 I invite those who are leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and quietly as possible, as we move on to the final item of business today, which is a member's business debate on motion Però 1927 in the name of Gordon MacDonald on gas and electricity standing charges. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press the requested speak buttons now or as soon as possible, I invite Gordon MacDonald to open the debate around seven minutes, Mr MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank those members who supported my motion so that this debate could take place. It's an important subject that impacts on virtually every family in Scotland. After mortgager rent payments and council tax, energy costs are among the highest items of household expenditure faced by my constituents in Edinburgh, Pentlands, it's therefore disappointing to note that no Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat MSP supported this motion. In principle, electricity standing charges are there to cover the cost of the energy infrastructure divided between consumers on an equal basis. But that policy doesn't work in practice for those paying the bills, as the standing charge also covers network investment, maintenance, supplier failure support and net zero targets. Off-gem, in the recent consultation document dated October last year, highlighted that the electricity standing charge for Edinburgh residents is £221 per annum, which is higher than the UK national average and 60 per cent higher than the London standing charge of £138. The result is that £2.5 million households in Scotland are paying an additional £212 million more than if they were on a comparable standing charge with London. Compare that with a gas standing charge, which surprisingly is a fixed rate across the whole of the UK of £101 per annum. In total, my constituents are having to pay £335 every year before they turn on a light, heat their home or cook a meal. The higher electricity standing charge might have been acceptable if Scottish consumers who live in a country that exports electricity to the rest of the UK were compensated by a substantially lower unit charge, but they are not as the difference between London and Edinburgh unit rate as an average one and a half pence. Standing charges also unfairly penalise households on low incomes. As high standing charge means that it is proportionally more difficult for low users to make substantial savings by reducing their usage, those on prepayment metres accrue the daily standing charge even if they do not have any credit on their meter. When they top up, they must add all the standing charges that are outstanding first before they can use any electricity. At a recent meeting that I had with Seneca, it highlighted that it would support the removal of the fixed standing charge and would support national pricing. Back in April 2000, Seneca had indeed removed standing charges from its gas and electricity tariffs. Then in 2013, North GEM conducted its retail market review, stating that it proposed to have tariffs with a simple two-part structure that is a standing charge and a unit rate. The UK Government accepted the recommendations and standing charges were reintroduced. Advice Direct Scotland and Seneca have highlighted in their briefings the need for a progressive social tariff so that those who most need additional support due to health issues etc. could receive it and this proposal was supported by three quarters of the public. Another option that could be considered to replace standing charges would be block pricing, where initial usage of energy would be at a lower price per unit. The rate would then step up incrementally the more units you used. This would encourage homeowners to invest in insulation, save money in the long term and help achieve our environmental targets. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity, having exported in 2022 20.3 million megawatt-hours and imported only 1.5 million megawatt-hours over the same period. Normal rules of supply and demand should not mean that the cost of electricity would be lower as there is an oversupply in Scotland. No, although we helped to keep the lights on south of the border to an estimated wholesale value of £4 billion, the result is that we do not get that benefit. In Northern Ireland, who are not part of the UK energy market, they have their own utility regulator. By not being part of the internal market, they have an average unit price of electricity, which is among the cheapest in Europe and is also significantly below Britain and Ireland's median costs. If only we could have our own utility regulator as Northern Ireland, we could all benefit from Scotland's energy surplus and have a lower electricity unit cost. There are yet even more things in the tale for Scottish consumers in that the UK Government, at the 2022 autumn statement, introduced the 45 per cent electricity generator level. This levy is a tax on the ordinary profits of electricity generators resulting from high wholesale prices caused by unique geopolitical events and remains in force until 31 March 2028. That levy became applicable from 1 January 23 and is expected to raise an extra £14 billion over the five years to March 2028 for the UK Exchequer. This is on top of the energy profits levy on oil and gas companies, which were introduced in May 22, to respond again to exceptional profits. That brings the combined headline rate for tax in the sector to 75 per cent, which the OBR forecasts that this levy