 R calculated of businesses debate on motion 5106, in the name of Mark Griffin, on costs of living support. Adubite, member, to wish to participate to press the requests and speak buttons. I place an R in the chat function now or as soon as possible. I call on Mark Griffin to speak toWhy and move the motion for up to six minutes, Mr Griffin. On the date inflation has broken a 40-year record, We are using our debate time to call on the Scottish Government to unlock a further £10 million for local cost-eleven support for low-income families. By clawing back additional payments of the £400 October energy bill discount from those west-second homes, which the Scottish Government amendment appears to accept the principle of, we would close a look poll that allows those best off to get a double or potentially treble payment from the cost-eleven measures announced by the UK Government. The cost of our homes, the cost of keeping them running, safe and warm, is at the heart of this crisis. It might well be summer, but there are already hundreds of thousands of families that are dreading winter, desperately wondering how they will survive. Mortgages up £90 a month. Rent increases, the ONS confirmed this morning, now surpassed those in England and Wales. Water bills up 4.2 per cent. As of Monday, the energy cap is estimated to go up by £1,000 in just 100 days. We often talk about someone having to choose between heating and eating, but that is a polite way of putting it. The reality is that thousands will choose between starving or freezing. People will die this winter. That is a crisis that will only get worse, so the Government must respond with action. The irony will not be lost on anyone then that those best off, those able to afford to run not one but two homes, are set to pocket a windfall of almost £10 million between them simply because they have another home that is not their main residence. Homes are for living in, and a cost of living support package should benefit those who need help most. That is what we have demanded agreement on today in a belief that we have secured. Allowing a select few to pocket a £400 bung because they collectively own our rent 24,000 second homes, 1 per cent of all stock in this country will not deliver the fairness that we expect. We welcome the fact that Risi Sunak and the SNP finally listened to Labour calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies making bumper profits. Miles Briggs, I thank the member for taking this intervention. Can I ask if Labour will also be supporting my amendment for today, which would look towards putting in place an increase in the single discount for council tax from 25 to 35 per cent to help families now? Mark Griffin. No, we will not be supporting the Conservative amendment today because it deletes large swathes of what we are trying to do. We are trying to focus very acutely on the £10 million that is going to second home owners that we feel should not be receiving that. We have welcomed the fact that the chancellor has introduced that payment, but in taking so long to accept that it was necessary, his support package rewards those with second homes with their very own windfall, wasting £10 million of taxpayers' cash. That was Risi Sunak's error, but the Scottish Government appears following Labour pressure willing to act. Local authorities required to be consulted under the amended 2003 Local Government Act will be absolutely desperate for the powers to unlock a further £10 million to help the most vulnerable in their communities. I am delighted that the Government has chosen to change course on that. Just two weeks ago, the rural economy and tourism cabinet secretary told me that we would have to wait for the rural and islands housing plan, and like the social justice secretary, the additional dwelling supplement was enough to tackle second homes. I will not get a lot of progress this morning to make. I hope that when the minister stands up that we can get a cast iron assurance that the Government will not hang about on this. These powers are already in play. Councils already removed discounts on second homes in charge of a 100 per cent surcharge on homes left empty, raising £45 million a year for local house building each year. The work has to be done with councils by the autumn. We cannot accept that that has been kicked into the long grass, as the Government has with other issues such as the transient visitor levy. Nor can we accept quibling over issues around potentially packed council tax collection on empty homes. We cannot play politics with that. We need to recover those funds and get them to those who need them most. However, there is also a wider moral argument for taxing second homes more, until today Scotland was the outlier across Great Britain, lacking plans for a surcharge on second homes. Even Michael Gove is introducing a surcharge on second homes, which seems to have passed by the Conservative amendment today. However, even before the pandemic, tens of thousands of Scots have been unable to find a place that they can afford to call home, stuck on waiting lists, unable to get their foot on the property ladder, struggling to make ends meet to pay private rents. They do not have a warm, affordable and safe home. Second homes are those broadly left empty for much of the year. Furnished, a holiday home or a crash pad for some, there are luxury communities crying out for families' homes that they cannot afford. With inflation now set to reach double figures by the end of this year, and 100 days until the cap is increased, the Government must use the summer to prove its willingness to act in a move the motion in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Goven. As I alerted the chamber earlier, portfolio questions were really tight for time across the afternoon with a later than usual decision time. I would appreciate if members could stick to their speaking allocations. There might be a little bit of time back for interventions, but really not an awful lot. I now call on the minister, Tom Arthur, to speak to a move amendment 5106.2, for up to five minutes, Mr Arthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and in moving this amendment, let me say that the Scottish government welcomes this debate and the issue raised by the Labour Party is an important one. I will turn to the Government's response to the motion shortly and the wider response to the cost of living crisis, but before I do, let me first set out the Government's position on second homes. We recognise that good-quality affordable housing is essential to support communities to prosper across Scotland. Those second homes bring benefits to those who own them and the tourism businesses that they support. We know that, in some communities, second homes can impact on the availability of property to meet local needs. It can also, just as importantly, impact on a community's sustainability. That is why we have already taken action on second homes. Since 2013, councils have been able to vary the discount against council tax for second homes. Since 2017, they have had the power to remove the discount in all or part of their council area. In January 2019, we increased land and buildings transaction tax additional dwelling supplement from 3 per cent to 4 per cent of the total purchase price for any additional home of £40,000 or more. That is intended to protect opportunities for first-time buyers in Scotland, but it can act as a disincentive to second home purchases. We will consider all options as we take forward our commitment to introduce powers for local authorities to manage the number of second homes in their areas. That will recognise their different challenges, faced