Chamber and committees

I thank the committee for its sterling work on the two reports. I run the risk of giving myself a pat on the back, because I was on the committee when it did its inquiry into Grangemouth. Of course, it was a team effort—a team that was ably led by the convener, Claire Baker.

The report on the Grangemouth area, which was published more than a year ago, has now been overtaken by events. We did not know then that there was a risk that refining could come to an end at Grangemouth, and had we known then, our report would have been very different. The committee has subsequently done another excellent report on the north-east and Moray, but I will concentrate on Grangemouth, because it is part of the region that I represent.

The news that refining is to stop came out last year, but, as we know, the end date has now been brought forward. Four hundred jobs are at risk, and the futures of the town and the wider economy are at risk.

The committee’s report is out of date, but it is important that we have this discussion today. It is more important, however, that we get concrete action from both Governments. To be fair, it is good to see them working together, and that has to continue.

I have to say to the minister, Alasdair Allan, that producing a draft plan for the future at more or less the time when the refinery is due to close is not really good enough. He needs to bring that forward. We need concrete action before the refinery closes.

I would love to, but I have no extra time. If I am given extra time, I will take the intervention. It is up to the Presiding Officer.

I am afraid that I cannot take the intervention. Others have had leeway.

I was annoyed that Grangemouth was not earmarked by the previous UK Government as one of the places where SAF should be made. I am pleased that the new UK Government is continuing with the SAF mandate policy of the previous Government. The mandate will start in 2025 at 2 per cent of total UK jet fuel demand, and that will increase in 2030 and in 2040. To that end, the committee called for

“a price support”

mechanism

“for SAF to accompany the mandate”,

because that

“may be required to incentivise private sector investment in UK and Scottish SAF production”.

We were ahead of our time.

The new Government says that the bill that it announced on 17 July to support SAF production will introduce a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF producers that are looking to invest in new plants in the UK. Scotland should be at the forefront of the decarbonisation of aviation, and Grangemouth should be at the centre of that.

When the committee took evidence in March 2023, Malcolm Bennie of Falkirk Council said:

“if I were to walk through Grangemouth town centre right now and ask people what ‘just transition’ means ... I do not know whether the term would resonate with everyone.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 8 March 2023; c 2-3.]

He was right, but they know now what an “unjust transition” means. That is happening because we have sent out the wrong signals.

Labour and the SNP can take a good share of the blame for talking down the oil and gas sector. That has consequences, and in this case we can see them. I have to say that the Greens have been utterly hypocritical on the issue. They want to close down North Sea oil and gas, yet they cry crocodile tears when we announce that refining is going to close at Grangemouth. That is hypocrisy.

Both Governments have announced a bit of extra money for the area. That is good. Project willow will look at how Grangemouth can remain an energy hub. However, we have to wonder what the Grangemouth future industry board has been up to for four years if we need that project. The committee called for greater clarity about the role of the GFIB, which it said is

“operating more as a forum with limited output to date.”

I have not seen any output. However, the committee was right, and that needs to change.

Both Governments need to roll up their sleeves and accept that Grangemouth is an integral and vital part of the Scottish economy. We cannot afford for it to deteriorate. Governments must ensure that it has the bright future that I believe it can have.

No, I will not.

Yesterday, the minister tried to blame everyone but himself for the mess that we are in. I do not actually blame Paul McLennan for that mess—well, not entirely. He was forced to work with Greens in the Government who forced through disastrous rent controls, which have led to rents rising faster in Scotland than they have risen anywhere else in the UK. You could not make it up. According to the Scottish Property Federation, an estimated £700 million in residential investment has been paused or lost due to the rent freeze. Patrick Harvie is no longer in the Government, but the Housing (Scotland) Bill proposes a system of long-term rent controls that has those who might want to invest here scared stiff.

The minister has set up a housing investment task force, and those who are on it will not stay scared for long. They will run for the hills. Some of them have done so already. In all honesty, he would be better off ruling it out altogether if he wants any confidence to return.

It is little wonder that we read reports that Kate Forbes—it is sometimes Shirley-Anne Somerville—has taken over the bill. The minister needs to spell out quickly and in detail just what he intends to do, and that does not mean him saying, “We’ll leave everything to regulations.” If we get this wrong, we could be facing a loss of £3.2 billion in direct housing investment, according to the Scottish Property Federation.

We have had a number of good contributions today. Rhoda Grant spoke about rural housing. Miles Briggs mentioned the multiple talking shops that the minister has set up. Sadly, Ariane Burgess would not take any interventions, so we do not know whether she supports the Labour motion. Martin Whitfield spoke about the general impact of homelessness on children, which is a very important point. Edward Mountain talked about empty homes and his frustration that we do not have compulsory sales orders—he is quite right. Christine Grahame made a very good point about VAT that I agree with.

At the end of it, we have a housing emergency and we have not had a response. I agree with the Labour motion. We need action, not words.

Will the member take an intervention?

I hear you loud and clear, Presiding Officer.

It has been a frustrating and, at times, spicy debate, but we should not need to be having it. The frustration pours out of the Labour motion when it says that the Government

“has failed to respond adequately to the housing emergency that the Parliament declared in May”

this year.

We are getting used to the Government ignoring the Parliament, but, on this occasion, the Minister for Housing actually reluctantly accepted the situation. How the Government reacts to the gravity of the situation is the important thing. An emergency demands an emergency response, as Anas Sarwar said, but we have not had that.

I read the minister’s head-in-the-sand statement yesterday with disbelief. He blamed Brexit, inflation and Westminster—not the Scottish Government at all—for our severe problems. As Homes for Scotland has said, people in need of a new home, or any home, deserve better than that. The problems have been long in the making—Ben Macpherson made that point very well.

In June, the cross-party group on housing, which I convene, had a productive discussion with five of the councils that had declared a housing emergency. At least two of the councils that were represented at the meeting said that it was likely that there would be no new social housing projects in their areas in 2024-25, and three noted that they were already failing to meet their statutory obligations on homelessness. Miles Briggs made that point. There was consensus that action needed to be taken as a matter of urgency.

We wrote to the minister and called for a national emergency plan that would address how the quality and quantity of housing stock would be improved, create more social housing and temporary accommodation and provide solutions to deal with rising rates of homelessness. That plan has not materialised in the past four months.

Last week’s statistics bear out the consequences of the Scottish Government’s prolonged inaction. The figures that were published last week should have been a wake-up call. Half of Scotland’s population is now living in a local authority area with a housing emergency, and 17 councils have experienced an increase in the number of homelessness applications. In my own patch, in South Lanarkshire, there has been an 8 per cent increase in the past year. Meanwhile, there has been a 17 per cent decrease in the number of house building starts and completions in all sectors over the past year. The number of approvals under the affordable housing supply programme has dropped by 44 per cent from 2020, and only 22,700 affordable homes have been completed towards the Government’s target of delivering 110,000 by 2032.

That is part of a pattern of SNP failure, as the Government previously fell short of delivering on its target of building 50,000 affordable homes by 2021.

I am happy to leave it there for now, convener.

I have a couple of questions, convener, if you do not mind.

I just want to get it clear in my head how this operates in practice. You have all these bodies taking part and sharing information about people, but how does it work? Is there a constant sharing of information, with computer systems talking to each other, and then at some point somebody will flash up on a screen as having done something wrong, or are people poring over documents, trying to join dots and pick up fraud?

Does anyone get prosecuted as a result of this exercise?

Do you know how many?