 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3042, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on cost of living. As ever, I would invite members to participate to press the request to speak buttons, a place an hour in the tap function. I call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move the motion around six minutes, please, Ms Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me declare an interest at the start as an honorary vice president of Energy Action Scotland. Today, Ofgem lifted the cap on energy prices again. The previous increase added £139 to bills, now there will be an extra £700 more to pay. Energy bills have effectively doubled in the space of a few months. People on fixed incomes, people in insecure jobs, those on low pay, elderly people, all of them, plunged into debt or facing a choice between heating or eating. Fuel poverty currently sitting at 613,000 households could rise threefold to 1.8 million households in Scotland alone. If that is not serious enough, Scots face increases across a range of other household bills, all at a time when incomes are stagnant and simply not keeping pace with those increases. That will devastate family finances as people stare down the barrel of a cost of living crisis. A cost of living crisis caused by inflation running at a 30-year high, caused by rises in interest rates, caused by rising national insurance, increasing by 10 per cent in April, rising council tax, inflation-busting rises in water rates and massive rises in food bills that everybody sees on their supermarket shelves. There is no doubt about the scale of the crisis and the real struggle that Scots will face. Faced with the prospect of increasing poverty and warnings from organisations like Energy Action Scotland that some people will die as a consequence, it is incumbent on Governments to act. I expect both the Scottish and UK Governments to set aside their customary differences and work together to protect people from the crisis. The Scottish Government has the power to help. Whether it is putting more income in people's pockets or reviewing some of the charges that they are responsible for, doing nothing is not an option. The SNP amendment is therefore genuinely disappointing, simply saying how much they are already doing is breathtakingly complacent when people are facing a doubling of their energy bills and a huge cost of living crisis. Let me give the Government one example of how they can help. Water bills are set for an inflation busting rise of almost 10 per cent. Households will be paying hundreds of pounds more, and this is a time when Scottish water is sitting on at least £400 million in reserves, possibly as much as £700 million in reserves when you consider their subsidiary companies. Those reserves are tax payers' money, but let's not forget that the SNP tried to remove single person's discount from water bills a couple of years ago until they were rumbled. They were warned about the impact of those latest rises, but given a chance to do things differently, to actually help people, to be on their side, to stick their fingers in their ears and do nothing. Aside from reviewing the increased charges that they are responsible for, the Scottish Government can increase the amount that they give to help with heating. They have all the powers that they need to do so. It simply requires political will. Yesterday, like many others, I watched in disbelief at the SNP's suggestion that we could cut the bottoms off school doors to help with ventilation. I kid you not that Alice in Wonderland approach is what passes for policy thinking from the SNP. Next, perhaps they will be suggesting that we burn the cut-offs from those doors to heat our homes. Frankly, the people of Scotland deserve better than that. They deserve a Government that is on their side, which does not use the Constitution as an excuse for an action that protects their interests when times are tough. Let me turn to the Conservatives and, as gently as I can point out, the Tory amendment is not factually correct. Rishi Sunak has frozen some personal allowances, but that aside, let me be the first to welcome anything that puts money in people's pockets. To be frank, the Tory's approach is wholly inadequate. Giving energy companies loans simply lands bill payers with the cost at a later date. With prices set to rise again in six months' time, that will do nothing to resolve the crisis. The council tax rebate is worth about £150 per household, less than a quarter of what is required. The big difference between us and the Tories in the SNP are joined at the hip on this issue, is that Labour would raise the money now through a windfall tax on the North Sea oil and gas profits, on the higher-than-expected vac receipts and the higher-than-expected oil and gas revenues. For the SNP to join with the Tories to reject this and deny the Scottish people immediate help and support on the scale required is, frankly, shameful. They should hang their heads in shame. The SNP and the Tories have demonstrated who's side they're on. They're on the side of multinational oil companies making profits of £27,000 a minute. That's right, £27,000 a minute, more than some people earn in a year. Rather than being on the side of hard-pressed Scots staring down the barrel of a cost of living crisis that is the worst in my memory. Under Labour's fully-costed plans, every single Scottish household would get £200 towards the cost of their spiralling energy bills. For those £800,000 households that are the hardest it, the support would be £600, and it applies to those on and off grid. In closing, let me finish with the £290 million in funding consequentials from the Scottish Government—sorry, for the Scottish Government—from the UK Government. Every single penny must go into the pockets of people who need urgent help. Will the SNP bring proposals before the chamber next week to outline how it will distribute the money? That cannot wait. There can be no excuses, no inaction, no hiding behind the Constitution. They must act and act now in the interests of the people of Scotland. You need to move the motion, please, Ms Bailey. I move the motion in my name. Thank you for that. I now ask the minister to speak to a move, amendment 3042. This is a very important and timely debate, as hundreds of thousands of families and households across Scotland are facing very challenging financial circumstances as a result of rising costs and high inflation. As we have just seen reported in today's news, the Bank of England has said that UK households must now prepare for the biggest fall in living standards since records began on that issue three decades ago and also prepare for the worst pay erosion since 1990. Of course, we have had off-gems announcements today that households are facing an eye-watering 54 per cent increase in their energy bills, and that is indeed a real hammer blow to customers in Scotland and throughout the UK. Analysis estimates that the price cap increase could move around 200,000 further households in Scotland alone into fuel poverty, and around 235,000 who were already fuel poor could move into extreme fuel poverty. That sits within a wider context of increasing pressures on household costs. That is a cost-of-living crisis that we are in, a crisis that calls for immediate action. From April, workers and businesses across the country will have the added pressure of a rise in national insurance contributions, a policy that will be announced without prior notice or consultation with the devolved administrations. Of course, a hike that we are told is to pay for the NHS despite the fact that we are told that Brexit would deliver £350 million a week towards the NHS. We recognise the added need for health and social care funding, but the UK's decision to raise that by taxing workers rather than by wealth is a missed opportunity. Atop of that, of course, the Bank of England has announced that the interest rates will be raised by 0.5 per cent, inflation will surpass 7 per cent and that GDP forecasts will be slashed leaving Scottish taxpayers to experience the worst living standard decline, as I said over the past few decades. Powers relating to energy markets remain reserved to the UK Government, and I wish that Jackie Baillie had borne that in mind when she was making her attack on the SNP and Green Governments and, as such, the UK Government must act urgently to address this crisis. The Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Energy and Transport and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice have written more than once to reiterate to the UK Government the need for urgent action, offering a series of proposals to support energy consumers, including through targeted direct