by urban and rural areas, and we will explore fiscal and non-fiscal options that will support the housing needs of different communities across Scotland. Turning to the issue raised by the motion today, we agree that it is clearly wrong that second homeowners benefit from the £400 energy rebate from the UK Government. That is what the UK Government is making available. Using the council tax system to recover the £400 has merit but is not straightforward. We will work with COSLA and local government to examine all options to recover the money, including through a council tax levied on second homes. In fact, we will explore going beyond just second homes and also consider applying a similar measure to long-term empty homes. We will explore using the funds raised to support local costs of living responses on a fair and equitable basis across councils. I can confirm that. I will be writing to COSLA this afternoon, certainly. Neil Bibby. I thank the minister for taking that intervention and a welcome that he is going to explore this with COSLA. Obviously, we are living in a cost-of-living crisis at the moment. There is an emergency. We need to ensure that additional support is going to those who need it. Can I ask him about the timescales of that engagement? I do not think that we have time to waste in terms of recovering this money. Can I ask him what timescales he is going to make home in this case? I am writing to COSLA this afternoon on this matter. I want me's discussions to begin in earnest, because I recognise the issues that the member raises. I am conscious of time to cost-of-living support. This Government has shown that we respond quickly and effectively to economic crises, ensuring that appropriate support is in place for those on low incomes. At the height of the pandemic, we moved at pace to introduce our £100 Covid winter hardship payments for families, becoming the first administration in the UK to introduce such vital support. Through that measure, we put over £14 million in the pockets of low-income families in December 2020. We followed up with our £69 million investment in the £130 low-income pandemic payment to support over 530,000 low-income households in the seat of council tax reduction, or who were exempt or not liable for council tax by the end of November 2021. Through the budget for 2022-23, the Scottish Government has allocated almost £3 billion to a range of supports that will contribute to mitigating the impact of the increased cost of living on households. That includes work to tackle child poverty, reduce inequalities and support financial wellbeing, alongside social security payments that are not available anywhere else in the UK. Our resource spending review prioritises £22.9 billion for social security assistance. Responding to the crisis, we also took the decision to upgrade eight Scottish benefits by 6 per cent and to invest the further £10 million in our fuel insecurity fund to support households at risk of severely rationing their energy use or self-disconnecting. That is significant financial support for those living in Scotland, which will provide protection for those on the lowest incomes that the rest of the UK do not have. While we do all that we can, we must not forget that, to its Westminster, it holds most of the powers that are needed to tackle the cost of living crisis, both in the immediate and longer term, including over energy, the minimum wage, national insurance and 85 per cent of social security spending. The Scottish Government has continually urged the UK Government to use all the powers and fiscal headroom at its disposal to address the cost of living crisis. As part of that, on 25 May, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance wrote to the Chancellor's setting out policies that would offer a long-term solution to the cost of living crisis. By ignoring our call for a comprehensive funding package to fully address the unprecedented cost of living crisis, the Chancellor's piecemeal approach makes it highly likely that more support will be needed when energy bills again rise significantly in the autumn. I would say again that the Government welcomes the issue that is being raised by the motion. We will constructively examine all options to recover this money through a council tax levied on second homes and long-term empty properties in order to support local costs of living responses on a fair and equitable basis. We will engage with COSLA and local government on the most effective ways to do that. Taking that approach, Presiding Officer, fits with this Government's commitment to tackling the cost of living crisis with all the tools that we currently have at our disposal. Thank you, Minister. I now call on Miles Briggs to speak to your move amendment 5106.1 for up to five minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also start by thanking the Labour Party for bringing forward today's debate, because every MSP will be acutely aware of the cost of living pressures facing people across the country at the moment and the need for every level of government to be working to help support individuals and families during this difficult time. The economic pressures that we are facing are considerable. Pressures that are created by global events, including rises in fuel prices, Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the country recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic are causing a strain on all costs of living. For families and businesses, they are being negatively impacted due to inflation and the rises in everyday prices. That is why it is welcome and why I have brought forward my amendment that the UK Government has taken a number of key actions that will support the most vulnerable households in our country, with £1,200 of support payments. The new measures being brought forward by UK ministers to help address the cost of living crisis are welcome and the start of what must be a concerted effort to drive down costs of living pressures. The energy bill support scheme will see every household receive £400 off their energy bills, with additional funding being provided to those on benefits people with disabilities and pensioners. It is also important to know that raising the national insurance threshold and cutting universal credit taper rate will allow people to keep more of the money that they earn, as well as actions to cut fuel duty and lower fuel costs. Taken together as a package, that is £37 billion of focused spending on the most vulnerable families in Scotland and across the UK. From next month, around 8 million people on the lowest incomes in the country will also receive a cost of living payment of £650. Support will be worth well over £5 billion to give people the support that they need during those challenging times. The Department for Work and Pensions will make those payments in two lump sums, the first being in July and the second in autumn, with payments from HMRC to those on tax credits following shortly after. It is welcome and also worth reflecting that the Social Security additional payments bill has been tabled today at Westminster and is progressing through Parliament. We know that pensioners and disabled people are disproportionately impacted by higher energy costs. That is why, from this autumn, the UK Government will deliver additional support to over 8 million pensioner households who receive the winter fuel payment and an extra one-off pensioner cost of living payment of £300. Direct help is being provided to people and we need to make sure that every level of government is doing just that. Many disabled people, for example, will also receive a payment of £650, taking the total cost of living payment