Chamber and committees

Okay—thank you. When you were forming your view of the proposed legislation in the way that you set out in the letter to the cabinet secretary, what consideration did you give to international examples that already have self-ID systems, and what evidence have you taken specifically on those?

Thank you for everything that you have shared with us so far, Victor, and for giving us your time this evening. I note what you have just said about data and health, and I will read the Official Report of that later, because I thought that it was very helpful. A colleague of mine has lodged an amendment on that, and it is something that we are keen to look at.

Moving to my questions, I am sure that you will have heard that some people are quite worried about this legislation, and I note your concerns about some of the conflations that have been made and the worries that have been raised. However, I want to ask you about the impact of self-declaration systems in some countries. Have you seen any evidence anywhere of women self-excluding from women-only spaces?

As we discussed, the rate is £50, and, at the current rate of heating costs, that would probably heat a house for six days, as I said. Will you set out why specifically it is £50? In line with costs, the payment should be £125. What do you say about that to people who are struggling with their bills?

First, I am not sure whether the minister has been outside in Glasgow in the past few days. We are heading for a very cold period. We will wait and see what happens with the weather.

Regardless of that, it is important to make clear that you are offering people in Glasgow—36 per cent of whom live in fuel poverty—£1 a week. The Scottish Government had an opportunity to redesign a fuel payment—a winter heating allowance—that could have a genuine impact on fuel poverty. I do not think that anyone who looks at its offer will think that it has achieved that. I do not think that they will accept that.

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.