support. Of course, we await a response from the UK Government over and above what has been said today. The tax leavers to help hard-pressed households are also reserved to the UK Government. Those include the power to vary VAT rates on consumer bills in the short term. I am sorry to hear that the UK Government appeared to rule that out today as well, again despite the fact that Boris Johnson said Brexit would give him the opportunity to cut VAT rates. The rates that apply to provision of energy, efficient materials and retrofitting of buildings could also be cut, which contributes to long-term bills being reduced. The Scottish Government has called for action on this and continues to do so, including by urging the UK Government to reconsider the decision not to enact a VAT reduction on energy bills. On our part, the Scottish Government is very much committed to supporting people in Scotland, especially those in low incomes. We are already using all powers and resources available to us to support people in this country, including through energy efficiency investment, home energy Scotland advice, support housing costs with welfare and debt advice services, the child winter heating assistance and the money talks team service, which is now up and running, and support to address food insecurity as well. I note the point that you say that you are doing what you can here. There are a number of issues that have been raised, including by Citizens Advice Scotland, on the fuel poverty strategy that the Scottish Government has put forward. It has said that it does not go far enough that it is not putting enough money in people's pockets. Things like the child winter heating assistance is only available to some people and families with some disabled children and not others. Will the Government address the poverty that those families experience by addressing the eligibility for that? As the First Minister said today, there are discussions going on with the United Kingdom Government over the consequentials from its announcements and that that money will be earmarked to help those most affected. In terms of fuel poverty, in November, we put in place a £41 million winter support fund to ease the strain on low-income households. That includes £10 million of funding that is available to help people struggling with their heating costs this winter. Our council tax reduction scheme currently supports more than 470,000 households, and in addition to that, by doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 per week, we anticipate that 40,000 children will be lifted out of poverty out of the 430,000 that are eligible for support. We are carefully, as I have just said, assessing the mitigation measures that the United Kingdom Government has announced today and how they will be applied in Scotland. However, the £200 rebate that has been announced, which is to be paid back, is just a loan and will not address the medium to long-term issues and never mind the short-term issues, is in the context of an increase in bills of nearly £700. The £200 goes absolutely nowhere nearly far enough. I just want to say that we should all take a moment to consider what it means to be forced to choose between heat and food in this day and age in this country. We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis. We are seeing hikes and tax, we are seeing the cost of Brexit, we are seeing income for universal credit recipients, cuts for the UK Government and, of course, the list goes on and on and on. However, it is really important that we all work together to address what I said before is a very real cost of living crisis that is being faced at the moment by the people of Scotland, and I move the Government's amendment. I acknowledge that this is a very serious issue for very many families who see their household bills only going in one direction at the same time as they are having to cope with all the other challenges of the pandemic, which is very far from over. Today, that anxiety will have been heightened with the news about the increase in the energy cap. I also acknowledge concerns about the national insurance rise, which I will come back to in a minute. I also acknowledge the anxieties about world markets and the increasing political tensions between Russia and Ukraine, which potentially have very serious implications for energy costs and supply chains. Drilling down on the detail of the inflation statistics, it is very clear that producers and suppliers involved in international trade are telling us that much of the current level of inflation is a direct result of rising shipping and wholesale gas costs, and listening to those involved in UK business also as a result of shortages in labour markets. We have inflation issues in other countries. Germany is now up to 4.9 per cent, America to 7 per cent, France to 3.3 per cent and there is obviously an underlying energy inflation in the eurozone, which is now averaging out at 28 per cent. We know that the cost of the pandemic is well over £400 billion. We know that £6 million is on NHS waiting lists, and whether we like it or not, we need to go ahead with the national insurance increase to pay directly into the health and social care budgets. It is never popular to raise tax, and I am not going to argue that the national insurance increase will not be painful. However, when the decision was made some time ago, there was a reluctant acceptance that, to deal with the waiting lists and the NHS crisis, that rise was necessary. Although it is true that the living wage—yes, of course. I am grateful to the member for giving way, and I understand that those who instinctively, such as the low-tax policies, will sometimes make an effort to come to terms with the need. Why is it that the Conservatives are able to come to terms with the need for an anti-hike, which will be regressive, but we are not able to come to terms with the need for more progressive income tax, which we have already implemented here in Scotland with a five-band system that places the expectation on those with the broadest shoulders? I thank Mr Harvey for that intervention, but it is all about economic growth, which I know that his party is not terribly keen about. However, if you look at the Scottish Fiscal Commission's statistics, there is a huge issue for Scotland when it comes to income tax revenues, and that is one of the key issues when it comes to income tax policy, and hence the Conservative party's view on that. I hear too that VAT on fuel bills should be scrapped, but that is not the best way of assisting those who are most in need, since it is not a progressive measure. Indeed, it would reduce bills by just 5 per cent, and it would cost the treasury buildings of pounds. I have also heard claims—we have had them from Jackie Baillie again this afternoon—that windfall taxes on oil and gas profits are similar to the Gordon Brown windfall tax on privatised utilities in 1997. However, if we look abroad to other countries such as Spain, for example, those countries have only had very limited success. The companies and questions are owned by us all through pension funds, and they have to be attractive to new investment. In terms of the windfall taxes, that risks a reduction in output and therefore increasing prices for consumers. We should not forget that £100 billion of investment is needed to secure future power generations. In short, the energy experts, Ms Baillie, are telling us that we need to increase energy supply and reduce the demand, and a windfall tax is going to do the opposite. I think that you need to be winding up, Ms Smith, rather than taking interventions. I am very grateful to—I will be very, very quick. Would Liz Smith at least acknowledge that it was Margaret Thatcher who first put a windfall tax on oil and gas? I can acknowledge very much Gordon Brown's failure on a windfall tax. On that point, I am very happy to conclude my remarks. I am pleased to rise for my party to speak in favour of this incredibly important motion, which is impacting families up and down the country. I would like to thank Jackie Baillie for taking time out of parliamentary debate and time for the Labour Party to bring it before us this afternoon. You would be hard-pressed to go more than a day or so without hearing about the rising costs of food, soaring fuel and energy prices. We are, as we have heard many times this afternoon, already living through a cost of living crisis, which is hitting families and individuals hard and from all directions. The consumer price index shows that the cost of food and drink has been climbing every year and is up significantly when compared just with January 2020. The UK's biggest supermarket Tesco has already said that its prices could be set to rise by 