to over £800. That is real action from the UK Government. We on these benches want to see more if I can get the time back. In addition to the things that you have mentioned, is there anything happening at the UK Government level that is going to deal with the regulation of fuel costs? Those discussions are taking place, as we speak, and I think that it is important that they are being developed. However, we have already seen action with that 5 per cent cut. We all want to see more action. I am pleased that the Chancellor has been leading on that. However, we on these benches also want to see more action from the Scottish Government, which we are here to debate today. That is why I have raised the need, and we stood on the manifesto at the council elections, to look towards how we can increase a single-person discount for council tax from 25 per cent to 35 per cent. That is a measure that could directly be used by SNP ministers now to help every single person in Scotland to save an average of £134 a year and an average bandee property. That is not a bureaucratic process. That is something that this Parliament could pass and could deliver the support that is needed. I am disappointed that the Labour party and I take it that SNP ministers will not support that support, which we brought. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scottish Conservatives want to see and do support the measures that have been brought forward by Rishi Sunak, the chancellor in the spring statement, and for this cost of living statement as well, to deliver the support that all of our constituents are looking for. To conclude, supporting people across Scotland and the UK with the cost of living crisis is critical, but we also need to focus on building a stronger economy. That is why we must see a relentless focus from both of Scotland's Governments on creating more well-paid jobs, cutting taxes for working people, driving business investment and innovation, unleasing the new skills revolution and levelling up growth across all parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. I move the amendment in my nine. Thank you very much, Mr Briggs. I call on Willie Rennie for up to four minutes, Mr Rennie. There is no doubt that Miles Briggs presents a very reasonable case, but the truth is that his amendment today deletes the central purpose of Labour's motion, which is to pull back from 25,000 properties—the owners are 25,000 properties—around about £400 each. He never explained why he never defended his position today. I think that he also did not defend some of the reprehensible behaviour of some of his colleagues, particularly at Westminster, who seek to blame the poor for their budgetary difficulties at times, including that they should cook better and that they should budget better. I think that it would be better. I will take an intervention from Miles Briggs if he is going to explain that. In terms of where the Labour Party and the Government are, we do not have this mechanism, so it is quite clear that this cannot happen now. My amendment brings forward something that can, and £134 discount could be delivered. The fact that the Government has moved to go and ask COSLA to look at this is one thing, but it is not delivering help here and now. Most of today, and the fact that the Government is accepting the principle of this, it indicates that it is possible to do this. I am disappointed that Miles Briggs was not even prepared to explore that proposition in his speech. The scale of the problem is significant. The ONS data today is really quite stark. The food, drink and clothes cost for an average typical family is now £5,780 per year, up £425 in one year. The fuel costs for a typical family up £310. In addition to the Conservatives tax hikes, which is around about £640, this is a £1,300 hit. Before you even get to the energy costs, this is an enormous cost. When you look at the fact that the increase in VAT tax take now means an extra £8.6 billion pounds over the next year into the Government's coffers, it means that the Government can go much further than it has gone just now. I would have liked to have heard Miles Briggs put in pressure on the UK Government to do something along those lines, because that would mean another £430 per family. We should take immediate action to cut VAT from 20 to 17.5 per cent, because that would take immediate help to families, and that is what we should be supporting. We will support Labour's motion today—I am really short of time, but I would like to, but I am really short of time—but the fact that today's debate is happening, it probably signifies a wider problem that we have in society. The fact that 25,000 properties are now classed as second homes indicates that we need to take wider and firmer action on the increasing numbers of homes that are taking out of circulation for working families in places such as mine in North East Fife, particularly the East Nuka Fife, where people cannot afford to live in the communities that they are working. The prices of properties are sky-high and they are often occupied by second home owners, who only live in the properties very periodically. That speaks to a wider problem, which is why I have been pressing the Government for a clearer indication about where we are going to go on tackling the number of second homes. We did take some steps on the short-term lets, but the other half of the equation is that we need to take steps on second homes as well. We will support Labour's motion today. It will introduce another £10 million to the Scottish Government finances, which we can use to target to those who are most in need. That is why we support it today, and I will conclude on that point. We now move to the open debate, and I call Alec Rowley to be followed by Christine Grahame for up to four minutes. I certainly support the motion that is brought forward today, and I am pleased to support the amendment. We need to look at how we can support people and support those who are in the greatest need. It is as Willie Rennie talked about, targeted support, and how do we deliver on targeted support? The Tories plan to relax controls on city bosses' pay, so we can see who they want to target, and it is more to the ratch while the poor suffer, and that cannot be acceptable. We need to recognise that, for older people, people with disabilities, they will use a lot more energy, so you can imagine the difficulties that they are facing right now. That is one group of people. The fact is that wages have stagnated over a number of years. The Tories try to say that we need to hold wages down because of inflation, but we know that it is energy costs that are spiralling out of control that is leading to the high inflation that we have, and I fear that greater inflation will go forward, so the pressures will be even greater. There are things that the Scottish Government can do. If you look at, for example, the public sector workers and the wage claims that are coming forward at the present time, the Government has offered 5 per cent to NHS workers, but for some NHS workers on the lowest pay, that will be perhaps £1,000 a year. For NHS workers on much higher pay, that is £5,000 a year, so the unions are rightly saying that is not fair. In terms of local government, the offer on the table of the now seems to be 2 per cent, so for the chief executive, a five council earning £200,000 a year, 2 per cent is quite an offer, but it is not the same for low paid workers on £15,000, £20,000 a year. The Scottish Government will have to look again in terms of wages and ensuring that local authorities have the funding to be able to pay the lowest paid workers so that they can actually tackle this