alone could raise more than £40 billion over the next five years. If those forecasts are right, then the UK Treasury will benefit to the tune of £54 billion by March 2028. Douglas Longstreet, I thank the member for taking the intervention. On the energy profits levy, I would like to see that levy increased, so companies will be paying more into the Treasury. I am quite happy that the levy has been introduced because of the exceptional profits, but my point that I am coming to is that we do not benefit from it. Much of the oil and gas and electricity that generates this additional taxation will have emanated in Scotland. On a population alone, we would be expecting an additional funding of £4.5 billion to provide additional targeted support to consumers and to help maintain services in Scotland. Off-gem is currently consulting on energy standing charges at the same time as industry experts are indicating that standing charges may rise by 15 per cent from 1 April 2024. I am hoping that off-gem will identify a way forward that has a more equitable price structure and removes the high standing charges from Scottish consumers. However, given that off-gem reintroduced standing charges in 2013, which penalises Scottish consumers, then the signs do not look promising. Only independence will give us the power to shape an electricity system that is fit for the 21st century and provides targeted support for those who need it. We now move to the open debate. I will call first Ivan McKee to be followed by Maurice Golden around four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to Gordon for bringing this motion today. It is hugely important on a number of levels. Clearly, the importance of energy costs as a component of household bills at this time of the cost of living crisis is hugely significant, and anything that can be done to help to address and manage that, particularly for those with more challenged budgets, is hugely welcome. It is obviously a significant driver of climate change and something that needs to be addressed in terms of Scotland's net zero ambitions. It should not, of course, be forgotten that the energy prices are a significant input factor to economic activity. Higher energy prices, of course, constrain economic activity right across the whole economy. It was great to hear highlighted also, although it is a very unfortunate situation, the higher chargers that exist in Scotland for energy despite the fact that we are such a significant and increasing exporter of energy south of the border and beyond. It is important to recognise the aggressive nature of standing chargers and the fact that those who can least afford to pay end up paying proportionally more because so much of the cost is loaded on to standing chargers before they even turn the lights on. Something that I have long thought should be addressed in order to help with the cost of living and to make the energy market more fair and equitable. I am delighted that it is on the agenda to the extent that it is. I hope that we will start to see some progress as the off-gem consultation moves forward. Of course, it also has that positive impact on net zero because it does incentivise people if the per-unit usage cost is higher to use less energy, who at the moment, because they can afford it, are maybe not focused so much on that. It will, if implemented correctly, no doubt have an impact on reducing energy usage in total, encouraging people to invest in energy saving measures. It is important to recognise the impact on small enterprises. I know that the FSB is something that they have been concerned about and have issued some information and analysis on. I saw that Kevin Stewart had already put a motion forward to highlight the impact on small businesses and, again, the same economic logic applies. Smaller businesses with lower energy usage have been hit with high up-front standing charges as a drag on their economic activity, which needs to be addressed and has disproportionately impacted them more than larger businesses who are better able to afford it. The issue around prepayment metres has also been mentioned hugely on fair situation, where customers find themselves on prepayment metres having to pay more for the standing charges and their usage. It is good that that is being levelled to some extent, but it is important that that continues and that people find themselves on prepayment metres should be paying no more for either the standing charge or their per-unit usage. In conclusion, it is good to see that the issue has been brought forward. It is good to see that off-gem is, hopefully, taking it seriously. I think that some of the reasons for not addressing it were struggling to understand. If the argument is that individuals who use significant energy and are economically challenged would find this more difficult, I think that the fact that the standing charge would be removed completely would obviously put them in a much more advantageous position if individuals and families who are in special circumstances find themselves in that position. I am sure that exceptional support could be arranged through some mechanism to deal with that. I think that, as a mechanism to move forward, it is a hugely welcome and very progressive approach to how we charge for energy. I would really like to see off-gem conclude their consultation and move forward with the changes as quickly as possible. It is encouraging to see that electricity companies are not opposing principle to make that change, and some have taken