 The next item of business is the statement by Mary McCallan on Grangemouth Refinery. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement. Therefore, there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Mary McCallan, cabinet secretary, around 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity today to update the chamber on the Scottish Government's response to the announcement by Petroenios to begin preparatory works on an import terminal at the Grangemouth Refinery. Firstly, I would like to begin by acknowledging the significant contribution that the Grangemouth Refinery makes to Scotland's economy, both in meeting our domestic road and air fuel demand and in providing highly skilled and well-paid jobs. I also place on record my support for the workforce and I want to highlight its unique importance in delivering Scotland's transition to net zero. I want to express my gratitude to them, as well as to the operator, as they continue maintaining operations through what has been and continues to be an extremely challenging global market. The announcement by Petroenios, which was confirmed to their workforce on the same day that it was announced to the Scottish Government, namely 21 November last year, was a commercial one made by the company. It has made clear that it responds to prevailing and expected global market conditions and, importantly, that it does not convey closure. Indeed, it has stated that the anticipated changes are expected to ensure security of supply for road and aviation fuels in Scotland long into the future. However, I absolutely understand the concerns and the questions that have been raised in recent months, primarily in respect of the refinery's workforce. I therefore wish to use my statement today to set out two principal matters. Firstly, to confirm the Scottish Government's diesel-yut commitment to playing our part in ensuring a just transition for the cluster and the wider community and to co-operating with all those with responsibility in that regard. Secondly, to set out the activity and engagement that we have undertaken and will continue to undertake pursuant to this. The Grangemouth refinery is of strategic importance to Scotland. Therefore, as you would expect, the Scottish Government has engaged with Petroenios and other businesses, as well as our public sector partners, regarding the future of the cluster for some time. However, following its announcement last year, ministers have spearheaded an enhanced programme of engagement with the business and its shareholders, with trade unions, with the UK Government, with Falkirk Council and others. In the days immediately following Petroenios' announcement, the First Minister met with Grangemouth senior management. My colleague Neil Gray, the former Economy Secretary, met with Unite the Union, the STUC and held a parliamentary briefing for MSPs. The following week, ministers held meetings with their UK Government counterparts and thereafter with constituency representatives and the leader of Falkirk Council. Neil Gray then proceeded to meet with the Petroenios senior management and with shale holders, and on 13 December appeared in front of the Economy and Fair Work Committee on the matter. Then, on Thursday 18 January, he chaired the inaugural meeting of the Grangemouth Future Industry Board leadership forum, which was attended by Scottish ministers, including my colleague Gillian Martin, Scottish Enterprise, Falkirk Council, union representatives, Petroenios, a UK Government minister, Graham Stewart and others, including from Forth Valley College. That engagement has centred on seeking to reach a collective understanding on how to realise the potential of the cluster and secure that truly transformative and sustainable future for those who live and those who work at Grangemouth. That includes our commitment to explore every avenue to accelerate the build-out of low-carbon new projects at the cluster. That remains my priority as I take up post. In my first few days as Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing, Economy, Net Zero and Energy, I have already exchanged letters with the business, and I plan to meet them soon. I have also corresponded with Minister Stewart. I have responded to the committee's most recent correspondence to me today, and I am now giving this statement. Importantly, I have also set a date and circulated a focused agenda for the next GFIB leadership forum. When we meet, I will restate our commitment to encourage new low-carbon projects, emphasising the need for urgency to make sure that we can maximise new opportunities and minimise the gap between the refineries transition and those new opportunities becoming available. The chamber will be aware that those matters engage both reserved and devolved responsibilities, and I therefore welcome the UK Energy Security Minister's commitment to attend GFIB and his confirmation to me in writing that the UK stands ready, and I quote, to engage with the business on any proposal it presents. We have seen elsewhere how the UK is able to provide significant financial support to aid industrial transition most recently in Wales, and I trust that the UK Government, particularly with Minister Stewart's confirmation, will bring that same commitment to Scotland, to Grangemouth and, very practically, to our next GFIB meeting. I mentioned that the development and deployment of emerging technologies is a critical part of a just transition for Grangemouth. Avonies such as hydrogen production and biofuels