To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government is having with energy companies regarding a possible “social tariff” to reduce bills for low-income households. (S6F-03402)

The Scottish Government has engaged with energy suppliers in recent weeks on the options that are available to reduce bills for households across Scotland. We are now establishing a working group to co-design a social tariff mechanism that would secure cross-sector support and demonstrate the viability and positive outcomes of such a policy to the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Government will consider eligible fuel types, consumer eligibility, the regulatory environment, funding and delivery.

Despite Labour’s pre-election promises, household energy prices are set to rise by £149 in October, and 860,000 Scottish pensioners are to lose out on the winter fuel payment. It is vital that the Scottish Government works on a social tariff to produce a fairer pricing model. Does the First Minister agree that Westminster’s decisions will disproportionately affect people who are living in Scotland and particularly the Highlands and Islands, where the winters are much colder? Has he raised that with the UK Government?

Emma Roddick has raised very serious issues, especially on behalf of her constituents in the Highlands and Islands where, as she correctly indicates, the hardship of the decisions that were made by the United Kingdom Government to end the universal winter fuel payment will have a particularly acute effect because of the habitual differential temperatures in the Highlands and Islands. I recognise those issues and the Scottish Government has raised those points with the United Kingdom Government. As Emma Roddick will know, the issue was essentially landed on the Scottish Government, along with a budget cut of £160 million.

The work that we are undertaking on the co-design of a social tariff is being taken forward by the acting Minister for Climate Action, Dr Allan. We are engaging with relevant parties on that work. The issue requires agreement from the United Kingdom Government and engagement with it, which we will pursue as a consequence of the discussions.

Undoubtedly, this is an important issue. I am sure that, after 17 years, another working group will be widely welcomed.

It is clear that making work pay and accelerating the just transition will also be vital components of reducing bills. To do that, significant investment in renewables needs to come from the whole of the UK working together. GB energy, which will be headquartered in Aberdeen, will play a crucial role in bringing down bills and delivering energy security. Recently, Scottish National Party MPs failed to vote for GB energy. Will the First Minister confirm that a publicly owned energy generation company, based in Aberdeen, will have the support of the Government? What work is he doing in his renewed constructive relationship with UK ministers to move those issues forward?

I could almost suggest that Mr O’Kane has asked a planted question to allow me to talk about the virtues of my collaboration with the United Kingdom Government, which I will happily do. Last Thursday evening, the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy and I had the pleasure of meeting the chair of GB energy, Juergen Maier, who was generous with the time given to me. We spent several hours discussing GB energy’s plans. On Friday morning, Juergen Maier came to a meeting of the Scottish energy advisory board, which I chair with Professor Sir Jim McDonald, the principal of the University of Strathclyde, to further discuss the issues with a much wider range of stakeholders.

I am absolutely certain that GB energy will not be an energy generation company any time soon—I am absolutely convinced of that. It may be a helpful vehicle in arranging and collaborating on investment proposals, which we will happily engage with it on, but I do not think that Mr O’Kane can sustain the line of argument that GB energy will be an energy generator, because it ain’t going to be that any time soon. We will work with GB energy. We have had constructive discussions, and a lot of projects are already in the pipeline—we are supporting them with investment from the Scottish National Investment Bank. If there is other investment support from GB energy or the national wealth fund, we will welcome that and we will work collaboratively to produce a good outcome for Scotland.

In listening to the interaction between Emma Roddick and the First Minister on raising energy bills, it strikes me that we could get agreement across the chamber on those in our communities who are housebound, and potentially have disabilities, who have high levels of energy use. First Minister, are they not the first people whom we should be supporting?

Mr Whittle raises a really important issue in highlighting the fact that individuals who are not on particularly high incomes and who may be just above the pension credit threshold, which is not very high—if my memory serves me right, somebody on an income of about £12,000 will be above the threshold—could be in the situation that he describes, in which they have very high energy use because of their physical condition and their needs but they will not be eligible for a winter fuel payment. That is why the universality of the payment to date has been important.

I am sympathetic to exploring what more we can do to help individuals, but I am sure that Mr Whittle will understand the difficulty that I face, given that we have had an abrupt removal of £160 million from our public finances, which prevents us from delivering a universal benefit, much as I would like to do so.