problem. As I said, the Tories are quite happy to try and help the rich but not help the poor, but it is also time for all people in this country. Gordon Brown spoke at the weekend and said that all people of conscience and goodwill, faith groups, charities, foundations, local councillors, mayors and concerned business leaders all in the country's nations and regions to call on the chancellor for a fourth budget to prevent what is likely to be the biggest rise in family poverty that we have seen in our lifetime. I would hope that this Parliament could unite behind such a call because, yes, there is more that the Scottish Government can do, yes, there are things that we all need to do to try and help, but the reality is that the chancellor needs to bring forward a budget that will actually tackle these problems and tackle them head on. This Parliament could begin by uniting in a call on the Government to restore the £20 universal credit uplift and take steps to help those families right now. As we came towards this crisis, the Tories actually cut money from some of the poorest people in the country and people that were in work. Remember, tax credits were there to help people who were low-paid, so we can unite in this Parliament and ask them to restore that. By next winter, it is likely that over five million children across the UK will be living in poverty in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, because we have a Government that is refusing to act. So I would appeal. Let's join together, let's work together. The amendment shows that the Government is willing to do that. Let's work together and call on the UK Government to take the steps that it needs to take to address this crisis now. I now call on Christine Grahame to be followed by Paul Sweeney. I will be enforcing the four-minute deadlines from now on, Ms Grahame. Deputy Presiding Officer, I thank the Labour Party for bringing this motion, and I absolutely support the clawing back of the £400 payment being credited to people with second homes, indeed third and fourth homes, and until longer-term unoccupied homes. Incidentally, I think that Rishi Sunak has at least four homes. I'm not sure if number 11 down these streets is one, and maybe as party neighbour next door, they're not getting it. You seem to know more than me. It is obvious that this was rushed, though, so that the Conservatives could be seen to be doing something. As you can understand, I support your motion, and I'm glad that you also support the SNP amendment, which adds value and detail to the substantive motion. However, I say to people that even if you only receive that £400 credit once, let alone multiple times, and frankly you can manage without, then you can always donate a like sum to a food bank, because you can't get round it any other way. That said, there's a sticking plaster, and there's an all-inflationary circumstances, the economically vulnerable, the single parents, the low-income people, the low-income pensioners, and the disabled always suffer. The worst is to come. The days are mild. Heating is awful on low, though some housebound won't have to have the heating on whatever it's like outside. Domestic energy costs are set to rise to around £3,000 a year, and food inflation has not yet peaked. Of course, there is no cap on home heating oil, much used in areas such as Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, because it's unregulated. Of course, the war in Ukraine is having an impact on the UK economy, but why is it that we have one of the highest inflation rates in the G7, with the exception of Russia? That's because the destructive impact of Brexit can no longer be camouflaged by Covid. Those are not my words. The Centre for European Reform Analysis shows that Brexit has cost the UK billions of pounds in lost trade, lost investment, lost taxes, money—this country could really do with at a time of rising debt and falling living standards. That is all relevant to the crisis that people find themselves in. According to London School of Economics, Brexit alone has caused a 6 per cent spike in UK food prices. Those are independent sources. As for Covid, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the oldest non-partisan economic research institute in the UK, has criticised Rishi Sunak after he failed to take out insurance against rate rises in quantitative easing reserves. That cost £900 billion—that's £900,000 billion—or £2,000 per person. That is economic, chaos and mismanagement. Add to that that at least £11 billion wasted in useless PPE that requires to be incinerated. The profligacy and incompetence of the UK Government running the economy is there for all of us to see. However, the people who suffer are not the bankers. They are not the people who have made a lot of money and will continue to take money during inflation. They are the people who are vulnerable. I call on the Chancellor to slash the 20 per cent VAT on fuel, which already has duty, Levydon. You get tax and attacks. That would reduce transport costs for commercial, for the public sector and for essential personal travel, to reinstate the uplift on universal credit of £20 per week. I call on the UK Government to proactively pursue the uptake of benefits. For example, 40 per cent of those entitled to pension credit do not claim. They should be pushing that those people claim it. Perhaps the Treasury just wants to keep that money, but I know that that's not enough. Here, we have stretched mitigation to its limits. We must detach ourselves from this failing UK Government and, with independence, set our course for a just society. I call on Paul Sweeney to be followed by Alexander Stewart again for up to four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate today and to support the motion in the name of my friend Mark Griffin. The cost of living crisis is the biggest challenge facing families across Scotland and the wider United Kingdom. Inflationary pressures, stagnating wages and geopolitical upheaval have resulted in a perfect storm. Food prices are up, energy prices are up and fuel prices are up. In the past year, the cost of an average family's food shopping has increased by almost £400. Energy prices per household have jumped by over £700 and look set to increase by the same again in October. Fuel prices have increased by almost £1 a litre, meaning that the average family car now costs £100 to fill up. Of course, our housing costs are among the highest in Europe, with that rent-seeking behaviour sapping our real productive potential across the economy. Although that is all happening, wages have stagnated for over a decade. Even those offered wage rises this year are not likely to be offered a raise high enough to keep up with rising inflation. We should be in no doubt that this combination of price increases and compressed wages are really biting hard. Citizens Advice Scotland estimate that one in every five people in Scotland now run out of money before payday. The stress and fear that causes every month to families is frightening. The Poverty and Equality Commission estimate that one in four children live in poverty in Scotland, one in five working-age people in Scotland live in poverty and 61 per cent of working-age adults living in poverty are living in a household where someone is in employment. Are we really going to just accept that this is the norm or are we going to pretend that this isn't going to get significantly worse by the end of the year? It is essential that we understand the underlying factors driving this inflation. Brexit, labour market shortages and the post-pandemic clamour are undoubtedly playing their part, but there is also an egregious economic power grab at