 The next item of business is a debate on motion 10709, in the name of Julian Martin, on legislative consent motion energy bill, UK legislation. I'd be grateful if any members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Julian Martin aithe gennych, i gydi f köt no fridge rathodaww soith bryd yn n salary o holl pobl значит高u ar Dálydd Cymru wedi g modoion o'r Gmil leagodau SEF, Cymru iawnu mendidhyth i'i bwysig i'r ysgrifetau deรgwияeth yn Llywodraeth Cymru yn leist續adau o'r tranfer o brydau sefniad a slict o cofynolin oist Jesusford wedi dincThose y Llywodraeth yn görfan. Yn ei bod wenn μerwordol yn pidio'r metr o gyhoi honnet i'r Congress Credu'r blun yn ywadd flawed st beacheshwyr yn laetwo fywol yn aw 라는 firm dweudiedyg. Mae Dew晚上 yn awdra cancerff wihri. Sialor ink coincidoraeth yn mynd chens combination o wel么 ddedig yn gwasgliwyll hwnεςwch, ac mae'n dd��odl gwybly가� bru mawr a llai練 mewn jechellig. Dxwkan yn fwyod du i gwelliannaueg feithas sydd o'n gweithafol sydd gennych ddelw sydd aheráu ar gyferyn i agraffu ffestafol, rydw i ddigelio'r gergwysig yw finson. i bwysigio'r effordd i'n dda i gyrfaon i'r ddodol yn gwagweld a blwyd, bydd gwybod newydd ewg iawn i swyddfaeth iawn i gynnwysu'r rydyn niol, i gwybod cynnau hunain rydyn niol, i gadael gwyddoedd i Gwyrdd UWI. Felly, mae bwysigio'r gydwyr iawn i gydwyrsloedd iawn i gydwyrsloedd iawn i gwybod i gydwyrsloedd iawn i gydwyrsloedd iawn i gydwyrsloedd iawn i gydwyrsloedd iawn i gydwyrsloedd Gwylunhysgwm, ac rwyf yn difluwyddu o'r syniadau oherwydd i gyda unigodau syddion, yn maen nhw unigodau o'r syniadau o'r cy restartau armig afael, a fyddai ff crypto-dwylliant i'r ffordd iawn. Rwyfedd y Gwylwyddoedd yng Nghymru nesaf i wneud bryd i'r lle ar gyfer y ddiwylliant. Rgyn i pawr yn ddisblwyd, os ydych chi'n meddwl i gael gwahanol, mewn bydd amgylcheddau yr honiad y ddimentoise ynglyniaeth ynglynig, i tynnu brakewm gwahanol i gael eu meddwl yn Hygwyrddol, ac, yn fwy o'r gwneud, i dwydoch yn eu bod yn cymhwy attracting o dod o gondod gwynghwyng. Fy oherwydd, mae'n gweithio arsigio'r gwahanol i gael Ysgrifiannol Llywodraeth, gerbynnag i gael eu ffwrdd dros y 150 o lu gymhwyntol y sgiliau ein chwynhau, ac yn fwyllgor, mae'n digwydd ddwydo i ddwydo i'r gwahanol i gyfoeiddiad o'r ffordd yr Ysgrifiannol. The bill has also been amended to include detailed consultation requirements for a number of clauses relating to carbon that capture utilisation and storage and hydrogen. The UK Government has committed to the setting up of a ministerial working group on CCUS that will enable us to drive forward work that is vital to delivering our net zero ambitions. The UK Government has rejected amendments that would have improved the bill in relation to issues such as CCUS and hydrogen. Whilst those changes are welcome, I must emphasise that the changes to the bill do not go nearly far enough. It is the clearly established position of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament that, where provisions in the bill touched on devolved competence, legislation should include a requirement for the consent of Scottish ministers. The UK Government has refused to include those consent mechanisms for all but a very small number of clauses. That is not how devolution is supposed to work. The UK Government should respect the views of this Parliament and promote amendments to reflect that. To make matters worse, the UK Government has made clear that unless we agreed to recommend legislative consent that is given to the bill as a whole, including those areas in which we believe they are riding roughshod over devolution, they would revert to the bill as originally envisaged. The Scottish Government has made clear that such a negotiation tactic is unacceptable. It is tantamount to blackmail and is incompatible with good faith negotiation on important topics. The Sule convention is supposed to require that the UK Government amend legislation to reflect the legitimate expectation that the UK Government will not legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government has now chosen to turn the convention on its head with its take it or leave it approach. Instead of the need for legislative consent protecting the interests of this Parliament, the threat of proceeding without consent has become a weapon for the UK Government. That is yet another way in which the UK Government is failing to respect the Sule convention, which is now breached on 11 secret occasions. The Scottish Government remains committed to the Sule convention and continues to work within both its letter and spirit despite the current UK Government's repeated disregard for its requirements. We have written to the UK Government detailing our objections to that approach. Securing amendments to the Sule convention is vital to the delivery of our net zero ambitions at this crucial juncture, and our decision to recommend consent is made on this basis. Although I am recommending that consent is given, I do so reluctantly, and it must be made clear. We are being asked to accept a demuniation of this Parliament's power under the threat of having those powers further weakened if we do not, jeopardising investment in our renewable sector and undermining our efforts to meet net zero. That is not a partnership of equals, those are the actions of a bully, treating the Scottish Parliament and by extension the Scottish people with nothing but contempt. Our recommendation of consent on this occasion should in no way be taken as an acceptance of the UK Government's approach to negotiations on this bill. The Scottish Government is determined to deliver a just energy transition, which enables the people of Scotland to realise the benefit of our rich renewables endowment and achieve a net zero future. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Douglas Lameston up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are happy to support this legislative consent motion, if not the tone of which the minister has presented it to the chamber this afternoon. It is actually heartening, Presiding Officer, to see a good level of co-operation between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government that is so much needed, but seldom found. This is an issue that the whole of the UK should be working together on as it affects us all. Ensuring our energy supply and sustainability is key to us achieving our net zero targets and exploding and legislating for new technologies is vital to our energy security. We also like to thank the net zero committee and the Delegated Power and Law Reform Committee for the time that they have taken to consider this matter. They are careful scrutiny of this lengthy and complicated bill. I was happy that this work was done by the net zero committee before I joined, because I can see how much work was involved. With more than 300 clauses, there was a lot to get through. Clearly, there are many areas that require a UK-wide response that also includes powers delegated to the Scottish Government. I welcome the consultation and detailed conversations that have happened between civil servants and ministers across both Governments. I must say, Presiding Officer, how refreshing to see both our Governments working together on this. Many of the concerns that were raised by the net zero committee and the report of the 17 March have now been addressed, which is reflected in the report published on 26 September. I am also grateful to my fellow committee members and clerks for bringing me up to speed so quickly on what is a complicated and detailed bill. Throughout the clauses before us today, there is reference to the ministerial forum that will address many of the issues of contention within the bill. I would ask the minister for clarity on the frequency of the meeting for this forum, if she has it, the process for agreeing the agenda and how the minister proposes to update this chamber on those discussions moving forward. It may also be helpful to the minister if the relevant party spokespeople could also meet with her before and after these meetings to discuss progress. It is important for this process to be as transparent as possible, given the implications for business and communities throughout Scotland and in the north-east in particular. It would also be helpful if the minister could share the details of the memorandum of understanding that is to be established between the Scottish and UK Governments and how they will work together on the policy relating to the economic regulation of CO2 transport and storage. That is going to be a new market and any information would be appreciated. Those are points that are picked up in the recommendation from the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee and their recommendations. The Scottish Parliament must be given the means by which to scrutinise and hold ministers to account for their position in any agreement with the United UK Government. Perhaps the minister would like to update us now on her closing remarks. A key area of this bill is around the relatively new industry of carbon capture, which is really exciting for our own ACORM project. I say new, but I think that certain parts of the world have been doing it for a while now. Scotland is uniquely placed with its deep underground depleted oil and gas wells to store huge amounts of carbon, deep underground and hopefully this is an industry that can have a huge economic benefit for the whole of Scotland. Presiding Officer, it is vital that we all see the benefits of the move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. Businesses and communities in the north-east are eager to do their part, a topic that I spoke about just last week. Those measures will assist with that, clear and consistent policy from both Governments on carbon capture, hydrogen, the reduction of emissions from industry and transport and the provision of low carbon power. I also welcome the bill focus on offshore wind environmental improvement package, as well as the habitat assessment process for offshore wind projects. The bill, as amended, now also imposes an express mandate on off-gem to support the achievement of net zero, which is key to ensuring that everyone at all levels of government