Chamber and committees

In my opening remarks, I briefly talked about where we are obliged to uprate and where there is discretion. It is important to bear that in mind. Under section 86B of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which, of course, we passed in the Parliament just a few years ago, we are obligated to uprate child disability payment, adult disability payment, funeral support payment and the Scottish child payment, and we will also consider the forthcoming care support payment within the 2018 act. There are obligations under section 81 of the act for the carers allowance supplement. The Scottish child payment is a good example, because we have increased that above inflation—above the statutory requirement. That demonstrates that deviation is possible.

There are exclusively Scottish benefits whereby there is discretion to uprate. In the previous financial year, we chose to uprate by 6 per cent instead of 3.1 per cent for a number of such benefits, and this year we have uprated by 10.1 per cent even though there was no obligation to do so. The flexibility that you query has already been undertaken in certain circumstances.

Thanks, Mr McLennan. It is important to note that the September CPI is a measure of price increases over the preceding 12 months to September and not a measure of inflation during September alone. Devolved Scottish benefits will, therefore, be uprated in April 2023, with the September 2022 12-months CPI rate representing the overall change in prices faced by consumers over the year to September 2022. As I said in my answer to Pam Duncan-Glancy, CPI is a leading measure of inflation published each month by the Office for National Statistics and is a national statistic.

Officials assess alternative uprating options each year, including the use of a CPI rate closer to the time that uprating will take effect. However, the September CPI rate was considered the most appropriate inflation period to use to uprate benefits in April 2023. The September CPI rate is published in October due to the time lag between the period covered by the data and its publication. Using a later 12-month rate or, for example, an average rate over 2022-23 would introduce administrative challenges around setting the Scottish Government’s budget, which is published in December, and then implementing rate changes to benefits thereafter.

It is also preferable to use outturn statistics to forecast, as they reflect the inflation that households have experienced to date rather than predictions of inflation, which are inherently uncertain. We have realised that particularly in recent times.

Do you have a next question?

I thank colleagues for their important questions and hope that they will support the regulations.

Motion agreed to,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Social Security (Up-rating) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 be approved.

The scan is essential to being able to deliver the benefit, because, as members will see in the regulations, the eligibility criteria are based entirely on reserved benefits, so we absolutely have to have that scan in order to deliver the benefit. Significant preparation has been undertaken to date and will be undertaken over the weeks ahead until we receive that scan. This is probably a good time for Angela Keane to illuminate the practical issues from an agency perspective.

The challenge is that the relevant weather station for Renfrewshire and most of Glasgow is Bishopton. I emphasise that part of the weakness in the cold weather payment system is that weather stations relate to certain postcodes and are not based on local authority areas.

The Bishopton weather station is the one that serves Glasgow to the largest extent. There was one cold weather payment of £25 in 2020-21. In 2018-19, there was one payment of £25. In 2017-18, there were two payments that totalled £50. In the period from 2011-12 until last year, your constituents who are served by the weather station at Bishopton would have received only £100, whereas, under our system, if it had been in place, they would have received £50 each year. That demonstrates that many low-income households will be better off under the winter heating payment system that we are seeking to introduce—which we are asking the committee to approve today—than they were under the cold weather payment system.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I can appreciate the question in that the cold weather payment has, in certain areas, initiated more than two payments in a winter in parts of Scotland, although not consistently, because there is nothing consistent about the cold weather payment—that is one of its inherent weaknesses. However, I appreciate that there are areas where, in certain years, support from the cold weather payment has been received that exceeds £50. We do not know what the weather will be like, even in those places, in winters to come.

I encourage people in certain places who may, in certain weather conditions, have received more than £50 under the cold weather payment to utilise other support from the Scottish Government, such as the fuel insecurity fund. It is important to recognise that, overall, hundreds of thousands more people will benefit from winter heating assistance than have done under the cold weather payment system.

On the latter point about engagement with the Met Office, I will again bring in Owen Allen. I would appreciate the point if the £50 support were the only thing that the Scottish Government was doing to provide additional support, and I appreciate the argument that the Government should always be looking to do more. However, it is important to consider also that the Scottish Government is providing hundreds of millions of pounds of additional social security support that is not available outside Scotland and that many of the individuals who will receive a winter heating payment will also receive other support from the Scottish Government. We have doubled the fuel insecurity fund as well, so a lot of other financial resource and support is available to people, and it is important to see the winter heating payment in that wider context, because it is a contribution to the costs that people are experiencing, along with other support.

On the question of delivery, as I said, we have moved from the weather-dependent approach because we know that, in some areas, differences in the location of weather stations that could trigger a cold weather payment have previously been a source of frustration for people. We understand that collectively. As I mentioned to the deputy convener, the exclusive reliance on temperature rather than other factors such as wind chill has also made some people feel that they are not being treated fairly. Indeed, island communities, in particular, have lost out under the cold weather payment system.

Retaining any weather dependency aspect when introducing a winter heating payment would require a new agreement to be reached with the DWP and the Met Office, and it would be much more technically complex to develop and test. It would be an administratively burdensome scheme for Social Security Scotland to deliver. I think that it is important to be up front about that. A flat-rate payment will be simpler to deliver and administer, and, more importantly, it will provide a guaranteed payment to the most vulnerable people, who have been identified as needing additional support. The guaranteed nature of the payment—the reliability of the winter heating payment—will be the most significant change, and it will make a difference for many, alongside the fact that we project that more than 200,000 more people will receive support.

Owen, do you want say anything more about the Met Office?

I appreciate the sentiment of the points that Mr Choudhury has raised. If it is helpful for expedience, I refer him to my previous answers to Mr Balfour. Are you content with that, Mr Choudhury?

As I said, following the consultation, we considered increasing the payments to £25 and £100. However, that would increase the forecast annual expenditure from £20 million to £30 million and £40 million respectively, and we are just not able to finance that this financial year. As members know, the Scottish Government budget is under significant pressure this financial year. We made the choice to invest over and above the corresponding level of funding that we forecast that we would receive from the UK Government for cold weather payments. That has limited our scope for making additional increases to the value or frequency of payments because of the nature of our significantly fixed budget. I should say that, on average, £50 is more than what people would receive from the cold weather payment. The majority of people would have received £25, and we have doubled that to £50.