play here too. IPPR Scotland and Commonwealth published research this week highlighting that net profits for companies are up by a staggering 33 per cent compared with before the pandemic, and 90 per cent of that are profits made by just 25 companies. At a time where workers are being told by the Tories and some in the SNP that their demands for better wages are increasing and exacerbating inflationary pressures, we should instead understand that excess profits are a much greater driver. We should be considering measures to ensure that profit restraint and its redistribution to ensure greater income equality through taxing investments at the same rates that we do income is an underutilised and underappreciated tool at our disposal. The demands for pay restraint come at a time when railway workers are taking strike action for better pay terms and conditions, and I want to put on record my solidarity unequivocally and completely, because workers have been ripped off for too long. Blamed for the failings of successive Governments to address the structural fragilities at the heart of our economy, they have decided to stand up and be counted by using their power to collectively bargain. I pay tribute to the RMT for their work, and rather than criticising unions for democratically representing the views and wishes of their members, we should be encouraging other sectors to unionise and collectively bargain for better working conditions. If workers are not able to use their collective power to bargain, they are left begging the owners of capital. We need to tackle this crisis with a clear understanding of the underlying structural problem, and, frankly, neither Government is doing much in that regard. Contrary to what the Bank of England's Governor tells us, the way we need to get out of this mess is to put more money into people's pockets and to see more profit restraint from businesses not the other way around. I am pleased to be speaking in favour of the amendment today and the motion in the name of Miles Briggs. Over the last two years, the pandemic required financial interventions that were previously unheard of and unprecedented times required and resulted in unprecedented measures. In total, the UK Government spent £410 billion to mitigate the efforts and effects of the pandemic, and Scotland's Government received an extra £14.7 billion in consequentials. While Scotland is finally on road to recovery from the pandemic we are still facing difficult and uncertain times. As such, how welcome the package of measures that have been put in place to tackle the cost of living crisis. Falling two years of Covid spending, it can be hard to put into context just how extensive those measures have now become. However, a package to support totaling over £37 billion is significant by any measure. Although in the motion today Labour has chosen to focus on a specific aspect of the financial support, the truth is that the package to support 1 comes from all directions. The cost of living payments to increase the minimum wage, the fuel duty cuts and, of course, the energy bill support scheme. Although the scheme will deliver financial support to every household in Great Britain, the fact is that three quarters of the total financial support will go to the most vulnerable in our communities, and that is to be welcomed. As my party's shadow for older people, I welcome the fact that pensioners' receipt of pension credits will be over £1,600 better off as a result of some of the support. While the support is welcome, the onus lies now with the Scottish Government to do more in this area. Those include arranging and ensuring that the burden of tax is matching that within the UK. When it comes to income tax cuts, increasing the single-person tax cut discount to 35 per cent is something that we have called for and continue to do so. I am afraid that my time is limited. It also includes helping local authorities to be flexible to respond to the needs of individual households in each area of the country. Although councils are best placed to respond to the local needs in that way, their job has been made significantly harder by the legacy of cuts that they have faced over the past decade. It is not to suggest that this Government should look towards Labour's solutions to support the Scottish public through the crisis given, but the tax support that Labour is looking at and the support that Labour and the SNP would raise from that is half the energy profit levy that it is expected to deliver. Over the past two years, we have seen unprecedented package of financial support delivered by Governments worldwide and the world over, and a huge amount of funding has been affected. We saw with the initiatives of the furlough scheme that protected over one million Scotch jobs during the pandemic. We are seeing it again with the energy bill support scheme. I have spoken before in this chamber about the broad financial shoulders of the United Kingdom, and that is an opportunity to once again ensure that that is the case. Only by working together with the UK Government and delivering on the potential that the broad shoulders provide can the Scottish Government deliver and recover from Covid that the public and the Scottish public expect. I support the amendment in the name of Miles Briggs, because that today shows the amount of time, the amount of effort and the amount of resource that has been put into trying to tackle this issue, which will continue to be an issue for us going forward, but we are moving forward and we are tackling in the best that we can. The next three speakers will join us online, starting with Paul MacLennan, to be followed by Ariane Burgess, up to four minutes. I will hold you to that in the same way as I am holding members in the chamber. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward the debate this afternoon. The cost-living crisis is impacting on all of our constituencies in all parts of Scotland. I support the amendment that the Scottish Government has proposed this afternoon. I hope that the Labour Party can support this. I would agree that the UK Government's £400 energy rebate has not been thought through and will apply to second homes. The motion from the Labour Party has merit. The Scottish Government, as has been indicated by the minister, has already been working on the issue of second homes. I have already changed legislation to ensure that council tax discounts are in the hands of local authorities. The Scottish Government will be working with newly formed causal leadership to examine all options to recover this money through a council tax levied on second homes. I consider that, as the minister said, expanding the measure to long-term empty homes. I am glad that the minister has written to causal tax today, and I am sure that the cause will come back very quickly. I think that the cause will welcome this consensus approach and to ensure that it is sustainable and unfair. In this short speech, I want to look at the current situation and what we need to do to support the most vulnerable in society. This morning, east of the end of the food bank reported a year-in-year increase of 86 per cent on food bank usage and reported its busiest ever month. The cost of living is increasing all over the world due to inflationary pressures, fuel costs, food costs and, of course, the war in Ukraine. However, make no mistake that this has been exacerbated by the symbolic management of the economy by the UK Tony party. Inflation this morning reached a 40-year high at 9.7. The member's growth rate is projected to be the lowest in the G20 apart from Russia. The Institute for fiscal studies estimates that inflation is hitting the poorest households