5 per cent, and poverty campaigners have highlighted finding food items like rice and pasta, basic staples having risen by as much as 340 per cent in some locations. This is against a backdrop of skyrocketing energy costs. Indeed, just today, as we have heard several times again, the ONS regulator Offgem has announced that the price cap will rise by £693 on average, causing bills of the average customer to rise up to £1,971. It is worth for prepayment customers. That is not to mention the rising costs of fuel, rent and taxes. All the while, wages stagnate. Inflation will this year reach its highest level in 30 years. The painful reality is that those on the lowest incomes are feeling that impact most acutely. All of this has taken its toll. Citizens Advice Scotland has found that a third of Scots are worried about being able to pay for food and other essentials, which means that parents will be facing the anxiety of not being able to provide for their children. Some pensioners are anxious about being unable to heat their homes. In this place, we have a sacred duty to recognise the challenges that our constituents are facing and to act on their behalf to mitigate them. I am pleased to support both the spirit and the proposals contained in Jackie Baillie's motion today, including on the warm homes discount, which my party has been calling for to be doubled and expanded to all those in receipt of universal credit. Liberal Democrats also want to see the scrapping of the national insurance tax hike, saving families hundreds of pounds a year. Our plans also include forcing broadband providers to offer vulnerable customers cheaper deals through social tariffs, benefiting up to 8 million households and saving them up to £270 each every year. The Scottish Government often talks a good game when it comes to tackling these issues, but when push comes to shove, it has been found wanting. With this latest budget, it will heat more misery with yet further cuts to local authorities, forcing council tax increases and cuts to the services that people most rely on, just when Scots are at their lowest financial ebb. My party recognises that the impact of poverty and hunger can be wide or reaching. Studies have shown that they are major factors in preventing children from achieving their potential. We also support and enhance carers allowance in Scotland and are calling for a UK-wide uplift of an immediate £1,000 per year. In recounting her own story, the journalists and poverty campaigner Jack Monroe paints a very bleak picture of the choices far too many in our society of face width. I quote her words when I say, After you've cut back on everything else, food is the last to go. I didn't mind putting on an extra jumper if I had food in the fridge. It was at the point where I had an extra jumper on and no food in the fridge that I realised things had got terribly badly wrong. Presiding officer, in this day and age, no one in this country should have to make such a choice, but with the cost of living crisis, as we find it, all too many will. It's a great privilege to be able to contribute to today's debate on the cost of living crisis, which is undoubtedly the single most important issue facing millions of families across this country. With the announcement today from off-gem that the energy price cap is set to rise by 54 per cent, meaning that families could be hammered with an extra £700 on top of their existing energy bills, it's actually an emergency debate today that we have to consider because, Presiding officer, people are desperately worried. They are worried about their income, their job security and their ever-increasing bills that will suffocate and snuff out what little disposable income they have left. They are concerned about putting the heating on, about putting food on the table, and about ensuring that they can keep a roof over their families' heads. Frankly, they are baffled at just how little people in positions of power are doing to help them through what is likely to be the worst cost of living crisis in living memory. While the lack of action from Government at all levels is unforgivable, it is nothing when compared to deliberate, calculated actions, like cutting the universal credit uplift at this time, and placing ridiculous four-week deadlines for unemployed people to secure a job. That callusness will push millions into more poverty and destitution. In Glasgow alone, over 80,000 people are in receipt of universal credit. To put that into context, that number could have filled Celtic Park last night and still leave 20,000 people outside. We should be in no doubt that families will suffer tremendous hardship because of that single decision. As someone with lived experience have been on universal credit, I find it sickening and cowardly that the richest man ever to have sat in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the United Nations, thinks that this is in some way acceptable. There are already one in four children in Scotland living in poverty. Are we really going to stand here and try to tell ourselves that those decisions won't make that intolerable situation worse? We know the price of energy is skyrocketing, but so too are other necessities. Just last week, the Daily Record reported an increase of nearly 20 per cent on the price of a weekly food shop when compared to January last year. Nationally, food and drink prices were 4.2 per cent higher in the year to December 2021. How do we fix it? I have no doubt that we will hear the usual musings from the Conservative benches about a strong economy and low taxation stimulating growth while getting people into work being the best route out of poverty. When you look at the reality rather than the rhetoric, it would be outrageous if it weren't so risible. We saw it yesterday in the Scottish rate resolution debate, where we continually heard Conservative MSPs talking about how Scotland is the highest taxed part of the UK while simultaneously hiking national insurance, putting more pressure on hard-working families. That hiking national insurance will raise an estimated £12 billion, but it is not ironic that it will not even cover the £10 billion of PPE waste and the £4 billion of fraudulent applications for public funds that have been written off by the Treasury in recent weeks. Fundamentally, we need to be asking ourselves what we can do to help people right now. Labour's amendment today outlines what we believe would be an alleviation for some of the pressure on families. On energy costs, we would cut VAT for 12 months and would implement a windfall tax on companies with increased oil and gas profits, would offset virtually all of the increased energy price speculated for this year and would help 9 million families across the UK, yet the chancellor has offered just £150 in October and £200 loan, which will not actually help at all, because that has to be paid back. With Shell today reporting their highest quarterly profits in eight years, it seems like a small price for them to pay. That windfall tax would allow the Government to save families around £200 on their energy costs alone. We need to go much further on that. I would really like to think that that approach is something that we could all support in this chamber as a baseline. I am confident that we all agree that we need to help people now, but we cannot continue along the same track and push further people into poverty, because the Government is simply too scared to put its money where its mouth is. Thank you. I call Christine Grahame to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. One issue not listed in the motion is the failure of successive UK Governments in the management of the economy. This is of fundamental relevance in a debate about the cost of living and those who will bear the brunt, many of whom are pensioners. I go back to Harold Wilson devaluing the pound in the 60s to Tony Ben, trashing alternative green energy, wave power in favour of nuclear, he later recanted. As for oil and gas, the UK Government sold it off cheap to international companies and only Shetland negotiated benefits for itself. Norway launched its own national company and now also leads in green energy. That oil of Scotland's shores was squandered by successive UK Governments. Norway's sovereign wealth fund in 2020 was worth £923 billion. That is £170,000 for every Norwegian and in the same year gained £8 billion in value. That is some rainy day fund. The UK had no oil funds, zilff. The bank collapsed in 2008, led to that creature, quantitative easing, otherwise known as printing money. That cash was supposed to trickle down to us, but flooded instead to those with substantial assets, the already wealthy. Covid comes along. The UK Government has to write