steps in that direction. I thank the Lord Macdonald for bringing forward this motion. I look forward to seeing progress in the market. Maurice Golden will be followed by Evelyn Tweed around four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This motion is classic nationalism, designed to put one group of people against another. It is unhelpful, unwarranted and founded in ignorance. It seems to me that, at the heart of the SNP policy—I would like to make some progress first, but I will happily secede later—it seems to me that at the heart of the SNP policy is to remove cost reflectivity from off-gem's licence conditions, which, let me be clear, would increase costs. That is at least consistent with the outcome, if not the rhetoric of SNP policy, which is, in fact, to increase consumer bills. Let me give two examples of that before I move on to standing charges. I am happy to give way if the minister... I am very grateful. Maurice Golden accuses my colleague of pure nationalism and says some other unpleasant things about him. He feels to realise that this is standing up for people who are disproportionately affected by high standing charges. Scotland is the third highest because Merseyside and North Wales are also affected and are actually higher than Scotland. That is a problem for other parts of the UK as well. I did not refer to the member at all. I referred to the motion. I think that needs to be made clear. I will give you two examples of where the SNP policy is to increase charges. First of all, on transmission network use of system to NUOS, the SNP has consistently argued that Scottish consumers should pay more in order to subsidise energy generators in Scotland, primarily multinational companies. Moreover, off-gem's latest targeted charging review of transmission demand residual means that every Scottish consumer will pay more. A floor approach to the forward-looking charge would result in an overall decrease in to NUOS charges for typical domestic customers, apart from those in Scotland. For North Scotland in particular, off-gem notes that charges will increase compared with current charges given the assistance for areas with high electricity distribution costs policy. Therefore, Scottish consumers pay more, and that is SNP policy. We see more of that in today's motion with the call to scrap standing charges. Those standing charges help to cover the cost of the network and ensure cost reflectivity, so the revenue lost from scrapping them will need to be made up from somewhere else. However, the SNP's motion does not explain that part, probably because the costs would almost certainly be transferred to unit charges. That is the charge for actually using electricity. In other words, those with high usage would pay more, such as households in remote areas such as the highlands, poorly insulated households and those reliant on medical equipment. Although the vulnerable are paying more, the SNP's policy would actually benefit affluent households. Citizens Advice points out, happy to. In my contribution, I highlighted that both Advice, Direct Scotland and Centrica are calling for a social tariff so that individuals who have to use a lot of electricity because of health reasons would be supported. That was part of my contribution. The member accepted that we have tried to address the issue of people who are using a lot of electricity because they may have health conditions. My position is clear. There is work to be done in developing specific measures for those who are most deprived or on pre-payment metres. I also think that there is a case to be made for a derogation in our remote areas as well. That is something that Ofgem has previously looked at. Citizens Advice points out that households able to afford solar and battery storage can reduce their energy use and their overall unit cost. With no standing charges as the SNP demand, those households could avoid paying their fair share towards network upkeep. The bottom line is that this is not a black-and-white issue that the SNP wants to portray as. No doubt they thought scrapping standing charges would be an easy way to pick a fight with the UK Government, but it is a simplistic policy that risks harming the very people in society who need it the most. If the SNP cares about lowering Scottish household bills, it should abandon its ill-considered policy and bring forward cogent, cohesive and researched motions. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It is a shocking statistic, but a third of households in Scotland are living in fuel poverty. It is the grim reality that many people are going without heating in order to eat and save money. Meanwhile, British Gas has seen a profit explosion raking in £751 million last year, which equates to £85,000 an hour. This profit is being made at the expense of our citizens. Customers who use less energy see a greater proportionate impact of standing charges on their bills. They are having a real detrimental effect on those rationing their energy use. The fourth housing association in my constituency contacted me to highlight how that is affecting their tenants. Like many, those households did not use gas for most of the year. However, when sub-zero temperatures led them to turn on their heating, they found that they were already in debt. Standing charges that they had not known about had built up through the milder months. Because of the accumulation of debt, the landlord was unable to carry out important gas safety inspections, which then led metres to having to