 entityffau ar y cyflaenau cyd-felyd. Yn mynd i, roi gyda jarsod rydych chi, mae gennychpechio ei sain gan hyn o'r mwyaf ac mae'r parolimant byddwyr i'r eich llyll i'r gymryd yn ei gweld yn fy mwyaf i'r pryd yn mynd iddynt eich cyflaenau. Rydyn ni'n fath o gwneud bod yn gwneud fod yn iawn. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'n chyfyddiant gyda'r parolimant Toyota i'n mynd i'r pryd yn ei penderfynais aفwyl thatysgol i fedri i'r ddigitio'n fynd i'r Lcmwysig i'r bwysig i'r cyfnod. Rwy'n ei dweud o'r cyfrifentau cael eu rhanfaith o adnoddau, rydyn ni i'n meddwl i ddigitio'r cyfrifentau ei ddigitio'r cyfrifentau i'r parlynydd dynu. Felly, mae'n ddweud o'r cyfrifentau, yn cyfnoddau, I was overseeing our own emergency legislation on support for tenants during the cost crisis, so I recognise and I hope that members across the chamber today will recognise the very constrained circumstances in which we are considering the motion today. Before turning to the specific issues requiring consideration, I want to emphasise just how much the urgent need for the intervention in prices within this legislation is driven by our vulnerability to gas prices. That crisis continues to highlight our reliance, indeed over reliance, on gas as a means of heating so many of our homes and buildings, leaving our energy prices at the mercy of a hugely volatile market. As we do everything we can to support people through the crisis in the immediate term, it remains absolutely essential that we accelerate our transition away from fossil fuels for heat. Meanwhile, no sooner has the UK Government laid this emergency bill, which seeks to be passed at breakneck speed, than it cuts short its flagship policy on energy support. This curtailing of the energy price guarantee by the chancellor last week has plunged households back into uncertainty about their bills and finances. Many of these households are already faced with making stark choices between providing food or warmth for themselves and their families. That is why we have called repeatedly for additional targeted support for vulnerable consumers. The chancellor's reversal of what had been a two-year energy price guarantee makes this all the more urgent. We estimate that there are now 860,000 households in Scotland living in fuel poverty and 600,000 in extreme fuel poverty. While we have committed to doubling our fuel insecurity fund to £20 million as part of the emergency budget review that we are progressing, much more needs to be done with the power and resources that exist at UK level. I will move on now to the issues within the bill that Parliament needs to consider today. We have identified five clauses in the bill that require Parliament's consent. These provisions cover the reduction of domestic energy bills, the reduction of non-domestic energy bills, support for meeting energy costs and regulation of energy markets. The first four of the five clauses, that clauses 13, 14, 15 and 19, relate to support for consumers in meeting energy costs. As set out in the draft memorandum, the powers exercised by clause 13 could be used in a way that relates to devolved competence. The example used in the draft LCM is in the use of the power to provide financial assistance to meet or reduce expenses for heating in cold weather. Based on the urgency for people across Scotland to receive financial assistance to mitigate the impact of this crisis, the Scottish Government recommends that Parliament consents to clause 13 and the related to clause 14. Clause 15 and 19 will enable the delivery of support such as the equivalent to the £400 delivered through the energy bills support scheme to those who were previously not eligible. Examples of consumers who are eligible for this equivalent support are park homeowners and students living in rented accommodation. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Transport wrote to the Secretary of State to seek urgent assurance that everyone in Scotland who is entitled will now receive the £400 rebate. Earlier this year, Parliament raised concerns around second home owners benefiting from the energy bills support scheme discount. Our limited powers mean that we could not prevent second home owners from benefiting twice from the £400 energy rebate in the way that we would have wanted. The Cabinet Secretary did of course formally request an amendment to the energy prices bill to prevent such an outcome, but that has not been accepted. While that remains deeply disappointing, we have been given an explicit understanding that the forthcoming equivalent support will be awarded via an application process and will only apply to primary addresses. Clause 22 gives power to the Secretary of State to give directions to energy licensed holders in response to the energy crisis and is not limited to activities in reserved areas. The Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Transport wrote to the BIS Secretary of State on 19 October to request that the bill be amended to require Scottish ministers consent before any direction is given affecting a devolved area. In coming to a conclusion, I would like to express the hope that the latest forced regeneration at the top of the UK Government might also compel a reappraisal of some of the glaring gaps in its energy policies. A prime example of a step in the right direction would be an immediate commitment to require and fund a major programme of energy efficiency measures and improvements. That would not only make homes more comfortable and affordable to heat, it would improve our environment and security of supply as well by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and indeed reducing the power that is exercised at the whim of countries such as Russia and its current leader. While I would again reflect that the UK energy prices bill is far less than it might be where the powers behind its creation available to this Parliament remains better than nothing, so consenting to this motion will allow the people of Scotland who are currently struggling to pay their energy bills and heat their homes to receive desperately needed financial assistance as quickly as possible. I therefore must recommend that this Parliament consents to the UK energy prices bill as it stands. I move the motion. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on whether Parliament should consent to an LCM on the energy prices bill. In the first place, I join with the Minister in supporting that rule 9b.3.5 be suspended in relation to the LCM on the energy prices bill. As I have made very clear in previous debates, I am rarely comfortable suspending standing orders to move bills or LCMs through without full process and particularly consideration by the relevant committee. I think on that note it bears mentioning that the net zero energy and transport committee within whose remit this LCM falls has, in my view, and I declare an interest as a member, has shown itself to be an effective and non-partisan scrutiny body, which adds significant value to LCM considerations. However, in this case, like the Minister earlier, I note that the energy prices bill is going through his emergency legislation. I note also that it will complete its final amending stage today, which is also the day of the net zero committee, and royal assent is expected tomorrow 26 October. I further understand in relation to the processes that, following consultation, the convener of the net zero energy and transport committee is content with the suspension of standing orders, such that the lead committee report would not be required in this case. In the circumstances therefore, the Scottish Conservatives will be content to support the expedited process. Turning to the substantive LCM, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the energy prices bill by providing the legislative framework to deliver the government's energy price guarantee and energy bill relief scheme. It will provide much needed support to households and businesses right across the UK. No one has been unaffected by the eye-watering rise in wholesale prices of gas and oil in the past couple of years. That has resulted from a range of global factors, including countries recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic and, of course, the reduction in Russian supplies to Europe following the appalling invasion of Ukraine. That is why I agree with Patrick Harvey that energy security is so important in this country and that is yet another reason why we should support our North Sea oil and gas industry. It is our understanding that this bill will cap the cost of electricity and gas per unit for domestic customers for a period of six months until 1 April 2023. The purpose being that the average household, a defined term, would see annual energy bills of £2,500 rather than £3,549 that was otherwise projected. Furthermore, the bill appears to write in an equivalent price guarantee for businesses, charities and public sector organisations for the duration of that six months. It is only six months, but, unlike Mr Harvey, I feel that is the right length of time to get us through the winter and then have a review that will ensure that the mechanism can be stress-tested against what was projected, what was intended and what we have actually seen by that point in practice during the winter months. Then to decide what is the best and most productive mechanism going forward. I think that the energy prices bill is the right way forward, but, as ever, where an action of the UK Government would make changes in Scotland, it is absolutely right that this Parliament consider whether to agree to it. I have listened to the minister propose that this Parliament give its consent to the Scottish provisions of the energy prices bill and, on that, I agree with him. Interestingly, the minister suggested in his peroration that this Parliament does not have the powers to do all that it wants to, but I remind him, of course, of my speech right before recess, which he conveniently appears to have forgotten, in which I pointed out that this Parliament does have all the powers he needs. Indeed, thanks to the largest ever budget settlement in devolution history, it also has the funds to do what it needs. Presiding Officer, the UK Government is doing the right thing to try and help consumers, businesses, charities and the like during this difficult time. It is important that the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, both acknowledges and welcomes that. The energy prices bill and the attendant LCM will provide a lifeline to households and businesses this winter, therefore the bill should not be delayed and should be added to the statute book as soon as practically possible. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in confirming that the Scottish Conservatives intend to support the motion consenting to the UK Parliament legislating on devolved matters in this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Labour has called for support for families and businesses through an energy price freeze since August, setting out detailed costed plans so we support the passage of the bill through the UK Parliament, even if the bill was described as a landmark to your price guarantee but has now been shredded to a six-month freeze. Devolved provisions that require Scottish Parliament consent are likely to be limited in practice and we welcome the efforts of the Scottish Government to seek assurances that the direction given powers will not be used to cut across devolved competencies such as planning. We also recognise the time-limited nature of most of the powers in the bill. Given the urgency of the matter, the dire cost of living crisis that we face, we share the Scottish Government's view that seeking to carve out certain aspects of the support for separate provision from the Scottish Government is not appropriate or practical and therefore we support giving consent to this LCM. Those are urgent desperate times for far too many families having to choose between heating and eating and far too many businesses and organisations are left wondering whether they will soon have to switch off the lights for the final time. Although we are supportive of the help with energy costs the bill enables, we still have concerns over substantive parts of the legislation and Labour and the UK Parliament have been seeking to amend the bill. There is a contrast between the UK Government proposals and those proposed by Labour in August. Labour proposed a real freeze, the UK Government have allowed a rise, albeit one that is capped. There also remains concerns over off-grid households and of course we have a profound disagreement over how the support will be funded. It is no secret that Labour wants to see this package of support funded not by more government borrowing which ultimately ordinary families will have to pay back and a limited windfall tax but primarily through a substantive windfall tax on the excess additional profits of the big oil and gas firms and the closing of loopholes in support provided for fossil fuel companies. The energy oil and gas profits levy act 2022 included a significant loophole for oil and gas companies that invest more in oil and gas exploration and production. According to the Treasury the allowance will mean businesses will receive a 91p tax saving for every £1 invest and nearly doubling the tax relief available to oil and gas companies, tilting the pitch in favour of fossil fuel investment over renewable investment. Labour would like to see this loophole closed, bringing in over £5 billion to the table and we have been seeking to pursue this through amendments in the UK Parliament, albeit recognising the limited scope of the bill itself. There is of course far more the Scottish Government itself can do to support families, businesses and organisations at this time cancelling school meal debt increasing funding for money advice services topping up the welfare fund and that will be the focus of Labour's business in the chamber tomorrow. However, the focus of the bill and the NCM highlights why we need to recognise the lessons of this energy crisis. Those lessons are not the need to drive forward with fracking, which was the plan of last week's Prime Minister, although I am not sure what the view is of this week's Prime Minister. The lessons are the need for a sprint for clean energy, for solar, for wind, for nuclear, for energy efficiency and the need for a publicly owned energy fund that the next Labour Government will deliver where others have failed to do so. There is also a need to deal with electricity and gas prices within a clear timetable so that we do not find ourselves facing the requirement for another bill in the near future. However, in the meantime, this bill is necessary, it is urgent and indeed it is overdue. Therefore, Labour is content to support this LCM today. I start by echoing the bulk of what Colin Smith has just said about the criticisms of the energy prices bill and the package that has put forward both in terms of its extent, its duration and indeed the way in which the funds are to be provided. I think that the extension of the windfall tax on oil and gas companies' profits was the obvious way of extending this rather than saddling the public taxpayers in years to come with that additional debt. Both he and the Minister were also right to point to the fact that what we are also seeing is an approach by the UK Government that appears to provide greater latitude for the development of oil and gas, but it is risk curbing some of the development in terms of renewables. Everybody accepts that in the current circumstances acting with urgency is absolutely what the public would expect. However, at the same time, as always with emergency legislation, we need to be alive to the potential unintended consequences of what is being proposed. It is in relation to one of those that I want to focus on in my brief remarks this afternoon. It is in relation to the cap on profits made by renewable developments, probably under the Renewable Obligations Certificates, but also under the FITS scheme as well. Community Energy Scotland highlighted to the cabinet secretary and indeed to party spokespeople earlier this week that there is the potential for inadvertently and unnecessarily hurting local communities by the way in which the energy prices bill is framed at the moment. Community Energy Scotland, along with our sister organisations in England and Wales, has sought an exemption for community-owned wind farms, solar farms and hydro schemes that reinvent their surplus back into local communities. That seems to be an appeal that is very legitimately made and one that whatever the rationale for capping the profits of these older renewable developments does not seem to serve any useful public purpose whatsoever. I have one example in my constituency that perfectly illustrates this. I met the chair of Huy Energy Ltd last week. Huy Energy Ltd runs a 900 kilowatt wind turbine generator on behalf of its parent organisation, the island of Huy Development Trust, which itself is a registered charity. HEL remits all of its net profits to the development trust and the trust uses this income to support community bus service, community