off over £9 billion for useless PPE contracts, often divvied out to Tory pals. Already borrowing, it has to borrow more, with the UK national debt now standing at over 100 per cent of GDP. In other words, we are up to our ears in debt and it is increasing early with interest charges. Norway is the polar opposite. It does not have to borrow. It could ride out the bank's collapse, Covid and even spiralling energy costs with a universal scheme to help consumers running down. It had the cash, not like the Tory Government, which is simply deferring some costs that we shall pay for later. That is the context of squarming our assets and embedding inequalities in our society, where, for decades, the rich have got richer and the poorer poorer. That matters. Pensioner poverty is not new. Through a measly basic pension, women often working life have been interrupted by motherhood and caring responsibilities. We do not even receive that. I have a very short time. The pension credit system in my time here in 20 years has constantly failed with 40 per cent entitled not claiming because of the complexities. Yet that pension credit opens the door to other benefits, which includes a free TV licence if you are over 75 but only if you are on pension credit. What a torn react that was to remove universal access during a pandemic with pensioners isolated in their homes. The hiking of energy costs impacts on those less mobile than confined to indoors, many of them pensioners, food prices rising, all the nightmare for pensioners and fixed incomes, and often more costly because they are often purchasing for one. The Scottish Government has tried to mitigate, but I am always disappointed in Labour because they seem to just go along with mitigating Tory policies. I want this to be radically reformed, and it cannot be done in London. However, here in Edinburgh, where we have the skills, the experience of in my last minute and the social democratic values to run the economy, not ruin the economy, to invest in all our natural resources and distribute to a fair tax system, which recognises that you judge a nation by how it treats and respects its more vulnerable and elderly. I say to Paul Sweeney that that means one thing and one thing only. Independence, just straight forward competence with Scotland's economy and a just distribution of our wealth. It might just be worth noting that Norway's national debt is forecast to be over $200 billion in 2026. I appreciate Labour's use of their time today to debate a significant issue that should be at the top of the agenda of every member of the chamber. The cost of living is not one area that touches households across Scotland, and I am sure that we have all been watching with concern over recent months. We are all of us emerging from a pandemic unprecedented in its scope and reach, and we know all too well that our society is more fragile and less resilient than it once was. While we should recognise the role that the UK furlough scheme has played in preventing some of the worst possible outcomes in terms of the impact on jobs and the economy, providing a level of stability for hundreds of thousands of families across Scotland, for many households their budgets are already strained. This remains a particularly worrying time for families to be faced with a surge from energy bills and rises in other areas too. All while public services are stretched as never before. As others have mentioned, the pronounced element of this has been adjolt in the cost of wholesale gas globally. We should not underestimate the reliance that we still have on gas. It heats the vast majority of British homes, and it continues to provide a very significant proportion of our electricity even while we move away from more polluting alternatives like coal. We often speak of energy security, but the reality is that we are a net gas importer and remain at the whim of fluctuations on the global market. Sensible predictions suggest wholesale costs may remain high for the next two years. These are undoubtedly major challenges, and although we can identify the problems, the solutions are less clear. The question of cutting VAT on home energy bills is a finely balanced one, which, when compared with other interventions, and as Liz Smith highlighted last month, the IFS noted that such a policy would give average households back less than a fifth of the annual increase in costs and could bring with it unintended consequences. Does he not recall, as I recall, that Boris Johnson promised that he would do that? I do, and I am just going to come to that. This is, of course, not a conclusive argument against it, and the Chancellor today announced proposals to smooth price fluctuations over longer time periods, and I note that approaches like this were addressed in Labour motions. On a wider scale, sadly, little progress has been made towards diversifying domestic heating supplies. We are still scratching the surface of moving homes from fossil fuel dependents to renewable heat. In my own region, the Highlands and Islands, we have long faced its own issues around high costs of fuel. We have a considerably higher-than-average number of properties not connected to the mains gas and so reliant on oil and LPG tanks or electricity at higher cost. Those households already spending a larger proportion of their incomes on energy, whether through low-income or higher energy costs, will be hardest hit by this cost increase. For those in this position, particularly many in the Northern Isles, where fuel positivity rates are higher, it is particularly galling to be surrounded by wind turbines, but seeing no benefit in their bills. While we consider those that will be hardest hit by energy costs, we should also look at other areas. The Scottish Government's budget for next year is currently going through this Parliament. Earlier today, I was able to question the Public Finance Minister on the Government's approach to the local government financial settlement. While ministers have yet again been busy patting themselves on the back for reducing the levels of their cuts to already stretched council finances, there is still the likelihood that many local authorities will try and address this cut with council tax rises in order to keep services running. Higher costs have also hit transporter door levels. This is another area where the Highlands and Islands, like many more remote and rural parts of Scotland, will fill the pinch. Local public transport, such as bus routes, is lost. People are forced to drive with all the additional costs that that incurs. On the issue of particular relevance in my region, at the end of last year, the Scottish Government decided that inter-island ferries would not be covered by the young person's travel scheme. While a person on the mainland could travel from Berwickshire to Caithness for free, a young person in Orkney or Shetland, whether travelling for education or for work, will still be liable for any ferry fares, which might make part of the journey. I will have to ask you to conclude, Mr Halcro Johnston. We are very tight for time this afternoon. Can I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Maggie Chapman? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I would like to thank the Labour Party for bringing this debate forward. It is worth reminding the chamber and Scotland of the former Labour Chancellor of the Islands comments that his cuts would have been deeper and tougher than that. We cannot let the population forget that austerity actually started under Labour, but it has been turbocharged. It has been turbocharged by the Tories since they have been in power, particularly when they are in power with the Liberal Democrats with the Cameron Clegg coalition. However, the debate is timely with the announcement of the energy price cap increasing by £693 for direct debit customers and by £708 for prepaid meter customers. Many people in the prepaid meters have them for a reason, and many of these customers are some of the lowest paid in society. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation analysis warns that the energy price cap rise will devastate the UK's poorest families, who will spend an average 18 per cent of their income after housing costs on energy bills after April. National energy action, a UK charity estimates that 6 million UK households will be living in fuel poverty by April, a 50 per cent increase from 2021. That is a 50 per cent increase from 2021. They are announced by the Tory government today of a £200 loan and £150 for council tax, for some council tax payers in England. First glance does not go anywhere near enough to actually help the many who are already struggling and are really having to choose between heating or eating. As we know, energy costs are going up, fuel costs are going up, food prices are going up, clothing costs are going up and the national insurance costs are going up. Whilst the Tories are in Westminster, they are busy getting bevyed in their suitcase, their booze and Boris's gaff, in addition to Liz Truss spending £0.5 million on a flight to Australia, many people across the UK are struggling to survive. I will take the intervention. I thank the member for taking the intervention. With the announcement this morning that there will likely be Barnett consequentials, can I ask him where he thinks those should be spent by the Scottish Government? Stuart McMillan First of all, I think that we all have to see what the details of those are, but we did hear what the First Minister said. I do not know if the member was listening at First Minister's questions, but that question was answered by the First Minister. Certainly for the people of England, they also have the additional prescription chargers at £9.35 a time and paying for the tuition fees. Clearly the out-of-touch Tories care little about the cost of living crisis and more about saving their own skins at the next UK general election. Inflation is sitting at 5.4 per cent, the highs it has been for 30 years and some economists are expecting it to hit 7 per cent this year. The UK already has the worst levels of poverty and inequality in north-west Europe and the highest levels of in-work poverty this century. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that around two-thirds of 68 per cent of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in a household where at least one adult is in work. That figure has never ever been higher. I believe that work is a route out of poverty, however, when somebody is in work and they are getting on poverty pay, how can they get themselves out of poverty? That is something that the Tories really do not understand. Using the OECD data shows that the UK poverty rates have been worse in nearly every year of the 21st century, compared to nearly every neighbouring country of the UK in north-west Europe. The pandemic has played a part in the rising costs, but so too has been Brexit. The chaos and confusion cause of Boris and his Brexit years at the expense of the normal person in our communities is all to see. The OBR estimated this year that only two-fifths of the Brexit damage has been inflicted so far, with every person facing a cost of £1,200. With that, I will be back in the amendment in the name of the Scottish Government. Thank you. I call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Paula King. Thank you. Scottish households are facing profound financial challenges. We must address these directly, demanding accountability from where decision-making power on energy lies, and seek to tackle the foundational causes of inequality while acknowledging why we are in this position. The crisis is a product of several factors. We have a UK Government that is taking more and giving less, as we have seen in its decisions on national insurance and universal credit. That pushes many into fuel and food poverty and stifles our businesses. Westminster has failed oil and gas workers, failed energy customers and further destabilised our climate by its refusal to support shifts away from volatile fossil fuel markets. It has wasted our money in the process, too. The £400 million that was spent on the abandoned green deal scheme that only supported 1 per cent of households and delivered significantly fewer measures than any previous scheme. Therewithdrawal of support for renewables, especially on shorewind, and comprehensive insulation schemes should be a cause of shame. We must do everything in our power to minimise the impacts of this crisis on Scottish homes and livelihoods by disinvesting scarce public money from unsustainable industries and greenwashing initiatives. We must not prolong the extraction of fossil fuels whilst ignoring the fact that big oil and gas companies shift the detriments of market volatility on to workers. Instead, we have the potential to demonstrate how the just transition to local energy systems as part of a green new deal can reduce poverty and inequality. Unfortunately, those innovations, which would see significant revenue generation that we could use to support households and businesses while reducing costs of domestic energy use, are still restricted by the UK Government's socially and environmentally regressive policy regime. We also need to make sure that we use the support that is available and ensure that that support, like the Scottish Welfare Fund, is accessible as possible, as citizens advice Scotland and others have highlighted. It is clear that Scotland is moving toward a more distributed fiscal policy, as we see in our decision to make bus travel free for young people, the doubling of the child payment and so on. The actions that we see from Westminster will only allow the gap between rich and poor to grow. South of the border, where big decisions about Scotland's energy systems are made, home insulation schemes are failing without consequence. 90 per cent of energy bill increase in the last year has been due to the rising price of gas. The only way of cutting the cost of energy is ending our dependence on gas and breaking the relationship between gas prices and fuel bills, but Westminster refuses to do that. That reflects the general failures of Westminster to protect vulnerable homes and livelihoods from predatory and exploitative business practices and from its own defective fiscal policy. All of that happens as Covid-19 and its impacts continue to weigh heavy on many Scots who lost income and loved ones. The Scottish Government's resource spending review must mitigate the crisis rather than exacerbating it in any way. That will, of course, involve trade-offs. Scotland's fiscal constraints demand such trade-offs, but the most vulnerable that society now deserves, at the very least, for public money to be spent in a way that delivers sustainable and affordable outcomes for them. There has been consistent denial from Westminster when we demand accountability for the crippling cost of living crisis. Let us not forget David Cameron's desire to, and I quote, get rid of all the green crap. This has added £2.5 billion—yes, that is £2.5 billion—to UK energy bills. It seems that Westminster only cares about things that make massive profits for their pals. Denials and disinterest won't help anyone. We need a concerted and palpable intervention. If the UK Government is incapable of or unwilling to meet the urgent needs of households and businesses in Scotland, it must give us the powers that we need to deliver those interventions ourselves. I rise in support of the motion in Jackie Baillie's name. All across Scotland, people are feeling the growing strain of the cost of living going up. People are facing unthinkable choices, and it is clear that people's physical and mental health is deteriorating as a result. That is a consequence of a perfect storm of different factors from the rise of the taxation to the increase in food prices. The sad reality of that is that the situation is only set to worsen, with some analysts pointing to inflation reaching beyond 6 per cent. Further to that, we know that the true cost of inflation will be even higher for those who have the least already. In response to what people in Scotland need, are there two Governments standing up for people? What they have is their Governments letting them down. Although I accept that the growing cost of gas is a global issue, in Scotland we are experiencing the consequences over 10 years of the Conservatives failed energy policy, which has left us uniquely exposed. The Tories failed to properly regulate our energy market, leading to dozens of energy companies going bust, and all of us having to foot the bill. They are dithering, and the incompetence has created an energy price crisis being felt by everyone. However, the blame for the rise in costs and energy is not squarely at the foot of the Tories. The SNP's record on energy is also one of newtons and a failure to deliver. They have failed on the delivery of a public energy company and failed to harness Scotland's renewables potential. Now they have sold off on the cheap the right to profit from Scotland's energy transition to multinational corporations with dubious human rights records. The people of Scotland should know that this crisis happened on the watch of both Governments—I would like to make some progress—on the watch of both Governments with the Tories and SNP having failed to meet the vast potential of Scottish and British renewables and other forms of energy. The SNP has also presided over the development of a low-wage economy in