harder as they spend more of their money on gas and electricity. I echo what other speakers have said, that the UK Government needs to do more on costs of energy. On Brexit, the resolution foundation on the report last week said that leaving the UK has reduced how competitive Britain's economy is, which in turn is reducing productivity and workers' real wages. The report, which was in collaboration with the London School of Economics, said that the impact of Brexit has been clear with the depreciation-driven inflation spike increasing the cost of living for households and seeing in business and investment falling. Brexit is a word that you will never hear from the Tory branches. We have heard nothing about it this afternoon. No acknowledgement at all of its impact on Scotland and the tourist in society. The research has estimated that labour productivity is being reduced by 1.3 per cent, which is contributing to weaker wage growth, which real pay is set to fall about £500 per worker each year on average than it would have been otherwise. Citizens Advice Scotland found out that one in three Scots find energy bills unaffordable and shamefully almost half a million people in Scotland have had to choose between heating and heating. In conclusion, the UK Government must go further in providing targeted direct support for those who are most in need. Of course, doubling the discount household energy bills to £400 is welcome, but it still does not do enough to mitigate the impacts of price increases for those who are least able to pay. The Scottish Government is investing almost £770 million this year in cost of living support, including a range of family benefits that are not available to anyone else in the UK, mitigating the bedroom tax and benefit cap and increasing Scottish benefits by 6 per cent. £1.8 billion has been committed to the Scottish child payment over the next four years, combined with the three best start grants and best start foods. Finally, it is the Westminster that holds most of the power that is needed to tackle the cost of living crisis, both in the immediate and the longer term. Labour is over energy, the minimum wage, national insurance and 85 per cent of social security powers. The Scottish Government is supporting the most vulnerable in society in many ways. With the powers of independence, we could do much more. I, too, would like to thank Mark Griffin for bringing this important issue to the foreground. It is incumbent on the Scottish Government to do everything it can to mitigate the harsh impact of the cost of living crisis. That is undeniable. I doubt, as we have heard today, that anyone will disagree. The cost of living crisis is plunging countless households into fuel and food poverty and is making the comings and goings of everyday life extremely challenging for people across Scotland. Projections emanating from the Bank of England do not offer reassurance. On the contrary, its Government now expects an astounding peak in the rate of inflation at 11 per cent, which is a worrying figure, to put it mildly. Scrutiny of energy and finance policy is essential now, but such scrutiny must be focused on where decisions are made on energy and finance policy. It is surprising that the measures taken by a Tory Government, led by ultra-wealthy and law-breaking individuals, is disproportionately benefiting the rich in times of crisis. However, let us contrast UK Government actions with our own Government actions because this Government is not exempt from scrutiny and should not shy away from sound proposals for improvement. The Scottish Government is rightly extending itself to support individuals and families in this unprecedented, challenging time. Under the defective devolution settlement, that must be done within the bounds of severe resource constraints. However, it is necessary to limit the damage inflicted by the UK Government in action and ineptitude. For example, as the minister stated earlier, the Scottish Government is investing £770 million in cost of living measures, including upgrading eight Scottish Social Security payments by six per cent to support people facing rising costs. Thanks to the progressive alliance between the Greens and SNP in government, almost £1.8 billion is being committed to the Scottish child payment over the next four years. The £20 per child per week doubled in April, and that will increase further by £25 by the end of the year, when it will also be extended to under 16s. On the other hand, the UK Government is providing a grand package of £37 billion, including the energy bills support scheme. However, the devils in the detail all households will receive this £400, including second homes and households on high and super-high incomes. The Tory Government has made the completely inadequate suggestion that those who don't need the £400 simply donate it to a charity of their choice. That is not good enough. The wealthy and ultra-wealthy do not enjoy their status because of their voluntary care and generosity. The Scottish Government must consider all its options to mitigate the regressive impact of UK Government policy. That is nothing new. In principle, the motion in Questions Day is a welcome one, but we need to be careful when the Opposition in this chamber demands a top-down intervention effectively prescribing to local authorities how they should govern their finances. It is essential that any proposed measures directly affecting local government are designed in the first instance in consultation with COSLA and with other relevant stakeholders. I support in principle the empowerment of local authorities, enabling them to design and implement targeted fiscal policies such as increased council tax aimed at second homes. More generally, I want to use this opportunity to say that those reactive proposals from Labour do not solve the problem. Depending on the appetite for this, by COSLA and among stakeholders, I agree that local authorities need to be empowered in this way indefinitely. We now move to Ruth Maguire, the final speaker in the open debate, for up to four minutes. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I support the proposals set out by Labour as amended by the Scottish Government. I think that the addition of empty homes and the importance of actual distribution adds value to their motion. Although the cost of living crisis brings bad news for almost everyone, it is those on low to middle incomes for who it potentially poses an unmanagable challenge, and it is predicted to get worse. Inflation is now at a 40-year high with the Office for National Statistics blaming higher food prices, particularly for everyday staples such as bread, cereal and meat, for the increase. While higher earners may be able to absorb that cost, years of austerity and low income growth under Tory Governments left those on the lowest earnings with little to no room to manoeuvre. Resolution foundation reported that, for those with the lowest earnings, disposable incomes increased by £3,456 between year 2020, but for the richest, their income grew by £12,393. The supermarket asked, as commented today, that some shoppers are setting 30-pound limits at check-outs and at petrol pumps. Customers bring less in their baskets and switch to budget ranges. While the doubling of the energy discount to £400 is not unwelcome, it falls short of mitigating price increases for those least able to afford their energy bills. While second home will receive double payments, others are not eligible for any payments. I have been contacted by constituents who live in a park home estate and due to having no direct utility account, they will not receive any help with their energy bills. That is a