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.

Well, I think that there is a balance here, because I can appreciate—

I appreciate Pam Duncan-Glancy’s stated view that she does not believe that £50 is a high enough figure, but does she appreciate that the winter heating payment will deliver more support for her constituents than the cold weather payment did?

Of course.

It is guaranteed that the winter heating payment will be paid to people every year and will not depend on weather conditions. We have gone through the points about delivery in February, and I have made a strong commitment that we will seek to do what we can to get payments to people within that month. That is our strong ambition through the determination and commitment of Angela Keane and her team at Social Security Scotland. We will do what we can to get that payment to people as quickly as possible, but we are delivering to 400,000 people. That is a significant number of people, and we want to ensure that we get the support to them.

The financial commitment of the Scottish Government, at £20 million, is, of course, higher than the average of £8.3 million that is spent on cold weather payments. Again, we are spending more on this benefit than would have been the case under the UK system.

I thank members for their constructive engagement today. I urge the committee to pass the regulations so that we can deliver the winter heating payment for around 400,000 people in Scotland.

I refer members to my opening statement and to the discussion that we have had. I urge colleagues to pass the motion.

I move,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Winter Heating Assistance (Low Income) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.

Of course. I appreciate the costs that face those households. I hope that the delivery of child winter heating assistance and the changes that we made last year in increasing the number of people who were eligible for that has helped, but I appreciate the challenges for those households.

Just to correct the record, I should have said that there was also one payment in 2014-15, so that is another £25. I apologise to the committee, but, again, the amount of support that would have been paid through the winter heating payment system would have been £50 reliably per year, which would have accumulated to significantly more.

If I may, convener, I will bring in Owen Allen in a minute to talk about the engagement with stakeholders and others. The Scottish Government consulted more widely, and we really appreciated the feedback and contributions from all those who engaged with that consultation. From that and through our experience panels, which Social Security Scotland consults consistently regarding our work, there was a clear view that breaking the link with the cold weather payment was much preferred because of the unreliability of not knowing whether support would be available.

Under the cold weather payment system, the requirement for seven consecutive days of cold weather often means that, because there may be temperatures of 0°C or below for six days but not for a seventh, people do not get the extra support. There are also issues because the reliance on and geographical placement of the weather stations mean that some places cannot get the cold weather payment even when the weather feels—and is—cold. The way in which that is organised logistically feels unjust to people, and it is unjust, which is why we are seeking to make the change to a reliable payment.

Owen, do you want to say a bit more about the engagement that we undertook?