Chamber and committees

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?

In the interests of brevity, I will leave it there.

I accept the technical detail that the minister has set out, which states that there is a mechanism. I accept that there is a mechanism. I do not believe, on the basis of what I have seen since I have been in this place, which is from May 2021, that such commitments have ever come to fruition, so I will wait and see, and I hope that the mechanisms that are in the regulations will be used to support people who live in Glasgow.

I take the point about the average weather in the city over the past 10 years, but I share the concerns about how the data is collected and the weather stations from which it is collected. I was making the point that we have an opportunity to change the whole way in which we do things in Scotland. The offer in front of the people of Scotland is insufficient and it will leave thousands of families freezing this winter.

Convener, I will abstain on the motion for all those reasons.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Good morning, witnesses, and thank you very much for everything that you have shared. Thanks to Richy Edwards, in particular. Your testimony was much appreciated. I can imagine that it must have been very difficult to share that, especially since you have had to do so time and time again, so thank you.

I will pick up on part of the discussion that we just had, and then I have another couple of questions. We have already discussed the importance of education after the bill is introduced. That will be an absolutely essential non-legislative measure, but we also need to reach into various communities before the bill is introduced, given the context—which some of you have mentioned—of LGBT people’s rights and the pushback that there is. I hope that there is room to do that, so that we can try our best to take people with us. Do you agree that that is quite important?

Do you mean that people report crimes to the police but they do not get support to use Makaton or to express themselves so their cases never reach court because they do not quite reach the bar for the amount of evidence that is needed?

Dr Behrens made a point about gender identity. The United Kingdom Government has made some comments about a ban on conversion practices covering only sexual orientation, not gender identity, saying that such a move would be too complicated at this time. What is your view on that statement?