and associated bodies are focused on that goal. District heating systems are also covered in the bill. I am convinced that district heating networks will have a huge role to play as we move away from traditional gas boilers, especially in much of our urban areas where older traditional flats may not be suitable for air-source heat pumps. Presiding Officer, without trying to be too negative, one area that still disappoints me is this devolved Government's stance against new nuclear. Wind power is great, but we need to understand that on cold still days the wind is not blowing and our turbines are not turning. We need to have a good reliable base load and not rely on important electricity for our base. We have some great skills in nuclear and we have some great sites connected to the grid and I would urge the Scottish Government to keep an open mind. Technology is changing and decommissioning is changing. It can provide a real economic benefit to Scotland. That said, I support the RCM motion for us today. Thank you and I now call on Sarah Boyack up to five minutes please. At decision time Labour will support the LCM. The energy bill currently progressing through the UK Parliament is the first piece of energy legislation at this scale to be considered since 2015, so it is a huge opportunity to try and get all the key ambitions in terms of the just transition in the shift to net zero. However, as commentators have described it as a mammoth bill, it still does not go far enough and there is much more that needs to be done. On one level we have just heard the discussion between the Scottish National Party and the Conservative Party about where they disagree. The one thing that I will take away from this debate is that there have actually been some successes in terms of the Scottish Government getting some negotiation success in terms of amendments to the bill, so that is important. The other comment I would make is that it is not just important to see the UK and Scottish Governments working together, but our local authorities are absolutely key players in delivering the planning and community heat and energy projects that we urgently need in our communities. It is important that we do not forget that. Although the energy bill does make some progress, it will leave the UK falling behind in the global race for the jobs and industries of the future. The bill's stated aims are to leverage private investment in clean technologies such as carbon caption storage and hydrogen, reform the energy system so that it is fit for the future, such as facilitating the deployment of energy storage and appointing off-gem as a regulator for heat networks, and ensuring the safety, security and resilience of the UK's energy system. However, there is so much more that could have been done. Although there are a lot of technical considerations included in the bill, a lot of them are actually quite piecemeal and timid falling short of the action required. I was very pleased to see that during the passage of the bill some of the amendments that were made by my Labour colleagues in both the Commons and the Lords were agreed to. The two I want to highlight in particular, moving the hydrogen levy away for consumers bills, will mean that investment to increase hydrogen is still put in place but not on the backs of consumers who would be forking out huge amounts of money for high energy bills. However, I emphasise that it is important that we keep the focus on the push for green hydrogen and that we support developments across Scotland where there is a huge technological process and major opportunities to use our renewables, particularly offshore renewables. In addition, establishing a net zero duty for off-gem ensures that net zero is at the heart of the regulator's work. That is absolutely critical because there are a number of changes that need to be made but net zero needs to hold that together. Although the bill is a step forward, I believe that there is so much more that needs to be done to deliver the just transition that we urgently need. There were also amendments that Labour supported in the House of Lords, which were then removed from the final stage of the bill. For example, on banning coal mines, absolutely key to net zero. The bill fails to support energy efficiency standards for the private sector housing in England, and that would have saved tenants in England hundreds of pounds. That is a huge disappointment, as we discussed that during Poverty Week. One of the progressive policies was cancelled in Rishi Sunach's net zero speech. Let's not kid ourselves—this legislation is not perfect. When we vote for this motion tonight, our view is that the bill was a missed opportunity, something that was commented on by renewables UK and other industry groups. If a Labour Government was elected in the near future, we would continue that co-operative work together between the UK and the Scottish Government, but we would be much more bold because we need a sprint to clean energy by 2030. We would establish GB Energy, a publicly-owned energy generation company HQ in Scotland. We would invest