Government who are paying for it.

Does the lack of specific policy in other areas mean that, out of necessity, social security is playing a larger role than it ideally should?

My first question is for Frazer Scott. In the map that has been provided to us in the written evidence, six of the seven areas with the highest levels of fuel poverty are in the Highlands and Islands. I am also aware that many of those areas have not triggered a cold weather payment in some years. Will the winter heating payment be a move in the right direction towards tackling fuel poverty by getting money to those who are hardest hit?

I just want to pick up on something that Susan Douglas-Scott said to Pam Duncan-Glancy. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounded as though there is an expectation that the number of referrals will grow. Is it not expected that the launch of the benefit is where the highest need will be?

If the number of referrals is to grow in the future, now is not when the highest number of people need support.

I have one question left, convener. I want to pick up on Emily Johnston’s comments about the speak out forums, which sound like a really good opportunity to value lived experience. Will the impact of those forums be entirely internal or will decisions, changes or even conversations that are held off the back of those forums be shared more widely?

I have a final question on this theme. The committee has always been very aware that we ask people to give very personal testimonies, and it can be difficult for them to do that and to believe that doing so will result in change. In doing co-design first, would there have been any danger of not then having parliamentary approval, and of things not ending up as had been expected by those who fed in?