centre and welfare officers, as well as providing grant support for a range of other community projects, support on an occasional basis education, training, school trips and so on. It is also looking at providing support through a separate charity for domestic electricity generation and storage scheme to help to reduce fuel poverty in a part of the country which endures the highest level of fuel poverty in extreme fuel poverty anywhere in Scotland and indeed the UK. Whatever the merits of the approach that has been taken, it seems to me highly unlikely that the intention is to cut across the profits of community-based developments such as this, which do not provide dividends for shareholders who are not providing profits in a sense for profit sake, but simply to reinvest those back into community projects for community benefit or indeed to invest in re-powering initiatives that will prolong the life of those projects, providing sustained income into those communities. I hope that even at this late stage where the minister would take this up with his UK counterparts on behalf of Community Energy Scotland to see even if at the eleventh hour some progress can be made in securing this exemption, but on the basis that others have already said, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting the LCM this afternoon. First of all, I will pick up on that last point and say to Liam McArthur that I will take his comments on board and discuss that with officials and if we are able to give him any update on the Government's position, I will write to him on that. I would like to thank members for their contributions on the relatively short discussion on what we have all acknowledged as an urgent matter that needs to be considered quickly. I think that it is widely acknowledged across the chamber that the process is not ideal but that it is clearly necessary. I welcome the fact that that recognition has been given. Albeit a short debate has been a helpful one, especially considering the very little time that we have available to consider the bill and its implication for devolved areas. Passing the LCM will at least ensure that the money that is available can be provided to those who need it as soon as possible. The Scottish Government will continue to do what is within our powers to support people here in Scotland. Let us be clear that we also need UK Government action to ensure that all consumers can afford to heat their homes, not just this winter, but to ensure that they can tackle fuel poverty well beyond that and that businesses can stay afloat a giveaway. I am very grateful. Just on the point of the Scottish Government trying to do what it can, the Scottish Government underspent its budget by £650 million last year. One of the things that the Scottish Conservatives have proposed is a cost-of-living support fund. Why is the Minister not proposing using that £650 million underspend to put a support fund in? I do not think that we need a remedial lesson on how the Scottish Government's finances work. Mr Kerr can take that up with his finance colleagues if he needs a lesson. I would like to close by reiterating our call on the UK Government to provide additional support to vulnerable consumers ahead of this winter, during this winter and far beyond. I also seek urgent clarity on the protection that consumers will have in the face of forthcoming price rises beyond April. That will include many people living in rural communities across Scotland who are facing higher living costs than others in more central areas. Let's remind ourselves again that the devastating impacts of skyrocketing energy prices on consumers are caused by a dependency and over-dependency on natural gas—a dependency that we have to break, unlike Mr Kerr who would suggest that we keep locking ourselves in to dependency on fossil fuels. While we can help to ensure through our actions today that consumers are given vital support, we also have to keep in mind the need to accelerate our transition to net zero heating and a decarbonised energy system. To close briefly, it is necessary now, given the reversal of the two-year commitment, that we consider what the options might be after the first six months. I remind Mr Kerr that, when the Scottish Conservatives weren't busy promoting the UK Government's disastrous tax plans, they were very happy to welcome that two-year commitment when it was first made. I don't think that it quite cuts it to say now that six months is the right timescale or that this Parliament has all the powers that we need. We can do nothing in this Parliament yet to regulate energy prices. We can do nothing in this Parliament yet to break the link that Labour colleagues rightly point out between gas and electricity prices. A commitment that has been given by the UK Government for a long time now, but which is hanging there uncertain which minister will even be responsible for progressing it or when. We can do nothing in this Parliament yet to give people in Scotland the financial benefit of cheap, clean, abundant renewable electricity that is being generated in this country. This Parliament should be able to take much greater action to give people in Scotland the benefit of that renewable electricity and to tackle fuel poverty for the time being. Until we have those greater powers, we will pass this LCM to ensure that people get the emergency support that they deserve and need. That concludes the debate on energy prices Bill UK legislation and we'll move straight to the question, which is that motion 6443 in the name of Patrick Harvey on energy prices Bill UK legislation be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. The motion is therefore agreed and we will move on briefly to the next item.