Chamber and committees

I am talking about using the Grangemouth facility for biofuels, hydrogen or SAF. That seems a logical way in which we could maintain a high level of jobs at the Grangemouth facility.

It occurs to me that, given my colleagues’ earlier conversations with you about trying to maintain high-quality jobs in the community, incentivising those particular industries is a way of maintaining a high level of skill at the Grangemouth facility. Are the Scottish and UK Governments looking specifically at incentivising those kinds of industries in green freeport areas to make sure that there does not need to be a migration of jobs away from Grangemouth?

Good morning, minister. Thank you for giving us your time. You touched on the expansion of the green freeport policy. It has been suggested that there could be future development such as a potential biofuel refinery at Grangemouth. Some of my colleagues will talk about the potential for hydrogen and for sustainable aviation fuel. The Scottish Government and Ineos suggested that the planned import terminal was not incentivised by the green freeport policy but that other industries might be. How can the Scottish and UK Governments ensure that any activity that benefits from tax incentives in green freeports represents the kind of additionality that we would like to see?

I will follow on from Colin Smyth’s questions. I was speaking to an international recruitment company that claimed that it is stripping a lot of talent out of the North Sea and shipping it abroad. It is difficult to measure that, but it seems reasonable to think that it could be happening. We need to ensure that the jobs are available and that the journey from fossil fuel jobs to renewable jobs is as smooth and as simple as possible, because we need to keep these people in Scotland. Is the Scottish Government doing any work to measure the number of green jobs of that standard that are being created and how that transition from oil and gas is being delivered?

We heard in evidence that funding was allocated around November but had to be spent by March, and that some projects did not bother to apply because of the practicalities. They said that they just would not be able to adhere to the rules and regulations. I am just bringing that to your attention, to see whether the Scottish Government can look at it, because, of course, some of those projects could be viable.

My question is on that point. I note that the minister pointed out that there was, I think, a 10 per cent reduction. I am going back to my school mathematics but I think that a reduction from £50 million to £12 million is a lot more than 10 per cent.

As the convener highlighted, a lot of witnesses have spoken about the need for multiyear and revenue funding from the just transition fund, because they spend so much of their time applying for the fund annually but have a short time in which to spend the money. Does the Scottish Government recognise that there are limitations to an annual funding agreement, especially if groups are restricted to capital funding? Will the Government consider that?

Together with others, he has been very vocal on that issue and, with a number of colleagues, has pushed very hard for the A9 and the A96 to be dualled. My fear is that that issue has overtaken the concern over the A77, which has been long running. It first came to my attention when, in opening the Cairnryan facility, Alex Salmond promised significant upgrades to the A77 and the A75. Subsequent transport ministers have offered the same assurances. However, STPR2 has been going for some considerable time now, and there has been very little movement at all.

As you rightly said, convener, even though the Maybole bypass was not dualled—which was a missed opportunity—it has had a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the community there, as well as bringing inward investment, and it has changed the whole aspect of the town. That represented an investment of £29 million.

The evidence is there for everyone to see of the impact of the significant dualling and bypassing of various towns along the A77. That should be coupled with the fact that 110 44-tonne lorries come off the Cairnryan crossing every single day and travel up that route. What is not often mentioned is that also on that road is a major distillery, where 50 wagons come in and out every day. The road is a connection between Northern Ireland, the European Union, central Scotland and beyond. As everyone who has been on it or seen it will agree, it is currently not fit for purpose.

My concern is that the A77 is falling further and further down the list of priorities as other matters take over and that eventually it will be kicked to the kerb and nothing will be done about it. I therefore ask that the committee continues to consider the petition and to put pressure on the Scottish Government to maintain its promise to deliver significant upgrades to the A77.

Thank you very much, convener. Good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak again on the petitions, which have been running since I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee in the previous parliamentary session.

Since the last time we discussed the petitions, matters have moved forward in that the United Kingdom Government’s connectivity fund has indicated its desire to help with the upgrading of the A75. Initially the A77 and the A75 were taken as a group. We did not want to separate them, but that has happened, given that the A75 is a Euro route. My concern is that the A77 might be overlooked, because the A75 will now be considered in depth by the UK Government and we have a fairly hefty MSP cabal looking at the A9 and the A96. For example, I know that my colleague Fergus Ewing has been vocal in his desire to have the A9 and the A96 dualled.

There is an interesting web, if you like. We will not be refining crude in Scotland any more, so there will be a reduction in carbon production, but crude will still be refined—we will be offshoring our carbon production by refining crude somewhere else. That is the overall reality.

The main barrier to hydrogen is potentially the offtake. That was also mentioned earlier. The Scottish Government is investing in the development of green hydrogen, and has a fund for that, as does the UK. I am pleased to hear that the two Governments are starting to work closer together to develop that. The main issue is offtake. If there is no offtake, the site will not develop hydrogen.

I totally accept that the UK Government is not moving quickly enough on SAF, and that we will end up importing far too much of it, as we discussed at committee last week. However, I put it to you that the Scottish Government needs to ensure that the site at Grangemouth is utilised to its fullest extent. The level of capex to develop the facilities from scratch probably goes beyond what we would find possible. Therefore, to decarbonise, we will have to utilise the site to its fullest. What support does the Scottish Government need to provide to ensure that that happens?