concern that has not been addressed, and yet the UK Chancellor has chosen to spend only half £30 billion that he has at his disposal. Over the past two years, the Scottish budget has fallen by 5.2 per cent, with another 1 per cent sustained until 2026. Despite that, the Scottish Government has made an investment of £770 million in cost of living support. We saw the Scottish child payment doubled in April, which will again rise by the end of the year. Together with the three best start grants and best start food, we will provide Scottish families with more than £10,000 by the time their first child turns six. Child poverty action group has reported that the combined value of Scottish Government policies, along with lower childcare costs, reduces the net cost of bringing up a child by up to 31 per cent for low-income families, providing some much-needed relief. What is more to help to address the current cost of living pressures and to recognise the needs of families preschool age? Icing P Run North Ayrshire Council has agreed to increase the scheduled summer child bridging payment of £130 to £230. That is an additional one-off payment of £100 for families within my constituency and throughout North Ayrshire, who have already received low-income free school meals and the child bridging payment. There is no respite from the relentless rise in prices, some facing the terrifying reality of not being able to afford the basics and increasing numbers facing stark choices. It is Westminster who hold the most powers needed to tackle the cost of living crisis. It is time that it flexed their fiscal powers and realised that lower-income households do not have the flexibility available to them that higher-income households use to manage price increases. We now move to the closing speeches. I call first Jeremy Balfour for up to five minutes. We are experiencing some of the most extraordinary global events in my lifetime, the war in Ukraine, broken supply chains and rising energy prices, all while the world is struggling to get off its needs post-pandemic. Across the world, people are looking at their balance worrying that it is worth less than it was the day before. It is incumbent upon Governments to support those who serve any means that is available to them. That includes direct support to those who are in need, but most also to ensure that they get a handle on inflation so as to slow the depreciation of people's hard-earned savings. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland is fortunate to have a Government in Westminster that is committed to providing such support. Throughout the pandemic, the UK Government provided an unprecedented level of support to the people of Scotland, spending more than £400 billion in total. The furlough scheme, underwritten by the broad shoulders of the Exchequer, allowed millions of families to remain safe at home without having to worry about the risk of health for pay tech. The fast and efficient roll-out of the United Vaccines team allowed our economy to remain resilient. We managed to get shots and arms faster than any other European country, leading to our economy bouncing back to above pre-pandemic levels. The UK Government not only has a track record for backing up this commitment to supporting the people of Scotland, but, as both my colleagues on this bench have pointed out, it continues to back up as providers aid to those who are in need in this difficult time. There are a number of measures that have been implemented at this time. The £400 energy grant promises to make a real difference to those who struggle with global rise in energy prices. The cut in fuel duty by five pence per litre lowers the proportion of commuter ways that have to be spent on travel, again putting money directly in the pockets of hard-working Scottish people. It represents an amazing £5 billion in savings for commuters. The universal credit taper has been adjusted to make sure that people who are receiving support can take home more of their hard-earned pay without the fear of losing their benefits. A £150 cost-of-living payment for disabled people will help to cover the extra costs for those who are disabled and to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland do not suffer excessively because of an accident of birth or later in life. Pensioners who are in the seat of a winter fuel payment will receive an extra £300 to help with the cost of utilities. I hope that you can see a theme here. The UK Government has time after time in supporting the people of Scotland, especially those who are the most in need. Finally, on that theme, I want to put on record my full support for the amendment in the name of my colleague, Miles Briggs. However, in summing up for the Labour Party, we can answer two questions that we have not been able to take in intervention. First, how much will it cost to recoup the £10 million in administration costs? Secondly, how quickly and with what scheme will it do to be able to get that money back? We have heard from the minister that he knows that it is not possible to get the money back, and if that is not the case, perhaps in their summing up. We on these branches fundamentally believe that people know better what to do with their money than the Government does. Raising the single-person discount on counter-attacks to 35 per cent would provide a huge boost to those who live alone, and we will, again, keep hard-earned wages in the pockets of those who need them. That is a measure that we in this Parliament can and should implement now with the powers that we have, and if we were serious—I am sorry, my time is almost up—and if we were serious, if SNP and Labour were serious in regard to their commitment, they would be supporting our amendment this evening, and they would be doing something before the end of this Parliament goes into recess. The UK Government is taking its commitment seriously. Sadly, others are not, and I hope that we support the Conservative amendment, because it will do something practically that will affect people today, rather than just giving words of warmth, which will do nothing to help people's actual circumstances. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Balfour, and I call on the minister, Ben Macpherson, for up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and, like many others, I really welcome this debate. To be honest, with the exception of the last contribution, I think that this afternoon has shown this Scottish Parliament at its best, MSPs working together to help those we serve as much as we can at a time of real need. I particularly welcome that those of us on the left and in the centre of the political spectrum are constructively collaborating to make a meaningful difference and to build a more just society. This is something to be welcomed going forward as well. That is why we welcome and support the proposal from Labour, but we will be doing more by considering how to effectively ensure that long-term empty homes, which are a blight in many communities, also do not benefit from the £400 energy rebate. We will also do so in conjunction with local authorities through COSLA. There will be a range of detailed considerations to work through, and we want to do that in a constructive way with local government to find the most effective method of ensuring that the £400 energy rebate for second homes and empty homes can be used to tackle the cost of living crisis in local communities. We will work with COSLA to examine all options to recover this money through a council tax levied on second and empty homes. We will also work with them to ensure that this is done in a fair, inectible way. Considering the demographics in Scotland, it