be capped. To show what that means in reality, gas prepayment meter standing charges are around £40 a day. If the gas is not used for nine months a year, that adds up to around £108. Then a payment of £45 is required to uncap a metre so that the household then needs to find over £150 just to turn on their heating. In this situation is ludicrous. The fourth housing association were fortunate enough to find funding through the fuel and security fund to help to uncap and to top-up metres. The Scottish Government's home heating support fund was also used to help to pay off debts. However, that solution is not sustainable. Although the debt is now cleared, those tenants were left with no heating in the coldest period of the year, which is completely unacceptable. Even more worrying, the fourth housing association have told me that this is exactly the same situation that we are going to find ourselves in next year for the winter period. We have already heard about the disproportionate some Scots are paying in standing charges. We also have a disproportionate number of households on prepayment meters compared to the rest of the UK. Described as the poverty premium, prepayment meters are one of the ways that those with the least end up paying most for essential goods and services. That is wrong on so many levels, but especially during a cost-of-living crisis when so many are struggling financially. Historically, energy costs more per unit than paying by direct debit. The energy price guarantee is currently subsidising the costs of energy for those on prepayment meters, however. That support expires at the end of March so that bigger and longer-term changes are needed. However, careful thought must go into this. Although those rationing their energy use might benefit from a change to volumetric standing charges, Ofgem has said that vulnerable people with high energy use would see an enormous detrimental impact. That could include those who require medical equipment, all those living in poorly insulated houses. A point that was made earlier, Ofgem recently carried out a consultation on standing charges, and I eagerly await their results. Hopefully, Ofgem is taking this issue seriously. In the meantime, I ask the Government if there are any steps that they can take in the meantime to support those households. We need an equitable solution that will avoid further harm to vulnerable people, especially during a cost-of-living crisis. Thank you. Kevin Stewart will be followed by Carl Mawkin in around four minutes. I thank Mr MacDonald for bringing this debate to the chamber. Standing charges are a regressive tax on ordinary folk. Your ability to pay does not matter. You can be as rich as Rishi Sunak, have as many jobs as Douglas Ross, or have no money and no job, everyone pays the same. That sounds awfully like Thatcher's poll tax, and indeed they are birds of a feather. The standing charge is, in my opinion, the modern community charge. Just like the poll tax, the standing charge needs to be replaced, and it needs to be replaced by a system that charges based on what you use. Of course, with that, there should be a social tariff and discounts for those in need. Of course, we should take into account other aspects, including rurality, when establishing that social tariff. That is the logical thing to do. Not only would a progressive per unit charging system be fairer, it would encourage folk to use less power. Right now, it does not matter how much you save energy, the standing charge does not change. You can be at your lowest ebb, having switched off both your gas and your electricity, be sitting in the cold and the dark, and still the charge ticks away day by day. That is not just a maybe. It is the lived experience of thousands trapped in the cold and the dark unable to escape the charge no matter how little energy they use. It is not just domestic customers, who are hit by the standing charge. Small businesses also get the same raw deal. Recently, the Federation of Small Business raised that exact problem with some small businesses in Scotland seeing their standing charges go up 12-fold in a year. How are we supposed to create a modern, vibrant, innovation-based economy when small businesses are hammered at every turn? I'll take Mr Lumsden's intervention. Thank you, Kevin Stewart, for taking the intervention. Is the SNP's intention still to create a state-owned utility company and be able to address the charges that he is describing? With independence, I hope that we would create our own energy company and ensure that the profits from that energy company go back in to investing in that energy company and investing in public services. I was talking about small businesses being hammered at every turn. I've taken your intervention. Don't just take my word for it. Here's the UK Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero's latest figures. All in, before VAT, the smallest businesses pay 24 pence a unit for electricity similar to domestic customers, but a large company pays only 20 pence. It's the same for gas. The smallest businesses pay 7.4 pence a unit, bigger companies 5 pence a unit. Two weeks ago, I wrote to the UK Government and here's what they said. The standing charge is a commercial matter for suppliers, although off-gem the energy regulator regulates it. The standard, always in this case, is passing the buck, a typical passing the buck response. In my opinion, off-gem itself is not fit for purpose either. Last month, they put up the domestic energy cap for a unit