manufacturing may potentially offer the opportunity to transition to new, sustainable jobs and technologies that are critical to our path to net zero. I want to assure the chamber of work that is under way in pursuit of that. Firstly, Petroenius has commenced early study work focused on the future establishment of a biofuels refinery at Grangemouth, capable of producing sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF. That project, if taken to fruition, could seek Grangemouth to become home to Scotland's only SAF production plant, capable of meeting future aviation demand for decades to come. The Scottish Government is supporting that project, and in my former role as transport secretary, I commissioned an expert working group on SAF, of which Petroenius are part. It met for the first time in mid-Febru this year. There are technical and regulatory issues to resolve. Businesses have been clear that the UK's post-Brexit proposals on a HEFA cap present a barrier to their biofuels considerations. We stand ready to work with all stakeholders to overcome those issues and to promote the feasibility of a bio refinery at Grangemouth. Separately, NAOS is considering fuel switching at Grangemouth. That project would see the power source of NAOS's assets at Grangemouth, transition from natural gas to hydrogen, enabled by the construction of a low-carbon hydrogen plant, connected to carbon capture and storage. If connected to the Scottish cluster, the business believes that the project could evacuate approximately a million tonnes of carbon emissions per annum, significantly contributing to Scotland's net zero ambitions and the UK's. The deployment of CCUS via Scotland's acorn project is critical to this. UK Government progress on this is long overdue and, while I sincerely welcome recent developments, those are still too slow. I use this opportunity today to urge and to ask the UK Government to urgently provide clarity. Grangemouth has a long industrial tradition, which the Scottish Government is determined to see preserved. Those are just two examples of how that might be done. Of course, those opportunities are set alongside that that could be realised via the Fourth Green Freeport and the Falkirk growth deal. Ultimately, it is clear to me and to those with whom I have been working, that the infrastructure, skills, knowledge and industrial expertise with which Grangemouth is synonymous will be fundamental to unlocking our tradition. As members know, the refinery sits within a wider industrial cluster that provides a home to 10 large operators, employing approximately 3,000 people in upwards of those numbers at different times, and all of them with a variety of skills, expertise in chemicals, oil and gas, and wider manufacturing sectors. Combined, the cluster is Scotland's leading manufacturing hub, providing a range of products and services that are vital to the functioning of our economy. It is in that context that I wish to raise my final point, which is the development of our Grangemouth industrial just transition plan. Development of the plan commenced early last year, working extensively with members of the GFIB, industry operators, workforce representatives and the Grangemouth community. This early work has allowed us to develop key aspects of the plan, including, first and foremost, setting a vision for the cluster in 2045. Through our work, we have heard from a range of stakeholders across industry who have outlined their ambitions for the future, as well as some of the challenges that we will face in seeking to achieve that. We have also heard from workforce and community members outlining their priorities for improved access to jobs, training and a desire to foster civic pride in Grangemouth as a place that will undoubtedly help to drive Scotland's net zero transition. As we move towards our spring publication, we will continue working with a broad range of stakeholders to articulate the action that is required to deliver that vision. The development of our just transition plan, of course, predates Petrionius announcement on preparation works on the import terminal, but work in that respect will be captured in the plan and will inform our thinking. I am very pleased to give my first statement in my new role on this important topic, which spans economic, social and environmental issues. In closing, I restate the Scottish Government's commitment to working with all interested parties to plan for and to realise the fairest and most prosperous transition possible for Grangemouth and for Scotland, and I commit to updating the chamber on progress in this regard. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. Members wishing to ask a question that we have not already done so. It should press the request-to-speak buttons, and I call for Douglas Lumsden. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement and welcome her to her new role. I also wish to acknowledge the significant contribution that the Grangemouth finally makes to the Scotland's economy. From my visit to Grangemouth earlier this month, I am meeting some of the workforce. I know how much they care about the future of the terminal. However, the news that shocked most people in November was no surprise to the Scottish Government. From an FOI response, we have seen that the disgraced former cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, met with Petroenios in February 2022, and his letter from April 2022, we could see that options were being evaluated and the Government committed to a just transition for Grangemouth workers. It is clear that they knew what was coming. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what preparation work was carried out between April 2022 and up to when the Petroenios announcement was made to protect the workforce, and why are options not further advanced considering that the Government has had two years to prepare? Unite the Union Survey of the Workforce found that 88 per cent of respondents said that politicians were not doing enough to protect and support jobs at Grangemouth. They have been let down by the Scottish Government, have they, cabinet secretary? I would open my response to Douglas Lumsden by reiterating something that has been put to me frequently even in the number of days that I have been leading on this matter, which is a plea from those involved to not politicise this matter. I urge Douglas Lumsden and his colleagues to resist the urge to do that. The point about when the Scottish Government was aware of matters, I was already very clear in my statement that we were informed of Petroenios' decision to begin preparatory works, assessing an import terminal on the same day as the workers and of the UK Government. I was equally clear in my statement that, as a responsible Government, we have been engaged for years with the owners and operators of Scotland's central industrial complex. Of course we have. It would be a complete dereliction of our duties if we were not engaged with them on that. Of course future planning is part of that, but it is crystal clear that the decision was made to us at the same time as it was to the wider community. My focus now is on doing those two things. It is one, maximising the opportunities for new and emerging technologies and minimising the gap between any transition and them becoming available. I welcome the cabinet secretary at place. In a portfolio that often talks about growth, it is good to see her leading by example with her expanding range of responsibilities, but this is a very serious matter. She was right to pay tribute to the workforce. She is highly skilled, and this is a profitable site. What she asks us not to criticise is to unite themselves in a statement released yesterday that states that they are angry at the failure of both the Scottish Government and the UK Government to bring forward proposals. When did the Scottish Government first receive an indication from Petroenios that this is a possibility? Secondly, what is the impact on the future footprint and possibilities, given the cessation of refining on the site? Finally, has the Scottish Government discussed whether there are steps that it could take to maintain current operations? In other words, have they asked Petroenios what it would take to keep refining at Grangemouth? Thank you. I am very happy to respond in similar terms to Daniel Johnson, as I did to Douglas Lumsden, which is to say that the announcement was made to the Scottish Government on 21 November 2023, the same day that it was confirmed to the workforce and to the UK Government and wider stakeholders. I want to reiterate, and this was something that I was keen to stress in my statement, how important the views of the workers at Grangemouth are and then being articulated through the unions with whom we have had considerable engagement. It will be my intention to ensure that that continues to be the case. It is their role on the Grangemouth Future Industry Board leadership forum, and it will be critical to the multilateral discussion that we need to have. On future activity, I have already spelled out how our intentions are to seek to maximise the opportunity for new and emerging technologies. The decision to consider preparatory works on an import terminal is one that has been made by the company against prevailing and expected global market conditions. I understand that it is one that will secure fuel supply in Scotland for years to come. Because of those combination of matters, my focus is looking forward and not back. I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement. For a just transition to be successful, the community must feel they are an integral part of the change. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary referenced them in her statement, but can she give more detail today on how they can be actively rather than passively involved? Any change can only be judged to be a success if it is delivered through people and not to people. I agree entirely with Michelle Thomson's sentiments. To me, the core definition of a just transition is for people and by people. That is why, in everything that we have sought to do in developing our Grangemouth specific just transition plan, we have sought to co-develop it. Co-develop it with those working and operating at the Grangemouth complex, but vitally with those living around it. The work that we have done to date on developing the plan has very much embedded the views of the community and is a constituency MSP. If Michelle Thomson has views on how we can enhance that, I would always be very glad to hear it. Equally, I think that the Grangemouth Future Industry Board leadership forum will continue to be a key forum through which we will hear the views of community, not least through local council leader and through Fourth Valley College and others. However, I am always interested in the ways in which we can maximise community engagement. I welcome the cabinet secretary to her new role. She did not make any mention of the hydrocracker. There was no information