in the skills that we need now to develop the jobs, supply chains and infrastructure to transition our energy supply. That is something that comes across from all the renewables industries that I have been meeting and all the companies that are involved in oil and gas that want to transition across. It is critical, and we need that political support now. The Scottish Government needs to step up to the mark. The development of community-owned energy projects is crucial, and we are missing a huge opportunity right across the UK, but in Scotland. That goes back to having the resources at the local level to get going on those projects. Finally, we would establish a national wealth fund to help to secure the private investment, to ensure that there is finance now and in the future, to support the aspirations of some of those provisions in the bill and the aspirations that many of us have for a decarbonised clean power energy network here in Scotland that would be affordable not just to households but to business as well. That is not going to come from this bill. We need change, but we will support it because of the small steps forward that it will make. I would like to address some of the points made by Douglas Lumson and points made by Sarah Boyack. First of all, if I go to Douglas Lumson, he asked about memorandum of understanding that is still to be negotiated and agreed on and indeed established. He asked about the ministerial forum on CCUS. My officials have had some initial meetings around that, but it has not been formalised as yet. I want to point to one of the remarks that he made about the provisions on hydrogen production and transport. Caws 154 was one of the areas that we wanted to have consent of Scottish ministers, and that was not agreed. It is very unfortunate because the moment is just about consulting Scottish ministers, so we really are going to have to beef up that forum so that it effectively is consent but by another name in that regard. We have really worked together on this bill. There has been a lot of negotiations between the UK Government ministers and Scottish Government ministers on this, and I hope that that is a spirit in which we will continue. I want to point to Sarah Boyack who has mentioned some of the amendments that her party put in place, and we welcome most of those amendments as well. It was nice to hear Sarah Boyack recognise some of the work that has been done by the Scottish Government to get some amendments over the length that are going to be good for Scotland and the people of Scotland. I have to say also very much, and I hope that the situation is going with the comment on hydrogen, we need more agreement on hydrogen standards and labelling, because particularly when we are talking about exporting of hydrogen, the people who want to buy hydrogen produced in Scotland want green hydrogen, so we need to get those standards agreed, so I am glad to hear that Labour support is on that. I will wind up. I just want to say that it is notwithstanding the issues around the negotiation tactics, and I understand why the Welsh Government has not given consent because of those as well. It is notwithstanding that, and that is a wider issue. I want to say that much in this bill is long overdue. The stated end of this bill was to increase resilience and reliability of energy systems across the UK, support the delivery of the UK's climate change commitments and reform. The UK's energy system was to minimise costs to consumers and protect them from unfair pricing. I agree with Sarah Boyack that it could have gone further, maybe we will see certain things go further in the future, but I hope that everyone will agree that, despite those negotiations and some of the tactics around that, some of its limitations, this bill is in Scotland's best interests, and I hope that everyone will vote to consent to the motion today. That concludes the debate on legislative consent motion, Energy Bill UK legislation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 10729, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 10729 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 10730, on a stage 1 timetable, and 10731, on a stage 1 extension. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motions to press their requests week button. I call on George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motions. No member has asked to speak against the motions. Therefore, the question is that motions 10730 and 10731 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions 10732, on committee meeting times, and 10733, on designation of a lead committee. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward now, and I invite the minister to move the motion. No problem, moved. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and there are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 10716.2, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend motion 10716, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on reversal of the UK Government's two child benefit cap, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting.