Chamber and committees

Thank you for sharing those thoughts.

I want to reflect on something that you said about transport. You said that there are some people who are living in the Highlands who feel a bit isolated and that there are people who need to travel to get advice and support. You also spoke about families who need to access schools that are not close by. You will be aware that, in Scotland, we have concessionary bus travel for over-60s and under-22s. Have Ukrainian people who are living here been able to access those schemes? What do you think about the idea of extending concessionary travel—free travel—on buses to all people who have been displaced and are living here temporarily?

My final question is about transport. Earlier, we heard from Mr Mankovskyi about the challenges that people face, and the minister has spoken about the need for independence and dignity for those who are living here. Some people are living in quite isolated situations, particularly in rural areas, where they need to travel to access advice and support. They often need to travel to access school and other facilities as well. Although some will be eligible for national entitlement cards or free bus travel, there is a big gap in the middle.

Minister, you have spoken about how councils are trying to fill that gap by, for example, buying tickets and having those available at hubs. Would it not just be a lot simpler for us to extend the national entitlement card scheme to displaced people in Scotland? The current entitlement scheme extends to up to 2.6 million people. We are talking about around 4,500 Ukrainian people, which is a number that is akin to a rounding error in terms of the budget that is available for concessionary travel in Scotland. Clearly, extending the scheme would be transformational for people who are here and do not have access to cars or other transport advantages that we have. They are probably the most needy in terms of access to transport, for independence, dignity and everything else.

Thank you for joining us this morning. We know that you are exceptionally busy dealing with casework and supporting people.

The previous time that you came to the committee, we talked about the Ukrainian seasonal workers who are here. At the time, the details of the Ukraine extension scheme were just coming out. I want to get your thoughts on how the scheme has worked. Have people been able to apply for it, have they got their visa extensions and are there any particular forms of advice and support that people still need?

Mr Mankovskyi was clear that the vast majority of Ukrainians want to return home, but I also hear from the advice centres that some may have been displaced several times by war and may wish to remain here and look for longer-term employment in the UK. How are you factoring that in? There is some complexity about visas and UK Government policy. How are you supporting people who want to remain in the UK and in Scotland?

Are you in contact with employers of seasonal workers? Are there any issues with accommodation, particularly in terms of bringing families over and accommodation being suitable? Have there been issues with finding suitable accommodation for extended families?

I want to query a point that Fionna Kell made. Fionna, you said that the Government had estimated that costs would go up by about 6 per cent for renewables and insulation but that, in reality, they had gone up by 15 per cent. Does that figure apply across all building materials and services? Were you picking out the renewables, the insulation and other retrofitting materials as having gone up by proportionately more that everything else, or were you talking about an uplift in building costs more generally?

I am aware that we are up against it, timewise, so I just want to ask the panel for their reflections on two issues. First, do you see a role for passivhaus or passivhaus-equivalent standards? What might be some of the opportunities or challenges in that area? Secondly, do you see any opportunities for reforming the EPC process? Perhaps Niall Robertson can start.

From the householder’s point of view, I guess, the other thing that was not taken into account was the cost of energy, which, obviously, has gone up substantially. The savings would be substantial, would they not? If someone was buying a new house and it was of a higher standard, they would be thinking, “Phew, I’m not going to have bills of thousands of pounds. They will be substantially less, because I have PV on the roof, and a battery.”

That is interesting. I have had personal experience of the EPC for my house not reflecting the use of batteries. Consequently, I had to go to Home Energy Scotland to get a fresh certificate that recognises that batteries exist and that they might be a good option.

I will end with one more question for Tom Norris around the second energy efficiency standard for social housing. This morning, the Government announced that it will bring forward the review of that standard to this year. What would you want to come out of that review?

Those have been interesting responses from you both on the prevention question. It is difficult to see, though, within the RSR, exactly how that preventative approach is being driven through. You talk about culture and about changing how public services are working, but it is hard to see a budget line shifting within health towards culture or wellbeing or whatever.

Is part of the issue about the timescale that the budgets are addressing? It is hard to show the impact of preventative spend within one year; it is probably very hard to show it within three to four years as well. Is there something about needing to take a longer-term look at this, as we have with wider strategies? How do we then frame that within the short-term budgets that we always have to look at, including the RSR?