of gas by 7.7 per cent and kept the standing charge steady. This is despite the wholesale cost of natural gas falling by 740 pence per therm over the last 18 months. It's not as if the power companies are up against it and need a bail-out. British Gas just announced a bumper, £799 million profit entirely from buying natural gas cheap but charging customers through the nose for the exact same gas. It's time for the UK Government to step up to the plate and intervene here. It's time for off-gem to do its job to protect consumers and not shareholders. Beyond all that, it's time for Scotland that has the energy but not the power to become an independent nation to create a fairer country. Thank you. To be followed by Emma Harper around four minutes. Thank you from myself to Gordon MacDonald for bringing this debate to the chamber. When talking about gas and electricity energy power, we cannot do this without acknowledging the enormous power imbalance between the provider and the consumer. Other members, particularly Ivan McKee, have mentioned this. It is well documented and I think universally acknowledged that there is that power imbalance. I think that we can all agree that the way in which we purchase energy is not easy to understand, is weighted against some of our most vulnerable citizens and does not have a fair deal for users at its heart. The tariffs across the UK are unacceptable and the motion speaks about the rates in Scotland but the member will know now because the minister spoke about it that across the UK the tariffs are enormously high and enormously variable. When I add a quick look earlier you're absolutely right that North Wales in Liverpool and we see it as the highest in the UK. That is an inequality issue. It is right across the UK and we need to find solutions for fellow citizens in Scotland and across the UK wherever we can. Citizens Advice Scotland is deeply concerned about the current affordability challenges in the energy market and consumers who struggled with rising costs and energy debt accrued last year feel will continue to struggle even as we go into the fairer months in terms of energy. Citizens Advice data other members have mentioned it from July to September 2023 the Citizens Advice Network in Scotland provided 18,546 pieces of advice related to regulated fuels which goes back to the point about how complicated it is for people who are often in quite a vulnerable situation. Demand for energy debt advice had increased by 34 per cent and the average energy debt for people who sought complex debt advice for the Citizens Advice Network in Scotland was over £2,000. In a short to be, obviously it's difficult to cover it but secondly when we talk about energy we do need to talk about the energy potential in Scotland both in terms of climate change but also who should benefit from the development of our energy potential and the member spoke about the fact that Scotland is potentially a very high provider of energy. It's a really important element for me and for Scottish Labour and the trade union movement is what is a just transition in terms of energy a transition that helps our planet of course but it has ordinary people it is core ordinary families and ordinary workers how do we make that transition to make it fair the on-going cost of living crisis has shown how deeply the climate emergency and poverty are linked rising fuel costs in particular have spiralled as we have heard from right across the chamber but of course there's other things like inefficient houses expensive transport all of these things exacerbate poverty whilst causing carbon to go out into our atmosphere the brunt of this crisis has of course been felt disproportionately by those living in the lowest incomes and I think most members are saying that so energy fuel poverty is a major concern and we must address it whenever we can now we know that energy tariffs are a reserved matter but I agree that the Scottish Parliament should discuss such matters to ensure we have an understanding of the consequences to our constituents but also allow us to look at what we can do within our devolved responsibilities that will help those most affected we need a clear plan that helps us to sprint towards clean power which will reduce energy bills for all but of course for our most vulnerable I'm very aware of time so one of the other things I was going to talk about is my wish to see us move to community-owned resources of energy and hopefully we might get another chance in the chamber to discuss this because it is such an important matter thank you to all the members for contributing thank you I now call the final speaker in the open debate Emma Harper in four minutes please Ms Harper I welcome this debate and I congratulate my colleague Gordon MacDonald on securing it Gordon MacDonald has well rehearsed the arguments which show the inequity of electricity standing charges across Scotland and many parts of the UK and Gordon MacDonald's motion also shows in particular how my South Scotland constituents of Frees and Galloway and the Scottish Borders are paying higher electricity standing charges than any other or many other parts of the UK and at the time of checking just as Gordon MacDonald was on his feet at 5.20 this evening on the off-gem site it shows that in the north of Scotland people pay 59.36 pence as a standing charge and my constituents in the southern part of Scotland is 62.06 that's like 23.56 pence compared to London the inequity is quite striking and that's before folk even