Chamber and committees

I think that Màiri McAllan and Neil Gray must work together closely on the issue, and with the UK Government. Once we start to produce SAF in greater quantities, the price will come down and Scotland’s airports will benefit, because airlines will go there as they have SAF available. That represents a huge opportunity.

By the way, the cross-party group on aviation sent its report on the subject to the Scottish and UK Governments. We are still waiting to hear back from both Governments. It would be useful to get a response.

I will move on to hydrogen, which has been mentioned. Cabinet secretary, you were quoted in one of the newspapers—The Herald, I think—as saying that you thought that hydrogen could be a major export for Scotland. What did you base that on?

Yes, that is correct. However, Jim Skea, who you mentioned earlier, said that he did not see the evidence to justify your belief—let us hope that you are right and that he is not—that we could be a major exporter of hydrogen. Furthermore, Friends of the Earth Scotland has referred to the Scottish Government’s “pie-in-the-sky predictions”. Who is right?

I am delighted that we have heard from Chris Bryceland; I was feeling rather sorry for him. I have a follow-up question for him. Has the UK Government set a timescale for deciding on that project? I do not know the answer to that; perhaps you do.

Thanks for that. I have a few questions that arise from the sessions that we have already had and that have not been asked already.

Going back to the plan that you hope to produce—obviously, you cannot tell us what will be in the plan; I understand that—I wonder about the level of detail that might be in it. Will you set out when you hope to do things by? Going back to Fiona Hyslop’s question about transport, would it set out which roads you will fix, or will it just be aspirational?

That is good to hear.

Cabinet secretary, you have visited the site, as we have done. You mentioned aviation fuel, which is already produced there, but there is a big opportunity for Grangemouth and Scotland to produce sustainable aviation fuel—SAF. Did you discuss that with Ineos when you visited? What do you think needs to happen for SAF to be produced at Grangemouth? That could be a massive opportunity for Scotland.

That is what he was referring to.

I have one more question. I have been reflecting on what you have been saying throughout the meeting. The UK Government has been mentioned quite a lot. It occurs to me that, when you are producing the plan for Grangemouth, the UK Government should perhaps be involved in some way. I do not know how you feel about that. The UK Government has come up in our discussion today, and it has clearly been investing in the area through various schemes, so it would seem appropriate for it to be involved at some point.

I feel like I have joined the panel to help Mr Beattie out. The simple answer to his question is that, at the moment, hydrogen cannot be used for larger planes whereas the airlines will tell you that SAF could be used. It is, basically, a like-for-like replacement. That is a simple answer. We are not quite there yet with hydrogen.

It always takes Opposition parties to debate housing. I congratulate Labour on doing so again.

At the heart of Labour’s motion is the issue of the lack of supply and the scathing report of the temporary accommodation task and finish group. What a shame that the minister could not commit to its recommendations. We need look no further than the report’s opening lines to see the scale of the problem that we face. It says:

“Scotland is in the grip of a homelessness crisis that is damaging the lives and opportunities of thousands of families with children and young people across every community in Scotland.”

It talks of a “broken housing system”, and it says that, six years ago,

“the Scottish Government and COSLA convened the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Action Group.”

It says that that group proposed

“a Rapid Rehousing approach to reduce the need for temporary accommodation and the ... adoption of Housing First”

to help those with complex needs.

I was on the Local Government and Communities Committee at that time, and we produced a report that also proposed following the housing first model. That followed a visit to Finland, where we saw how that country’s approach had helped to cut homelessness to as near to zero as possible.

The task and finish group said:

“The ambitions of that plan have not matched up to the realities on the ground ... we have rising rough sleeping, record numbers of people trapped in the homelessness system for longer and the national scandal of nearly 10,000 children in temporary accommodation.”

That is disgraceful—there is no other word for it.

None of us lives in temporary accommodation. However, in September last year, 14,400 households in Scotland did. That is the highest number on record. That is a statistic that should shame the Government. The average time that was spent in temporary accommodation was 207 days. Try to imagine that, and tell me that we live in a caring Scotland.

Ultimately, we need to build more homes of the right type and in the right places. For as long as I have been an MSP—and even longer—we have known that. The temporary accommodation task and finish group knows that, and so does Shelter Scotland. The task group’s report says that the solutions are straightforward—namely, we need more social homes,

“we need to use the homes we have more effectively and we need to fund”

homelessness

“services properly to treat people with dignity and respect.”

Of course, that should have been happening already. Part of the problem is funding for councils, whose budgets have been systematically slashed year on year by the SNP. Recently, the Scottish Housing Regulator said that homelessness services in Scotland are at

“emerging risk of systemic failure”

due to the pressure on the system, with councils increasingly unable to meet their statutory duties.

Funding, which was mentioned by Mercedes Villalba, is also a serious issue for those who are trying to deliver social housing. The minister really needs to look at the way in which funding is delivered, because it seems to be deemed too high a risk for some people to get involved in building those vital homes.

We have heard a number of good speeches. Roz McCall spoke of the problems that women face with homelessness, and Miles Briggs spoke about the situation in Edinburgh. Also, it was great to hear Ben Macpherson, freed from the shackles of SNP groupthink, coming up with ideas such as land value tax—he will get into trouble for that.

The message is that the Government needs to do better, so I support the amendment in the name of Miles Briggs.

The cabinet secretary pledged to press for a return to the programme in last week’s programme for government document, so he will be aware that that is the exact outcome that the UK Government seeks, but it must be a good deal for the UK. If that is not possible, there is the alternative pioneer plan, which is backed, should it be required, by the Russell group and others. Will the cabinet secretary commit to working with the UK Government on the horizon and pioneer programmes for the benefit of research and development across these islands?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the constitution secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding engagement with the United Kingdom Government on a potential return to the horizon Europe research programme. (S6O-02139)