Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that you will continue to make that point, minister. As a north-east representative, I will certainly continue to do so.

You talked about capital moneys bringing in further financing resource from the private sector.I know that it is early days, but are we seeing changes in the spend of other public sector bodies in order to get the very best out of the just transition fund, or do you think that there is more work to do in that regard with councils, health boards and so on?

Good morning, minister. We spent a fair amount of time with community organisations in Aberdeen. Maggie Chapman touched on the trust aspect. It was apparent that some folk felt that there was a lack of transparency around where moneys were going. You highlighted the participatory budgeting scenario. A lot of the folks whom we talked to had been involved in and were very positive about that and, of course, about their own projects. However, they did not have a clear understanding of some of the other resources that have been allocated, particularly to business. They mentioned one particular business that had received substantial funding, and they were unhappy about that. However, when I explained what that money was for, the attitude changed completely and utterly, because they understood why that was. Are we doing enough to be absolutely open and transparent in communicating the reasons why we allocate certain sums of money?

Minister, you talked about the twice-yearly reporting. I wonder whether it would be beneficial if, setting aside commercial sensitivity, we could let folk, communities and the people of the north-east and Moray know what allocations are being used for. If we let people know, and if we are as open and transparent as possible, they will come along with us. There was a huge amount of positivity about the community aspect and less positivity about the business grants that have been made, but when the reasoning around why certain things happened was explained, the positivity grew. Can we get the comms right as we move forward? That is my plea.

You said earlier that it has to be a bottom-up process and that we must listen to people. That is certainly how I think that it should happen. We are getting there. In the main, people feel involved. However, in the discussion around the bottom-up aspect, there are frustrations around the resource that is available. I recognise that the Scottish Government has come up with a just transition fund, for which we are grateful. A lot of that funding, though, is capital funding. Community organisations, in particular, feel that there needs to be much more access to revenue resource funding.

Minister, is there a way that there could be co-operation between all the public services to match up some of the resource funding that is required to allow certain projects to get off the ground? Also, I am interested to hear any comments that you have around communication with the United Kingdom Government to try to get it to match the just transition funding that the Scottish Government has put into the north-east and Moray.

Good morning. I want to go back to some of the comments that have already been made about the Scottish cluster and the Acorn project. To quote you, Mr Pritchard—if I misquote you, you can tell me—you have said that your plans remain unchanged around the Scottish cluster and the Acorn project and that you are continuing with them. However, you are looking at a substantial change to the business. Could you explain why you feel that your commitment and your planned works for the Scottish cluster and the Acorn project remain unchanged?

Okay.

I want to move to a few other issues to do with the biorefinery. I would also like to hear a little bit more about your plans for hydrogen, which you have already mentioned. Beyond that, where are you with regard to sustainable aviation fuel and its production, which will be extremely important? What will be the impact of the proposed closure of the refinery—you are unable to tell us when that will be at this moment—on those ambitions? Beyond that, what effect does the refinery plans have on the confidence of future investors in relation to what you are looking to scope for the future?

I will move on a bit, because there has been talk of energy security. Members have asked questions about the Forties pipeline and what comes in at Kinneil. You have discussed in great depth current exports to ARA, and you have talked about a crude mix from international markets.

With regard to energy security and the carbon footprint, is not there an argument that more crude oil should come in through the Forties pipeline to Grangemouth? You have talked about Finnart and about the pipeline being used for diesel. I have not heard anything about petrol or kerosene and how they would come into the import plant. From an energy security perspective, would not it be better to utilise the Forties pipeline to Grangemouth more, rather than relying on international shipping coming in to Finnart? Do you have a general comment on that? I might then have some specifics to address.

We also discussed hydrogen production and the biorefinery project earlier this morning, and the previous panel was keen to talk about importing sustainable aviation fuel. Have you had any discussions with the UK Government and other partners about manufacturing sustainable aviation fuel? As an Orcadian, you will realise the essential role that aviation will continue to play in Scotland as we move forward. What can be done to try to ensure that Scotland plays a part in manufacturing SAF? Can that be done at Grangemouth as part of the just transition?

There was also some discussion earlier this morning about energy security and the impacts of international markets. In relation to the import hub plan, the previous panel made a point about diesel coming in at Finnart and going to Grangemouth through the existing pipeline, but I asked a question about the carbon footprint of importing that diesel. You talked about the international market and about refineries in China and the middle east being much more modern and competitive, but the carbon footprint of importing from China, the middle east or wherever it may be is huge. It may well be that our carbon footprint will reduce if there is no refinery at Grangemouth, but the carbon footprint of importing could be greater.

I recognise that this is the UK Government’s responsibility, but have you looked at whether we could utilise the Forties pipeline to take crude from the North Sea basin and continue to refine at the likes of Grangemouth? From an energy security point of view in this weird and wonderful world that we live in, that would probably be the best way. It would also cut down our carbon footprint compared with importing diesel, petrol and kerosene—and, in the future, the likes of SAF.

Sure.