use electricity and for an energy rich nation as Scotland is it's plainly obvious inequality simply serves to demonstrate why the UK energy system is outdated and indeed how Scotland could do much better of course with the powers of independence which would give us the control that we would need Scotland has recorded the best figures so far for electricity generated by renewable sources more than enough to power the entire country and for years Frees and Galloway has generated electricity through renewables well beyond the need of its own use and the region generated 2,127.4 gigawatts alone in 2022 which is 8% of the total generated renewable energy produced in Scotland yet my constituents in Frees and Galloway many of whom have renewable energy sites mainly wind farms in their communities see absolutely no benefit of these projects in terms of any reduced cost of their energy bills just give me one wee second this is why many people tell me that's why they object to wind farms they object to more turbines because they do not see the benefits in their own energy bills and I will take an intervention Maurice Golden I thank Emma Harper for giving way does the member recognise that consumers in Scotland including her constituents in terms of transmission charges which the member was referring to actually pay less as a result of the generation of electricity because it's based on location so your consumers and constituents do pay less Emma Harper I thank the member for intervening my issue is and I'm coming to this in part of my debate is that we have issues around transmission and generation transmission and then distribution and that's only part of what the inequity is demonstrated for us what we need to be looking at is a more fairer approach for people's bills which has been mentioned by other members already like the social tariff for people who have medical needs like their sleep apnea devices electric beds and other electronic equipment so it's something that I think we need to be lobbying off GEM4 in part of their energy process review we need to be recommending that the whole system is a more fair and equitable system for the people across the whole of these islands you know the cost to homes and businesses of the ever rising prices has meant start choices are being made and householders are choosing between eating and heating and that's a reality for many and for businesses some simply can't afford to keep on going and I'll come I'm conscious of time the short debates don't allow us to delve into what the issues are and our economy committee committee C is doing a report right now about energy and how the market works across these islands or in effect how the market doesn't work and it is absolutely highlighting what we've experienced in Scotland compared to other places like Ireland and Northern Ireland which is what Gordon MacDonald described in his input as well and Citizens Advice Scotland have also made statements about their concerns regarding the removal or reduction in standing charges and the alteration so again I support the calls for changes in the way the energy is is charged for consumers we need to make it more fair for the people across Scotland and the rest of the UK I invite Gillian Martin to respond to the debate minister around seven minutes I want to thank Gordon MacDonald not just for his excellent speech today but for putting this very important motion to the Parliament today it's been I think pretty much every contribution has been something that I wholeheartedly agree with I just want to single out in particular some particular points that people have made I mean first of all I want to thank Carol Mocken for a really considered speech which talked about the inequality because it is inequality and I'm really glad that she picked up on my point about other parts of the UK also suffering from that inequality one of the things that gets if there's one thing that I think I've heard the most since I became energy minister going across the whole of Scotland is that people out there in Civic Scotland cannot understand why we are a large energy producer where they're playing host to a lot of energy infrastructure like Emma Harper mentioned as well in fuel poverty and they just cannot square that cycle and it doesn't matter that it's a very complex landscape it's the unfairness of it that gets to people and I think she made some excellent points in her speech as well Ivan McKee also mentioned higher energy prices constraining economic activity very powerful point I don't know obviously high energy users smaller users as well having the same standing charges just isn't fair and these are the small businesses the fabric of our high streets the economic engines of our towns our villages and our cities and I think that was a very good point it's well made Kevin Stewart mentioned about switching off gas and electricity I want to say one thing that I hope that anybody that is struggling with their bills and that there are agencies in Scotland that can help people in that situation Gordon MacDonald mentions advice to direct Scotland we give advice direct Scotland funding to give advice and manage debt as well as being a conduit to the utilities company no one should ever be in a situation where they have to switch off the gas and electricity there is always help Kevin Stewart I'm very pleased that the minister has given the message that nobody should have to switch off their gas and electricity but the reality is that we all come across folks within our own