Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have already said that it is not our decision to take. It is for the UK Government to take decisions on new oil and gas exploration. We need to be pragmatic. We cannot switch off oil and gas overnight. That is not going to be possible. However, we want the UK Government to come forward with stronger climate compatibility checks to ensure that any new oil and gas exploration meets our net zero ambitions. We will continue to discuss that with UK ministers, as I am sure the committee will.

The pumped storage capacity will be important for giving the consistent energy supply from renewables that we are looking for, particularly as we look to replace the fossil fuel baseload that is provided. We will look to ensure that that is done in a holistic way that is the most efficient way and that takes communities with us on the journey. We will make sure that we keep those matters under consideration.

It is very challenging to see an alternative. Carbon capture is critical, and the Acorn project is the most advanced and the most secure project. It can get up and running incredibly quickly, and we will see a massive decarbonisation of our largest carbon emitter at Grangemouth.

I again encourage the UK Government to act as quickly as possible. I heard the committee do that when Mr Bowie was before it a couple of weeks ago. It is really important for Scotland’s net zero ambitions and if the UK is serious about its net zero ambitions that carbon capture in the Acorn project continues to be progressed and is progressed quickly.

Mr Ruskell is right that it is still an issue. The UK Government has responsibility for all aspects of the processing and organisation of visas, whether for Ukrainians or others who are looking to come to Scotland. We make regular representations to the UK Government on the processing of visas for Ukrainians and others to ensure that it happens as timeously as possible. The Ukraine extension scheme was intended to bridge the gap that Mr Ruskell has pointed out but, if he has direct evidence of areas where that continues to be an issue, I would be happy to raise that with Home Office contacts whom we meet regularly.

Again, Mr Ruskell asks a very pertinent and timeous question. I raised that issue directly with Felicity Buchan, the new minister with responsibility for the Ukraine scheme in the UK Government. I am concerned that we are approaching a year since the start of the latest invasion by Russia; therefore, we are approaching a year since some people will have received visas. That means that they are a third of the way through their time here in the UK, because it is a three-year visa. Mr Ruskell is right that some will want to return to Ukraine as soon as it is safe for them to do so. They have property or family there, or they have jobs to return to. There is an emotional tie there, understandably, and they want to return to help to rebuild.

I know from speaking to Ukrainians that others want to rebuild their life here in Scotland. They have enjoyed their stay thus far and they want to stay for the longer term. I raised that question with Felicity Buchan. I am not confident that that thinking has progressed yet in the UK Government, but I will continue to raise the issue because we want to ensure that people who are here right now have the certainty of knowing what their status is. Again, I encourage colleagues, if they have evidence of where concerns have been raised, to ensure that I am aware of that, so that I can continue to raise them with UK colleagues.

On international and intergovernmental co-operation, any international visit that I have been on of late—whether that has been to Brussels, Dublin, Poland or Germany—has involved discussion about the country’s particular response to the situation in Ukraine. As I set out in my introductory remarks, it has been evident to me that the movement of people is the largest on the European continent since the second world war. People could not have prepared for the crisis, and they are responding to it as well as possible. We all face a Europe-wide challenge, and we are all looking to examples of best practice elsewhere to see where other countries, including our own, are trying to ensure that they are responding in the best possible way for those who have fled war.

There is very strong co-operation and discussion with Welsh Government colleagues, for instance. We are, on responding, very much on the same page as they are on. Obviously, there is a difference in the scale of people’s arrival and, from the discussions that we have had with the Irish Government, we know that there is a difference in the scale of arrival in the upward direction in Ireland. Ireland is one of the European nations that waived visa requirements, so a very large number of Ukrainians have arrived there, compared with the number in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK.

There are shared challenges in ensuring that our response is appropriate in respect of access to housing and services and other similar issues. The challenges that we face in Scotland are not unique.

The financial situation that Ms Minto has described is a huge worry to me. I know that it is a major worry to local authorities in Scotland and that that came through in evidence last week. It is also a huge worry to Welsh Government colleagues and, I believe, to the Local Government Association in England.

Ms Minto is right: local authority tariff support reduced from £10,500 per person to £5,900 per person as of January. Thereafter, there is no year 2 tariff support for local authorities, unlike in the Syria and Afghan schemes. The support has been replaced by a one-off fund of £150 million across the UK. We still have to understand what the allocation will be, but our assumption is that the funding will be a tenth of the value of the year 1 tariff funding per person.

The £10,500 already represented a stretch for our local authority partners, which we are asking to provide a significant amount of education, housing, social work and trauma support—you name it. In the conversation that I mentioned with my counterpart in the UK Government, Felicity Buchan, she suggested that local government should or could be doing even more. That was met with some frustration from me because, while we are asking our local authorities to do more, people are still arriving, and we are seeing funding from the UK Government to support that dropping to as low as a tenth for the year coming.

I hope that it is not too late and that we can impress on Treasury colleagues the fact that, although they have done a huge amount in respect of the military support grant—I take my hat off to the UK Government for the world-leading military support that it has provided to Ukraine; credit where credit is due for that. We must ensure that we are appropriately supporting the humanitarian response. I have grave concerns that the cut in funding will mean that the expectation of meeting the humanitarian concerns will not be met.

I am happy to bring in my colleague Will Tyler-Greig at this stage.

A conference was held at the Scottish Parliament with heritage and cultural organisations from Ukraine in which we heard—you and the convener heard these, as well—harrowing accounts of cultural vandalism and destruction of monuments and other sites of cultural significance in Ukraine. There is clear targeting of those sites by Russian forces to try to wipe Ukraine and everything that Ukraine stands for from the face of the earth. I suggest that investigating that should be in the category of investigating for a war crime. We will continue to work directly with colleagues from Ukraine on the culture side on what we can do to support that.

On rebuilding, when I was in Brussels at the end of last year, I had a meeting with the European Committee of the Regions about what we can do in partnership on the rebuilding work. That committee has taken a leading role to co-ordinate the recovery support. We have not yet had advanced discussions because we are still in the war situation, but we will be looking to do what we can, depending on what the demand is, to offer special practical support or otherwise, to ensure that Ukraine can rebuild when the war is over and it has maintained its borders and boundaries.

Again, as I did in my opening remarks, I pay tribute to the third sector, as I have done to our local authority partners. The Scottish Refugee Council is a key partner for us with regard to implementation, the welcome arrangements and delivery of our response; it enables us to ensure that everything that we do is sense checked. In individual communities and across Scotland, third sector organisations—as they do for people who are already resident in Scotland—do a phenomenal job to help and support people who have arrived from Ukraine.

I have seen wonderful work in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts and in wider North Lanarkshire, as well as across Scotland, when I have been out on visits to places such as Aberfeldy. The community there has done an incredible job of providing help and support for people from Ukraine.

As regards whether third sector organisations are getting the necessary support, I would say that they can always come and speak to us if they need more support. We provide funding to third sector interfaces across Scotland to make sure that money and support can be distributed. Will, do you have the exact figures?

The situation is under constant review, as would be expected. In my most recent statement to Parliament, I confirmed that the supersponsor scheme would remain paused. Discussions will be had with the programme delivery board in the coming weeks and a decision on the current status will be required this month. I will make sure that the committee is furnished with the outcome of those.

You are absolutely right that, sadly, everybody expected at the beginning that the war was going to be short. We have to pay tribute to the resilience and the bravery of the people of Ukraine for the fact that they have defended their country so incredibly well against the illegal Russian invasion—of course, it is the latest invasion, because Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014. I think that everybody’s expectation was that it was going to be a short and temporary situation. We are now in a very different situation. We are approaching a year from the start of the war, which will be a poignant moment. I am happy to talk about some aspects of what we are planning to mark that particularly tricky anniversary for Ukrainians who are in Scotland.

As a result, there has obviously had to be a change in approach, and you have seen that in the way that the supersponsor scheme has been organised. We had a review of the supersponsor scheme when I had to pause it due to the unprecedented demand that was placed on it during the summer months, when it was the only viable route through which to come into the United Kingdom. There were 16 interventions proposed as part of the review, which was led by Professor Linda Bauld. In the very short time since that review was published, we have made significant progress on the majority of those areas, including the £50 million fund to bring forward longer-term accommodation, support for people through the private rented sector and modular accommodation. We are doing a number of things to make the scheme sustainable and durable for the long term.

Sadly, Ukrainians will have to be in Scotland, for their safety, for longer than was anticipated. We will continue to ensure that we are doing everything possible, reflecting on some of the areas that the head of the consul office in Edinburgh, Mr Kuslii, has suggested, and reflecting on work that we are doing with our local authority partners and the third sector.