Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

When might you be able to get that over the line? Some of the complexity around the national entitlement card has been about providing documentary evidence to the Improvement Service in order to get the card. I presume that displaced people are some of the most highly documented people in our society so, in technical terms, it should be relatively simple, although I understand that, to extend the franchise further, a committee might need to agree to an updated statutory instrument.

Can you give us a horizon for when the Government might come to a decision? We are now entering the summer, and people need that entitlement. As you said, the number of people is less than 4,500 and probably only 2,500, given that both ends of the age spectrum already have the entitlement. As Mr Mankovskyi said, it is the families in the middle—the mums with kids—who are really struggling at the moment. It is a small gap, so when can we fill it?

I recently met staff from the Ukrainian advice centre and the worker support centre. The Government finance for those centres is welcome and much needed. As I understand it, the Ukraine extension scheme, and any legal advice that is required about that scheme, have been relatively straightforward. However, the Ukraine families scheme and the sponsorship scheme throw up far more complex needs for immigration advice and support, and for legal advice. At the moment, a lot of that advice is being provided pro bono.

What might any on-going support look like? What resources might be required to ensure that people get what they need? Legal aid is not available to many people.

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, as an employer located in the zone, how it will help to meet the objectives of the Edinburgh low emission zone. (S6O-01248)

I am delighted that there has been an effective ban on approvals for new incinerators since November last year, and that that has now been made permanent. That is what I have been campaigning for with local communities since 2017. I am proud that, with Greens in government, we are finally seeing an end to the incinerator free-for-all. What guidance is the Scottish Government offering councils in order to ensure that they can now deliver the effective ban on new incinerator applications going forward?

Today is clean air day, and it is really important that the Parliament, as an institution, takes the lead on tackling the huge public health crisis that is killing thousands of people every year. I welcome what Maggie Chapman has said about the work that Parliament is doing as a cycle-friendly employer.

However, will the SPCB also look at the allowances system? Is it right that the Parliament should reimburse mileage claims for journeys that are taken within low emission zones in cars that are actually banned under the regulations that the Parliament has approved?

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?

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.”

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.