Chamber and committees

That leads to my next question. Jim McPake mentioned slogans about people having to choose to eat or to heat. You are waiting for action from the Government. The response in Scotland has been to take £150 off the council tax bill, which works out at something like £4 a week. Can you comment on that response and say what else is needed? To me, money being taken off a bill is quite different to actually getting money in your pocket.

Charlene, would you like to comment on that? That is my final question, convener.

Thank you for that. I visited a citizens advice bureau in Cambuslang, where the staff were rushed off their feet—I could not believe the amount of work that they were having to do. I put on record my thanks to the bureaux there for the work that they have done, and to those across the country.

Will you say a bit more about the impact of the fact that you are having to deal with so much demand? I was really struck by the fact that—I think it was Jim McPake who said this—the issue that you are working on now is not credit, but whether people can pay their bills or rent and the other stuff that they have to pay. Could you give us an understanding of the impact that that is having on the advisers?

The SCVO leads on the connecting Scotland project. What demand have you had for that service and what might the impact be of an online or phone-based money advice service across Scotland? Can you also tell us how many devices you have been able to give out and whether there is unmet need in that regard?

I thank the witnesses for their answers so far. I would like to put on record my thanks to Glasgow Disability Alliance, which I know has done a power of work, in particular through the connecting Scotland support fund, in the way that Susie Fitton has outlined.

I want to move on to talk about the impact that debt is having on groups of people such as low-income families. My first question, which is for Conor Forbes and Lawrie Morgan-Klein, is about public sector debt collecting. We have heard, and have seen in the evidence that has been submitted to us, that public sector debt collection seems to be faster and harsher than private sector debt collection. Although no debt collection should be quick or harsh, one would expect it to be the other way round. Why do you think that is? What solution could the committee seek to pursue?

I do, thank you. I share Lawrie Morgan-Klein’s view that the committee should consider speaking to creditors and, for the record, I think that it would also be worth speaking to energy companies.

My final area of questioning is for Susie Fitton. Hi, Susie; it is nice to see you again. My question is about disabled people and their experience of low income right now, as we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and their experience of debt.

What types of debts are disabled people getting into? Is there something that is specifically disability related? If there is, what can we do to address that?

I also have a slightly broader question on fuel costs for disabled people. We know that it costs disabled people more in fuel, for lots of reasons. Can more be done on that? Has the support that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have provided by deducting money off council tax bills specifically helped disabled people? What more could we be doing here in Scotland?

I thank everyone for their answers so far.

Following on from the themes that we have been discussing concerning intersectionality, you might be aware that Close the Gap published a blog post this week that highlights some concerns, which I share, about the delivery plan. It says:

“This was a time for building on the actions in the previous Child Poverty Delivery Plan and applying increasing focus on women’s poverty. Instead, the sharp focus on women’s poverty is diluted within this Plan.”

It also says that

“there are no actions explicitly designed to address this beyond a vague commitment to continue taking targeted action on the gender pay gap”

and that there is instead

“a continued reliance on pre-existing strategies and interventions which are not well-gendered including No One Left Behind, Individual Training Accounts and the Flexible Workforce Development Fund.”

That is, obviously, quite concerning, given what we have heard about this morning about the need to focus on addressing women’s equality in the workplace, in particular. I think that everyone in this discussion today agrees about how important that is.

What could we do specifically to redress that imbalance and ensure that we progress the work that the previous plan started on women’s equality in the workplace? I direct that question to Bill Scott and Marion Davies.

Thank you, Peter, for that helpful answer, and I thank Bill Scott for the additional information that he provided.

My final question on this theme is for Claire Telfer. The submission from Save the Children notes that

“Any delay in implementation to the planned increase to the SCP will put meeting the interim targets at risk.”

We can all understand that. Are you worried about that? What should we be doing for the children who are on bridging payments and are not getting the additional money at all?

Thank you.

Thank you for allowing me to come in again, convener.

On district heating, some people might be aware of the experience of residents in Wyndford in Glasgow, where a system was introduced on their doorstep, which was supposed to benefit them by reducing fuel costs in heating their homes. However, that has not happened—in fact, some of the costs are now increasing. It would be interesting to hear from Alison Watson about what we can do to ensure that, where community energy systems are put in place, they definitely begin to reduce fuel poverty for households.

While I am speaking, I have another question for Alison. The message that we should build social houses that are the right size, in the right place, with the right amenities around them seems clear, and it is absolutely the answer. What is preventing us from getting there? Why are we not doing that?