Scotland, which means that Scottish households are more exposed to the cost of living crisis. However, many of the factors driving Scotland's labour shortages and low growth in wages predated the pandemic and have gone unaddressed by the SNP for years. As if to add insults to injury, the rise in prices is also seen in the growing cost of public transport, with the increase in the cost of tickets on ScotRail. It is just another example of continued mismanagement of our country's transport, which is adding to the cost of living for hard-working people. What all of this undoubtedly paints is an incredibly bleak picture for Scots all over the country, with failures across both of our Governments. However, it does not have to be this way. There are solutions to alleviate the pain of this crisis. Both here, in this place and at the UK level, Labour has a plan to make lives easier for people. To address the immediate crisis, Labour would bring in fully funded measures now to reduce the expected price rise in April, saving most households around £200 or more. Labour has called for a cuts to that on domestic energy bills for 12 months from April 22, saving an average household around £89, and with the one-off windfall tax on increased oil and gas profits, that could be achieved. We, on these benches—I am in my final minute—would use the power of this Parliament to top up winter fuel payments. That is a choice that we would make. The situation is stark. Charities, advice and rights organisations and now our churches and religious groups are pointing out the devastating impact of hikes in energy prices and the cost of living on the poorest in our society. Indeed, just today, I read the Catholic Parliamentary Office making a statement saying that those things are not luxuries. They are the very basic, decent things that someone should expect in their life. It is clear that the Tories and the SNP have failed people across this country, and it is Labour who are the real alternatives and who have the ideas to address this crisis. Like everyone in this chamber, I know only too well that the growing number of people are feeling the financial pinch as household bills continue to rise. As we have already heard, food prices are rising fast, as are energy costs. In today's announcement by Ofgem, the energy price cap will increase from 1 April for approximately 22 million customers, resulting in an increase of bills in our right £700, which is very concerning. However, the chancellor has announced a £9 billion package of support that will ease the pain. Some of that support will be available in Scotland, somewhere in the region of £290 million. I urge the Scottish Government to use every single penny to address this crisis. Compounding things, many households are also fearing huge heights in their council tax bills as a direct result of insufficient funding by the Scottish Government and the Scottish budget. While the cost of living heights affects everyone, I want to highlight the plight of those living in rural communities such as mine in my constituency of Galloway and Western Fries. People in rural and remote communities were among the hardest hit through no fault of their own, but often is the result of policies that the Scottish Government has taken failing to address or even appreciate the challenges of living in rural areas. Many Scottish households are also fearing—they have also experienced low-wage economy, such as Dumfries and Galloway, where many are employed in agriculture forestry or the hospitality sector. There is also a growing number of people working in the food and drink and retail industry that, historically, has not attracted good wages. Against that, food prices in local villages and community shops are considerably higher than people would pay for the same items in supermarkets, towns and cities. I can stress that this is certainly not a criticism of small, rural and retail businesses who provide a lifeline service in difficult circumstances where they are trying to make their living for themselves, and they strive to keep their shelves well stocked with the widest range of goods. More often or not, elderly residents and young families have no choice and have to rely on rural stores, inevitably having to pay prices more than the goods that their urban cousins are having to pay. Some rural shops, including one in Parnachia in my constituency, were told by one national wholesaler that they need to spend £1,000 to have stock delivered, which is a very worrying move and could force many out of business. The wholesaler said that he had to enforce his policy because of higher fuel costs, smaller marbles and many retail goods, and fear that he would lose money on deliveries, so it is a vicious circle. I am afraid that I will have to carry on. Rural communities are penalised by poor public transport links, which is something that the SNP has failed to address in their 15 years in power. More often than not, elderly residents and the SNP are also seeing fair hikes and service cuts to railway services in Galloway, but many rely on public buses to either go to the shops or work in nearby towns. Even if, as we emerge from the pandemic, we are still seeing inadequate services, many under-22s in my region will look on in envy as their urban cousins enjoy free bus travel, where the youngest in my constituency would simply like to see a bus. That policy simply widens the rural and urban gap. Where was the rural proofing in that policy? Even those fortunate to have a car, despite the welcome freeze on fuel duties, are hard hit at the pumps, as prices in rural garages are considerably higher than the four coats in towns and cities. People living in rural and remote communities are paying a hefty price just to keep going, whether it is food or whether it is fuel, and even broadband services—many do not have it because of the disastrous R100 roll-out, but they often have to look at more expensive packages just to get a consistent connection. Rural fuel poverty is, of course, one of the biggest problems. Energy Action Scotland has already highlighted the particular difficulties that are faced by rural fuel in rural areas. The higher fuel costs, the lack of access to mains gas grid and higher premiums on heating oil and gas that is delivered remotely are challenging households stock that we have. It is scandalous that consumers in rural areas often pay higher gas prices than for the same product in rural areas. Energy efficiency support needs to be delivered— We will have to ask you to conclude there, Mr Carson. I call Kenneth Gibson, who is the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. What we got out of that is that the Tories are clearly opposed to free bus passes for people under the age of 22. The cost of living crisis is happening amidst a backdrop of supply chain disruption during the pandemic and compounded by UK policies such as Brexit and the short-sighted closure of gas storage facilities, which began under the last Labour Government, making the UK more vulnerable to volatile gas price rises. The energy price cap that we now know in a decision rushed out this morning will not accept an intervention from Mr Carson. Stephen Carr is the vulnerability that Kenny Gibson speaks of. Is that enhanced in any way by the attitude of your party towards nuclear, towards the investment possibilities for communities in Scotland, where nuclear power has been a main pre-feature of the local economy? The utter failure of the Conservative Government to have enough storage facilities for gas to drug up the future of the nuclear industry, to be honest. A new colour industry, which, if we went along with the cost of Hinkley Point, would increase energy prices dramatically compared to what people are paying just now, you might shake your head, Mr Carr, but your inability to accept and face up to the facts says more about you than actually does about the issue we are debating. The energy price cap that we now know in a decision rushed out this morning to further deflect from the Prime Minister's myriad reveals will rise from an average of £1,277 to £1,970, a 54 per cent rise, or take against the account the £135 rise from £1,142 the autumn, a 72.5 per cent jump in a single year. Huge numbers of people will find themselves plunged into fuel poverty as household incomes fail to come up with inflation, through wage rises in the Tory decision to abandon their own manifesto commitment to the triple lock, which will cost severe hardship to pensioners already amongst the poorest in Europe relative to earnings. It is very disheartening that many families now face the problem of increasing debt, with demand for credit card lending jumping by 41.5 per cent in the last few months of 2021, while demand for other unsecured credit and buying out pay later products rose by 37.5 per cent, highlighting the desperate situation that many families are in. Christine Grahame was speaking and talking about Norway. I seem to recall Jamie Halcro Johnston talking about the debt of Norway, so I had a wee look at it. 42 per cent of GDP in Norway, 105 per cent in the UK, Jamie. I do not like you what I get down that road. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the forthcoming national insurance hike adds insult to injury for low-income households, including £2 million already from the £10.40 a year ending of the universal credit uplift. Meanwhile, inflation continues to rise and is now climbed higher than the Eurozone. The Tories were so desperate to abandon. Over the past eight years, the Scottish Government has spent over £1 billion tackling fuel poverty. However, for as long as energy pricing and obligations are reserved to the UK Government, Scotland will continue to allocate substantial amounts of the already restricted budgets to mitigating the effects of harsh Tory policies, such as having to introduce the £41 million winter support fund and, of course, having to implement progressive policies to benefit low-paid families. Of course, low-paid families, the SNP, unlike some people in the Labour Party, care weaker deeply about. Rachel Reeves MP, the shadow chancellor, told the Guardian, We don't to be seen and we are not the party to represent those who are out of work. However, the SNP believes that everyone should be represented. We believe that we should have the powers in this Parliament to be able to assist everyone. In terms of oil windfall taxes, what happened the last time there was a windfall tax? There was a 10-year drop in investment costing myriad jobs to the Scottish and, indeed, UK economies. Labour just sees that as a cash count. Of course, the matter was previously debated just last week. Why not look at excessive profits of all companies? Why just oil and gas, as the First Minister suggested, we should? Can I actually to conclude, Mr Gibson? A wee bit. Just one last thing I'll say in conclusion, because I did take an early intervention there, was that under Labour's watch, oil prices rose from $12 to nearly $100 a barrel. What did they do with that money? Mr Gibson, it's your choice whether or not you've taken intervention. It doesn't mean that you can continue beyond time, thank you. We now move to winding up speeches. I call Douglas Lumsden to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind members of my register of interests that it shows that I'm still a councillor at Avonene City Council. I think it's been an interesting debate today. I note a very similar debate that happened in the House of Commons this week, but a very similar motion from Labour there. I want to focus my initial remarks on the Labour motion to implement a windfall tax on the oil and gas industry, and it's sad to see Labour so disconnected now from the north-east. From our significant history in the city of Aberdeen, they now seem to have turned their backs on the region just like the SNP have. They are now completely disconnected from the energy industry and their workers, and a windfall tax on this industry would most severely impact those workers. We cannot simply change a tax regime with a flick of a pen. It's unfair on our industries and causes instability and uncertainty in the marketplace. When investment is under threat, those companies fail to create jobs and invest in the north-east, and it's my constituents who will suffer. It's the 100,000 Scots who are directly employed by the energy sector that will suffer, and how their cost of living will be affected when they have uncertainty about their employment. The SNP Green coalition are threatening the jobs in the north-east, and now the Labour Party have joined in and are doing the same. My colleague Andrew Bowie made the point in the House of Commons that this week that oil and gas prices fluctuate wildly. Gas may be sitting at near record prices today, and oil may be sitting at $88 a barrel right now, but tomorrow that might all change. It's grossly incompetent, naive, inept and totally ignorant to base a policy around the price of oil and gas, and he's absolutely correct. But turning to other matters, the cost of living crisis that we face is probably the biggest issue that we have to deal with as we recover from the pandemic. The SNP Green amendment is nothing, if not predictable, taking no responsibility and offering nothing new. Give us more powers, it says. We don't need more powers to fund local government correctly. You just need to value them and treat them as partners. As Finlay Carson points out, there's a huge risk of increased council tax bill due to the real-terms cut in £251 million to local government. That will be a real burden to families right across Scotland, and that is entirely the fault of this devolved government. I hope that this devolved government will pass on all the consequentials in full from the announcement today by the UK Government to reduce council tax bills in England to our local authorities. You don't need more powers to invest in our future workforce and give them the skills to have a well-paid job and improve our economy's productivity. More and increased taxes are not going to solve this cost of living crisis. Increases to the living wage, raising the personal allowance, reducing unemployment and creating well-paid jobs will. We've heard today that the Scottish Government needs to take action and that was something that Jackie Baillie pointed out in her contribution. We've heard some other interesting contributions today. We've heard from Christine Gray on who we said there was no debt in Norway, but that's been, since pointed out, was corrected by Kenny Gibson. Once again, we've somehow seen from the SNP moving a cost of living debate on to back to independence. I've got news for Christine Gray, but if she thinks things are bad now, independence would bring austerity max and that would affect our poorest in society. We've also heard from Stuart McMillan bringing up the spending being wasted. £700,000 being spent on civil service planning for an independence reform is money that's wasted. What about the rusting ferries that were painted on windows? Surely that's another huge waste of money. In conclusion, I support the amendment that was put forward by Liz Smith to build an economy, increase employment, support the north-east and recover from the pandemic. I call Patrick Harvie up to four minutes, minister. There are clearly a wide range of issues that members are disagreeing about, but I hope that the one thing that we can agree about is that Labour colleagues are quite right to bring this topic to the chamber in some of their debate time. It is as many members across the chamber have recognised the crisis of our age at the moment. The cost of living crisis is going to be profound. It is growing already. It is likely to continue to grow and it will impact people in critically important ways and on a huge scale. Jackie Baillie opened the debate by saying that she seeks action from both Governments. We agree. She said that she doesn't want a Government that uses the constitution as an excuse not to act. I support independence, but I agree that I wouldn't want to be part of a Government that uses that as an excuse not to act. She says that blaming the UK Government isn't enough while acknowledging that they have responsibility for a wide range of issues. We agree, but she then seems to object to the fact that the Government amendment sets out the wide range of actions that we are taking with devolved powers. The cost of living crisis relates to energy, of course, and in particular that is particularly sharp at the moment, but it is about far more than energy. The Scottish Government is investing not only investing but giving the clear confidence in the future that we will be regulating to ensure greater investment in energy efficiency in reducing demand for energy. Given that the spike in wholesale gas prices is the dominant factor right now, clearly reducing our energy consumption has to be a critical part. I saw Liz Smith. First, I will try if there is time later. I am grateful to Mr Harvie. What confidence does he believe that the Scottish Green Government is giving to workers in the north-east of Scotland? I have spoken to many workers in the north-east of Scotland who recognise that fossil fuels are not the future of their communities or of our economy or of our planet and that they want a Government that will invest in the just transition, which is what we are doing. If we are going to achieve the reduction in people's energy costs, energy efficiency, demand reduction and