is possible that any action to provide powers to councils to address this through council tax will require legislation. Again, we look forward to working with Labour Party and others and having their full support for any necessary legislation that is required. In terms of second homes, we are aware of the impact that those have and short-term lets have in many communities. It is often raised in an issue that comes up to local residents finding homes to live in, a point that Willie Rennie made well. That is why we took action on short-term lets, both in terms of planning and in terms of creating the licensing scheme. Our long-term housing strategy, Housing to 2040, outlines our intention to give local authorities the power to manage the number of second homes and where they see that as a problem in their locality. Since 2013, councils have been able to vary the discount against council tax for second homes. In 2017, we changed legislation to ensure that council tax discounts for second homes are either no longer available or in the hands of local authorities. We are also taking action through land and buildings transaction tax and our additional dwelling supplement. We will be reviewing that as we are committed to in the budget. Members have rightly asked that the Government must respond. As the Scottish Government, we absolutely are. We have put in place a considerable package of support that the Minister for Public Finance set out at the start of the debate, with a package of almost £3 billion to a range of supports that will contribute to mitigating the impact of the increased costs of living on households. Of course, we will continue to look to do more where we can with the limited powers that we have and the constrained budget that we have. On the suggestion that the Conservative Party put forward, it is important to state that increasing the single-person discount to 35 per cent would need to have a budgetary cut elsewhere because it would cost more than £100 million and not be means tested. As is too often the case, unfortunately, the Conservative Party has brought an idea of spending more but not considered where that resource would come from in other parts of the budget. We need to see some more seriousness from the Conservative Party if it is interested in making a meaningful difference in debates like the Labour Party has today. No, I certainly will not. The minister is just winding up. As others have said, we really need to remember that the Westminster Government holds most of the powers needed to tackle the cost of living crisis. We have welcomed the initiative that it has taken, but it still needs to do more, both in the immediate and the longer term, using its fiscal headroom and its powers, including ideas such as Alex Rowley's £20 universal credit uplift and action on investments such as Paul Sweeney mentioned, which of course are reserved. Do you need to conclude now, Minister? It's five minutes. It's four minutes. You said five. I said four. Oh, well, I do apologise, Presiding Officer. I will conclude with apologising again and to state that we hope members will support our amendment and then vote for the amended motions. Thank you, Minister. I now call on Rory Grant to wind up the debate for up to five minutes, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cost of living crisis is causing fear and alarm to many people, those that were not managing previously and those that were just managing. Therefore, any assistance is very welcome. However, it's galling, therefore, that this help, designed to help the worst of, is going to people who are affluent enough to afford a second home, and in some cases, multiple second homes, meaning that they receive double what those in need are receiving—nearly £10 million going to those who don't need any help at all. Imagine what that money could do in the right hands, helping those who so desperately need it. We agree that the UK Government must go further—points made by Alex Rowley, and Willie Rennie, and indeed many others—but we must also use every intervention available to us here to help people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. We welcome the change of heart and commitment from the Scottish Government to examine options with COSLA and also to go further and look at empty homes as well. However, I will turn to Mr Balfour's questions in a moment. We would ask that the Government move very quickly, because they need to let people know by this autumn what they will be facing for the winter ahead. I know that local authorities will be desperate for further income to help the most vulnerable in their communities and their best place to do that. I turn to the Conservative amendment and Jeremy Balfour's questions. There are points in the Conservative amendment that we would like to examine further and indeed debate further. However, as Willie Rennie pointed out, they delete the crux of our motion. That would claw back some of the funding and divert it to where it is most needed, so we cannot possibly support that amendment. I turn to Jeremy Balfour's direct questions. Councils know the people who are living in second homes, so they can do that quickly and easily. They already have the power to do it. It would not cost any more than the interventions that Conservatives themselves are proposing. Most importantly, local authorities know where to divert the money so that it goes to those who are most in need. We have to act now, because, as Mark Griffin talked about, the stark choice is faced between heating or eating, or, as he said, starving and freezing that is facing people this coming winter. Food banks themselves are struggling to get supplies, as people who normally donate are struggling to feed themselves. We need to look again at how we ensure that people have enough food to feed themselves and their families. Heating is also increasing, but that is more so for those who are off-gas grid. It is no surprise that those who are off-gas grid are most likely to be in fuel poverty. We must unite and ask the UK Government to ensure that assistance goes to those who need to fill a gas or oil tank. I do not have time to take an intervention, because those who are off-gas grid face higher costs all around. Indeed, I saw on Facebook today someone saying that a pack of lure-pack butter, hardly a luxury, costs £7.25 for a pack of butter. Private rent hosts and people who rent privately also face higher costs. They can also live in homes that are not insulated properly and, indeed, would need the landlord's permission to do anything about that. We are seeing rental costs increasing rapidly. We need to look at ways of creating a rent freeze. Alex Rowley talked about older people and disabled people who are at home longer and, therefore, face higher fuel costs. That goes for people who may require equipment at home such as dialysis machines. Their bills are increasing. Paul Sweeney called for restraint on profits that energy companies are making from this horrendous situation. Rather than demonising workers who are trying to protect their standard of living to feed their families, we must look at the profits being made from the situation. In conclusion, we urge the Scottish Government to act quickly. It is simply wrong that those who are affluent enough to own a second home get a greater share of the help available than those who really need it. That money must be diverted to where it can make the greatest difference, diverted to those who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. That concludes the debate on the cost of living support. It is time to move on to the next item of business. There will be a brief pause to allow front benches to change.