in the Herald on Monday about the hydrocracker. Can she comment? I worry that she is expecting too much of the Grangemouth Future Industry Board that she just mentioned. It is pretty much stacked with public bodies. Why is there no wider private sector involvement? What exactly is she expecting them to do and by when? What resources do they have at their disposal? The Grangemouth Future Industry Board under a previous formulation was about the coming together of public sector bodies to provide a united public sector front through which to engage with industry. It has been reformulated through consideration from the Scottish Government and recommendations from the Economy and Fair Work Committee to include industry. Petroenius is on that board, so I think that Mr Kerr may wish to revise his comments about industry not being represented. As regards the hydrocracker, Petroenius said in his statement to the Economy and Fair Work Committee that it is off-line because of operational issues. It is my understanding that the business is in the second root cause analysis and I will wait for the outcome of that. What assessment has been made of the potential impact of the closure of Petroenius Grangemouth on supply chains and associated business in areas surrounding Grangemouth such as Stirling? I understand Ms Tweed's interest in the wider economic impact. We are seeking to establish an analysis on the economic impact of the proposals. Owing to the complexity of the corporate structure within the companies, it is essential that Petroenius assists us in doing that. I am very pleased to say that it has agreed to work on that. That assessment will look at both the potential impact of closure, but equally we will consider how that could be mitigated by transferring to an import terminal, and I will also consider how it could be further mitigated by the coming-on stream of those new technologies that we are working to pursue. Cabinet Secretary tells us of meetings and correspondence. What the workers at Grangemouth want are not talking shops but workshops. They want action and not words. Can the cabinet secretary tell us the powers that the Scottish Government does have and is prepared to use to invest in infrastructure in energy diversification projects at the Grangemouth complex, including hydrogen, CCS and biofuels? How does the Scottish Government intend to apply those powers and on what timescale? I hope that it has been clear in my contributions this afternoon that we are very much working with the company, including via investment, to support the development of early studies in respect of the development of biofuel refineries and fuel switching. Those are the means that I believe that we ensure that we deliver a just transition for the very workers that Richard Leonard is rightly concerned about and that I am too. As we do that work, I will absolutely ensure that workers' voices, their unions representatives, are absolutely at the heart of the development of that work, because, frankly, there are many people who are engaged with this, many who have responsibility in respect of its delivery, and the coming together of all those actors is, I believe, the only way that we will make the progress that is needed. The head of the International Air Transport Association, Willie Walsh, warned recently that sites such as Grangemouth cannot produce sustainable aviation fuel due to regulatory barriers imposed by the UK Government. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what calls have been made by the Scottish Government on the UK Government to remove those serious regulatory barriers to allow the production of SAF at Grangemouth? After all, that is a viable and sustainable economic opportunity for the Grangemouth area. Presiding Officer, I am as enthusiastic about the prospects of SAF development Scotland as Mr Stewart is. He is right in terms of those regulatory barriers that have been identified to the production of a biofuel refinery. The most prevalent of those is the UK Government's proposed HEFA cap. The issue was raised at the recent meeting of the Grangemouth Future Industry Board by Petroenius. Scotland's energy minister, who is sitting beside me at that point, pressed the UK Government to give full consideration to the UK position and, particularly, any changes that could be made to support Grangemouth. After all, it sets us apart from the position prevailing in the EU, and Petroenius has been clear that it is a concern and a barrier to what it is seeking to do. I will continue the work that has been done by my colleague Gillie Martin and by Neil Gray to impress the UK Government on that. The GFIB board will be an appropriate place for us to do that. I welcome the cabinet secretary to her new portfolio. Many of the potential changes for the site in Grangemouth that the cabinet secretary set out will functionally change both working in and living beside the refinery. Could the cabinet secretary outline what work is under way to ensure that the current workforce where needed can be reskelled in the potential industries that she has mentioned and what work is being done given the proximity of the site to homes to ensure that those in the community know how any operational changes at the site will impact their lives and the local environment? I thank Gillie Martin and Mackay for the question. She is absolutely right, and it goes to the heart of what I have been seeking to stress, which is that there are many parties whose views and opinions are absolutely critical. I think that the point that she mentions about future skills is particularly important. That is why I am very pleased that 4th Valley College is members of the board, the multilateral forum through which we will take forward a Just Transition plan for Grangemouth. Equally, I stress again to her the community co-development that we have sought to be at the heart of how we do the Just Transition plan. To her, what I said to Michelle Thompson, which is that if she has any recommendations on how we can improve that, I will always be glad to hear them. The cabinet secretary seemed to indicate in her statement that there was quite a good working relationship with the UK Government. Can she assure us that that will continue and can she give us any update in relation to them? I believe that the UK Government's part in this is absolutely vital. If you consider the ambitions to consider bio refinery, you see that the HEFA cap is a potential issue. If you consider the ambitions to consider fuel switching, you can see how critical CCUS is to the development of that. Those are deeply intertwined, devolved and reserved issues. I also noted how the UK Government has been willing to provide substantial sums in the case of industrial transition in other parts of the UK, namely Wales. I would expect the same for Scotland. Minister Stewart has attended G-Fib on our request. I was disappointed to receive a letter from him yesterday that said that he did not think another meeting with me and that the Government was required in the meantime. I disagree and I will press him for another one. In any case, I will be hoping to see him at the next meeting of the G-Fib at the end of the month. There has clearly been a lot of activity, but Richard Leonard is right. It just sounds probably to most people in Grangemouth like a series of meetings, letters and dates for more meetings. People will not believe it until they see it, so can the minister be a bit more tangible with timescales and outcomes? Can she also set out what the commitment will be longer term from the company, including what the financial commitment will be? I understand the desire for haste, but equally some of the really important building blocks of a just transition for Grangemouth cannot be developed overnight. That is why I determined that the work that we do now, particularly with the board, is as focused and as business-like as it possibly can be to drive the change that Willie Rennie is right to push for. I think that it is important to note, though, that no formal decision has been made on the future of the refinery and currently nothing changes in terms of day-to-day. It is business as usual, as far as Petronius is concerned. Although the timescale for operational change has not yet been determined, you can understand that that means that the timescale for transition cannot be set in stone. What I am determined to do, though, is to ensure that we do the work now to minimise any gap between the transitions. I also welcome the cabinet secretary to her new role. She referenced in her statement the HEFA cap as being a barrier to the development of sustainable aviation fuel. The EU is currently considering a HEFA cap for EU member states with at least five EU members actively pushing for this in the EU. Is the Scottish Government's position that there should be no cap or, if it is agreeing that there should be a cap, at what level should it be set? Is that position shared with the SNP coalition partners in the Greens? I am aware of consultations on going. My view is that we should seek to minimise regulatory barriers that get in the way of Scotland's premier and industrial complex being able to undertake a successful transition. That pertains to the HEFA cap and to the coming-on stream of CCUS. I am not going to state an opinion on behalf of the Government today, but what I will say is that Petrinius has been absolutely clear that it is a barrier. I will use that multilateral forum to work through those issues and to seek to deliver that just transition, which I think we all want. The 40s pipeline system is a main artery that transports North Sea oil to the Grangemouth oil refinery. While the transition away from oil and gas is essential for Scotland's energy future, the potential closure of the refinery has implications for the North East energy sector. Given the lack of levers available to the Scottish Government that would allow it to invest, can the cabinet secretary outline what engagement has taken place with the UK Government regarding the broader impact that this decision would have on the wider Scottish economy, including the North East? The member is absolutely right to raise the importance of 40s presently. Historically, the vast majority of crude oil transported into Grangemouth via the 40s pipeline system is exported and not refined at Grangemouth, and that is according to market demand. It is my understanding therefore that the 40s pipeline system will continue to act as a means by which crude oil is extracted from the continental shelf and can then be sent via Crude and Bay to the Grangemouth industrial cluster and onward to Hound Point for export. I hope that that clarifies the position in respect of 40s. As regards that question of economic analysis, I referred an earlier answer to the work that is currently on-going with Petroenius in that regard. Thank you cabinet secretary. That concludes questions on the statement, and there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front benches to change.