zero emissions heating has to be a part of it, but it is about far more than energy. We have the Scottish child payment introduced, expanded and doubled contrasting with the UK cut to universal credit. We have investment in making sure that we have free school meals, not burdening young people with the cost of tuition for higher education, free prescriptions and other measures to cut the cost of the school day as well as increasing funded childcare. We have lower council tax in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, plus a council tax reduction scheme. We spend significant amounts of money from the Scottish Government budget to mitigate the deeply harmful impacts of UK social security policies. If Jackie Baillie still wants to come in, I will give way at this point. The amendment from the SNP Government will provide very cold comfort for people who are struggling now. The minister is in danger of missing the point. It is not what you have done before, but it is what extra you are going to do now, because people are in a worse position and they are looking to both Governments to help them out. We have a great deal more to come, as well as the introduction of free bus for under 22s, which is only just commending and which, yes, will protect routes that are vulnerable in rural areas and vulnerable to cuts by private market operators. We will be implementing the fair fairs review to look at rebalancing the costs of getting about. We will be introducing rent controls as well as protection against evictions during the costly winter months. Indeed, we have commitment to the progressive taxation system that we have in Scotland, contrasting with only just yesterday again calls for tax cuts for high earners coming from Conservative colleagues. In closing, there is a great deal that we also need the UK Government to do. We have a clear focus on making sure that we will take every action that we can with devolved powers, and the just transition away from fossil fuels has to be critical in achieving that. This Government is committed to taking that action with every lever that we have at our disposal. I call on Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up the debate and up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to address much of what I have heard today in my closing remarks. The cost of living crisis is not just a concept, it is a reality for too many people who are becoming increasingly unable to make ends meet, not able to afford rent, travel, food, energy and clothes. The basic components of achieving a decent standard of living, and, as my colleague Paul Sweeney has noted, is an emergency. We have known for some time that, without further action and fast, this Government will fall short of the child poverty targets that this Parliament set in law. We must acknowledge that, although the overarching levels of poverty among children are far too high in general, they are even higher among the six priority groups that the Scottish Government has itself identified. Those in lone parent families in a household where someone is disabled, those families that have three or more children or are under one, young mothers and black minority ethnic families. However, it is not just poverty among children that we must look at either. I could fill a day talking about poverty and inequality facing unpaid carers and the disproportionate impacts on paid work, the pandemic and the gender pay gap have on the ability of women and their families to escape poverty and meet the cost of living crisis. Given my limited time today, I will refer members to the previous speeches that I have made from the chamber. The poverty and inequality that is being further exacerbated by the cost of fuel and food continues to rise, meaning that bills that people are already struggling to pay are increasing even further. No one should be facing the choice of choosing between heating their homes or putting food on the table. On that point, I agree with my colleague Stuart McMillan. However, I would like to gently suggest that, if he is committed to ending in work poverty, he should start by using the powers of this Parliament to address the fact that 61 per cent of children in poverty are living in working households. Our motion today asks the Scottish Government to support the measures announced by the Labour Party and that it would offer protection from the energy hikes announced today, which would save almost most households £200. We would also target extra support to the squeezed middle and low-income families, including pensioners, to take £600 of their bills. We asked SNP MPs to support our policy proposals through a one-off windfall tax, and they refused. However, this morning, the First Minister said that she did support calls on windfall tax, so I wonder why our MPs refused to vote at all. Richard Lochhead noted earlier that some of his proposals are reserved, and he is right. I looked to the SNP and Green Benches and asked why people in Scotland are sending their colleagues to Westminster, only for them not to vote on such a significant issue that would improve the lives of people in Scotland. No matter what your views are on the Westminster Parliament, the reality is that, right now, you are sending SNP MPs to the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Scotland, and people expect them to make decisions in their best interests. SNP MPs across this country have failed to do that duty this week. At every general election, your party stands on a platform that says you are stronger for Scotland, and this week you refused to vote for a policy. Your First Minister said today that she would support, and we cannot afford to let this Tory Government off the hook like that. We must use every vote that we have there, and all the people power in that room to hold them to account. We want to give security for families in the short term by keeping bills down, not for luxuries but for, as my colleague Paul O'Kane has said, essentials. However, we also want to offer security in the long term. People are falling from one crisis to the next in Scotland, and we see that in the repeat applications to the Scottish welfare fund. The SNP's solution to this cost-of-living crisis has been to offer stop gaps, one-off handouts and little bits of support when it comes to long-term systemic change. It is just not willing to take the action that is needed. They are saying that they can solve today's crisis with yesterday's policies, and the situation has moved on. The Tory's response has been to end the essential universal credit, so we cannot trust them either. Tackling this cost-of-living crisis must come hand in hand with action to address structural inequality and poverty. The UK Government cannot be trusted on this or much else right now. It protects its own time and again, but the Scottish Government is not doing nearly enough here in Scotland either. It has the means and the power to do it, but it is lacking the motivation. I ask the Government to have some humility, recognise your own failings and challenge. I am afraid to challenge Christine Grahame on two things that she said. The notion of economic competence. I urge Christine Grahame to look at the black hole in the fiscal commission's forecasts on social security and the downward revision of the tax take due to the Scottish Government's failure to create jobs and building of a low-wage economy here in Scotland. Secondly, I suggest that Scottish Labour mitigates Tory policy. I make no apologies for wanting to use all the powers of this Parliament to protect the people in Scotland, but we do not just have aspirations to mitigate bad Tory decisions, we aspire to replace them and make better ones. The Poverty and Inequality Commission this week, a body governed by the Government itself and the JRF and anti-poverty organisations have all warned that they need to do more. It cannot go on ignoring them. The Government must take action now to reduce housing costs by controlling rents, insulating homes, saving families, on-going heating costs, regulate bus companies to ensure fares are affordable, freeze rail fares. You could make sure that work pays by using all the powers of procurement and end zero hours contracts, secure a living wage for those in the public sector and of course pay social care workers £15 an hour. Please conclude, Ms Duncan Glancy. Under the SNP, poverty has continued to rise and I would like to remind Mr Gibson that this is in contrast to the fact that under a Labour Government and a Labour Party's watch things were very different. Thank you, you must conclude. I support the motion in Jackie Baill's name. That concludes the debate on the cost of living. There will be a brief pause before the next item of business.