constituency who have been forced or they feel that they have been forced to do so I think that one of the key messages that again the likes of Ofgem who'd helped with is to get across that in some parts of the country particularly here in Scotland there is help out there and they don't do that to the degree that they should Kevin Stewart makes an excellent point I think that it's incumbent on all of us to be advertising on our social media outreach to our constituents but also yes maybe the regulator has a part to play in that as well the last three winters have been far from easy for the vast majority of households and the businesses in Scotland I don't need to rehearse the price spikes and whatever but we do estimate in the Scottish Government under the current price cap 20,000 of Scottish households are in fuel poverty and that is a staggering 34% of all households we are expecting Ofgem's announcement on the April energy price cap later this week and experts predict a slight decrease in current levels although still much higher than the pre-crisis situation the on-going energy crisis has driven home the urgent need for market reforms it is really painfully obvious that our energy system is not designed to absorb global price shocks and it's not adequately protecting consumers and the points that have been made by members it's not just people living at home it's people who are actually employers and the lifeblood of our communities last year in reaction to the energy crisis I chaired three energy consumers working groups focusing on the challenges that vulnerable rural and business consumers are facing three separate groups the work of those groups informed my letter to the UK Government with a package of asks in relation to consumer protection in that letter I argued for the urgent introduction of a social tariff mechanism for vulnerable and low-income households I am very grateful to all the members who have joined me in that call today support for off-grid consumers and rural and remote areas and extra support for small businesses and also the high-using businesses as well it is very disappointing despite many meetings very cordial meetings with UK Government counterparts but they've chosen so far not to act and deliver any support both in the autumn statement and beyond that and there is no sign of a forthcoming plan of action now I just want to talk about standing charges no I'm not going to give way to Douglas Lums and he didn't contribute to the debate the crisis drew attention to the UK energy market and one thing's obvious the way the current system is designed and regulated creates significant disparities across the country so many members have mentioned that the statistics mentioned in the motion that Gordon MacDonald brought to parliament they are absolutely correct people in south Scotland do pay £335 more a year even for putting the kettle on many households especially those that use prepayment meters this is just simply unaffordable and it's inequitous as well so I mentioned that I have regular engagement with my UK Government counterparts and I have repeatedly highlighted the issues of these extremely high standing charges the impact on Scottish consumers now geography can't be helped and it does feel that people in Scotland are being penalised for living so far away in London even though a great deal of energy production takes place here again many members have mentioned that but I did engage with Ofgem very recently and I received assurances it's a very important point, I'd like to make it I engaged with Ofgem very recently and received assurances that the regulator understands these inequities and is exploring the ways to improve affordability and bring about whole system changes now I'll continue to make the case that members have made here today I do agree to a certain extent with Morris Golden that it's complex it's complex system situation where removing standing charges has unintended consequences so it's going to take time but I think that we surely must agree across the chamber that reform is needed because there are people who are not using their heating and still paying standing charges that are so much more in south of Scotland for example than they are in the south of England so we've all suffered the impacts of the energy crisis but some people have been disproportionately hit sticking plaster is not going to fix the problem Scottish Government have repeatedly put funds in place to help people at their most vulnerable and at their most precarious points but these are not sustainable long-term solutions we need route and branch review of what's actually going on in terms of the energy market I'm coming to close now Mr Golden and I would appreciate anyone who's actually been in this debate this is not about political points going this is about making sure that people have the right to have a warm home they have a right to be able to put the lights on they have a right to be able to have hot food on the table for their children this is not something that we should be doing point-scrolling on as I've heard repeatedly from the Tory benches we should all get together stand shoulder to shoulder and ask the UK Government to consider a social tariff which I have to say making the case for there are people out there who are vulnerable who've got medical equipment these people should not be subject to the same standing charges and costs that other people are but I'll leave it there that concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament