 Y Llywyddyn, ddwybreaker, rydw i'n rai o'r ddwybr y canfodol, o bobl yn arwineil y gael? Rydw i'n cael ei ddweud o'r cymdeithas o'r cymdeithas gwahanol ar gyfer y llyfr y byddai'n ymgafodol. Mae'r cymdeithas y byddai'n cymdeith y byddai yn y pwg 11396. Felly, nid i gilydd yn gweithio, ddim yn y intro. I will call you when I've done my bit. In the name of Stephen Kerr, on the future of Grangemouth oil refinery, this debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please prior to the request-to-speak buttons. I would just advise members, of course, that we are resuming it to 2 o'clock this afternoon for our further business, and therefore I would encourage members please to stick to their allocated speaking time. I appreciate that there's a lot of interest in important debate, but we do have to allow time for the staff to help to clear the chamber. With that, I call Mr Stephen Kerr. I apologise, Deputy Prime Minister, for the false start. Members will be aware of the shock, worry and frustration in the Grangemouth area following November's announcement on the future of Grangemouth refinery. I just want to put my cards on the table. I want to see the life of this refinery, which is actually one of the jewels in Central Scotland's economic crown extended. I'm going to use this member's business debate to ask the Minister some specific questions which deserve her considered response. Of course the global dynamics of oil and gas production have undergone seismic shifts with production waning in Europe while surging in the US, China, West Africa and the Middle East. Grangemouth was built in 1924, and I acknowledge that it now needs substantial investment to remain viable. Petroenius is looking into alternatives for the site, including an enlarged import terminal. Their deadline of spring 2025 for final decisions is little over a year away. I believe that government has a role to play in ensuring a successful future for this key part of our economy. The devolution settlement resulted in a complex intertwining of energy and net zero, meaning that both Governments have to work together for the sake of Grangemouth. I want to hear an assurance—I'm happy to give way to Daniel Johnson. I'm happy to give way to Daniel Johnson. I wonder if he might reflect on two points. First of all, while he's right about the investment required, this is still a profitable site, both according to INEOS and the trade unions, and I think that that's worth reflecting on. Secondly, I wonder if he'd reflect on the fact that the global context includes a situation where the US has already got a committed price for things such as sustainable aviation fuel and we don't have that from the UK Government. Daniel Johnson, thank you for his intervention. He pre-empts some of the issues that I'm going to come on to in my speech. I am going to make a serious point, and this is not a party political point, even though it may feel like one. I want to hear an assurance from the Minister that we aren't going to get into constitutional games playing on the future of the refineries future, and I give way to the Minister. Minister, do you want to ask? I just simply want to say that you have my absolute assurance on that both Governments have to work together for the sake of the future of the site. Stephen Kerr. I thank the Minister for that response. Both Governments must set aside whatever differences there are and embark on the task of crafting a comprehensive strategy that addresses two pivotal aspects. One is energy resilience for Scotland and the future of Grangemouth and the surrounding communities. A dialogue must be initiated—I think that it may already have been initiated with Petroenius—to unravel the true reasons behind their decision to close the refinery. Is it a joint decision involving both sides of the joint venture, or does it stem from factors beyond economic trends? A key piece of work in extending the life of the refinery would be to reinstate the hydrocracker line, which has been inactive since April. Daniel Johnson mentioned profitability. The hydrocracker unit is critical to the profit streams for the refinery. I am not going to pretend to be an engineer and I do not understand the processes, but what I do get is that the hydrocracker unit is the critical unit that produces diesel and jet fuel—too big, if not the biggest, profit generators for the refinery. That hydrocracker unit has not been working for a very long time, and getting it back online is critical to keeping the refinery going. I ask the minister what is the latest that Petroenius has told her about the hydrocracker? When will it be up and running and what are the issues preventing it from being restarted? The Grangemouth future industry board was set up with worthy intentions, but it is stacked with public sector bodies and there is no private sector involvement. They meet infrequently and the last meeting only lasted for an hour. So can the minister spell out what the Grangemouth future industry board is going to deliver? What specific task does it have? What are the deadlines? How exactly does it protect the future of the refinery? The workers absolutely need to be involved. Their voices need to be heard at every level, and local people and Falkirk Council all need to know what it is that the Grangemouth future industry board is going to do, because that board, or a functional replacement, must get to grips with the sustainable future that is required for Grangemouth. A good template for the strategy would be the UK 2070 Commission's T-side task force paper, working with businesses and universities. This is an example of how different bodies, public and private, can come together to address the kind of challenges that are now being faced by Grangemouth. What discussions has the minister had with our UK ministerial colleagues on sustainable aviation fuels and a biofuel future for Grangemouth? A key question is what are the regulatory barriers that exist to switch to biofuels? Can the minister reassure me that those barriers can be dealt with and will not put off potential investors? My preference, as I said, is for the plant to remain operational, but if, after all avenues have been thoroughly investigated, that cannot be achieved. If petrol engineers are still not willing to put in investment or some other private investor is not willing to put in the investment to keep Scotland's only refinery operating, we need to be ready with the right plan and we need to know the scale of the challenge that we will face. That means that we need a comprehensive economic impact assessment completed as soon as possible. We need to know the scale of what it is that we are dealing with. That comprehensive economic impact assessment must look at the detail in terms of jobs, GDP, the impact on council tax revenue, national GDP, employment and other considerations, and again the voices of workers must be heard. What timescale? My colleague Giffaway. Yes, of course. I am very grateful to Stephen Kerr for his analysis of what is required. He recognised that the impact on the supply chain is yet to be established and that is at least as important as what he is detailing there just now. Absolutely. That is why we need the comprehensive economic impact assessment. It is a vital piece of work. What timescale would the minister consider practical for the delivery of an economic impact assessment? When will it be completed and published? The term just transition is bandied about a lot in this Parliament, but I know from my conversations with representatives of the workforce that that term actually provides cold comfort to most workers. Yes, some jobs will be delivered fairly quickly. Some already have been, but the risk of highly skilled, highly paid workers losing their jobs and leaving the area is a devastating prospect for the local economy and for Scotland's economy. However, we must be honest and acknowledge that anything resembling a full just transition away from fossil fuels is going to take decades. The Grangemouth just transition right now for the workforce in that community feels like a blunt injustice. The Grangemouth Refinery is not merely an industrial facility, it is the beating heart of Grangemouth and its surrounding communities. I implore both Governments to do all they can together to keep the Grangemouth Refinery open, including giving serious consideration to Government-backed investment. Finally, let us in this place put aside political colours and favours and work together as we should to ensure that the lights of Grangemouth continue to burn brightly. I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to please check that they have pressed the request-to-speak button. I would also remind members that it is backbench speeches of up to four minutes. I call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Graeme Simpson. I am pleased to speak in this important debate today and I thank Stephen Kerr for his reflective comments. Let us hope that the debate continues to bring more light than heat. I am a fferocious protector of my constituency of Falka East, including Grangemouth. I would like to reflect that the Grangemouth community is quite remarkable in its resilience and they deserve praise for the pragmatic way in which they have sought to play their part in shaping their future. This can only be a worrying time for the workers too and I commend the effort of the unions involved thus far. Grangemouth is indeed the beating heart of both an industrial past and a greener future. Those who describe the refinery as a national strategic asset are right. Those who have concerns about energy security are absolutely right. Those who say that we must do all that we can to retain it as an oil refinery are not wrong, but my focus must be on all that we can to ensure that the entire industrial cluster around Grangemouth continues to thrive both now and for the future. What do my asks look like? First, I was pleased that Graeme Stewart, Minister of State for Energy, Security and Energy and the UK Government, indicated his willingness to look at all options for the refinery. We wait to hear what more support they will offer and it may be that the minister can give more insight on discussions thus far today. I know that the UK Government will offer financial support to strategically important industrial commercial ventures who are loss making and I draw attention to the UK Government grant of up to £500 million for the port Talbot site run by Tata Steel UK. I pay tribute to Michelle Thompson for the work that I know that she is doing to support the community that is her constituency. Does she agree that the economic impact assessment would be a cold shower for all of us if we realised what the impact of losing the refinery would be with no replacement, no continuity, so that work would allow us to see proportionally what it is that the Government needs to do and what that might look like in relation to the cost that might arise because of the closure of the refinery? I absolutely agree and I too will reflect on that in my speech. Another barrier that I have highlighted previously is about enabling the site to be modified to become a biorefinery and to use the likes of sustainable aviation fuel and I note that this is something that Graeme Simpson pressed Graeme Stewart hard on at a previous visit to the economy committee and I agree with Mr Simpson that it cannot be right of the eight potential sites considered thus far none of them are in Scotland. Any measures will require a pause in starting the work to convert the refinery to an import facility and I call on Petroenius to extend their timescale to allow us all to reach a positive outcome. Petroenius has a moral duty to Graeme's mouth and that vital cluster that surrounds it. I know that the Scottish Government and its partner agencies are undertaking considerable work and indeed, as has already been mentioned, mapping current supply chains, we not only get a proper impact assessment for today, we also gain a much deeper understanding of what economic policy measures can be taken for tomorrow. So proactively enabling supply chains is a fundamental part of enabling a just transition. Graeme Stewart is an important part of developing our target operating model and although I realise that it belongs in another brief, maybe the minister can give more information on work under way in both of these areas. Finally, whilst I was on the economy committee, we raised questions about the purpose governance and membership of the Graeme's mouth future industry board. I'd be interested in hearing the further thoughts from the minister about how she sees this vital body developing. Graeme's mouth is absolutely fundamental and I want to put on my record my disappointment at the about turn from the potential next Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. The latest announcement to drop the £20 billion energy fund had contained vital promises for Scotland. Those included £1 billion to modernise Graeme's mouth and the suggestion of around 50,000 clean power jobs. Obviously, that has an immediate impact but the vital mood music that the UK is serious in attracting global investment is severely lacking. To that end, I encourage a very clear proposition from the Scottish Government about our ambitions and I'm sure that the minister will have reflections on that. Thank you, Mr Thomson. I call Graeme Simpson to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by thanking Stephen Kerr for bringing his debate to the chamber and I welcome the tone of the debate so far. I was also disappointed to hear the announcement by Petro Ineos last year. I, like Stephen Kerr, would like the refinery to continue. If there is any way to achieve that, we should do it. Stephen Kerr is absolutely right that this needs to involve both Governments. The UK Government certainly has a very strong role to play, but so does the Scottish Government. I think that they need to work together. Michelle Thomson, who I was privileged to be a member of the economy committee with and she refers to our, well actually we did a report on just transition for the Grangemouth area. It contained a number of recommendations, one of which was around the Grangemouth Future Industry Board, which has already been mentioned. I think it's fair to say that we, as a committee, were very frustrated that there was no private sector involvement in that board and we found it, frankly, rather secretive. In fact, in the words of the committee report, the committee calls for more clarity on the role and purpose of GFIB and what it is intended to achieve. When I was on that committee, I repeatedly mentioned the role of a sustainable aviation fuel, probably every meeting. I'm probably, frankly, bored the pants of other members who, at that point, probably didn't know what I was on about, but eventually they did. Now everybody is mentioning SAF, and I think that SAF could actually provide a future for Grangemouth or part of the future. My frustration, as Michelle Thomson has already said, is that Grangemouth was not one of the places that earmarked to produce SAF. Frankly, there should be somewhere in Scotland making it. There is nowhere at the moment. We did come up with a recommendation, which said that there needs to be legislation for a price support mechanism for SAF to accompany the mandate that may be required to incentivise private sector investment in the UK and Scotland. In other words, the UK Government, in this case, needs to create a market for SAF. I gave Graham Stewart quite a grilling when he appeared before the committee. Rightly so, that's my job. The UK Government really needs to do that because we need to create a market for SAF. We need to be looking not just at SAF, but at hydrogen as well. I think that there are opportunities there. I am not completely downcast about Grangemouth. I am disappointed with the announcement that was made, but it can have a strong future. Just to close, Presiding Officer, nobody has yet mentioned the Grangemouth flood protection scheme, and I think that that is really important for the wider economy. Michelle Thomson and others know that I have recently written to Mary McCallan about that. She has responded to me, and I have shared her response with others. She has committed to setting up a task force. Mr Lumson is groaning, but if he sees the tone of the letter that I am happy to share with him, it is quite positive. I would like to see that task force set up. I want to see the UK Government involved as well, because that scheme needs to go ahead. I thank Stephen Kerr for securing time to speak about this important topic. Indeed, I think that he set out the basis for today's debate incredibly well. This is about investment. It is about energy resilience and, therefore, the future of our economy and about ensuring that we genuinely have a just transition, not a chaotic end to key elements of our economy. Subsequent to that, both Michelle Thomson and Graham Simpson set out some very important points to flow from that. If we are going to have a just transition, we need to retain the critical skills that we have and the critical skills that we undoubtedly have at Grangemouth. We need to be looking at what our future energy requirements will be, including things such as SAF. I would also like to reflect a little bit on the workforce. I have met them twice since the announcement, both once before Christmas and one thanks to the drop-in that was organised by my friend Richard Leonard. What has struck me is their composure, focus and seriousness at a time when many of us would just be outraged and angry, because that is a profitable site. Those are highly skilled people, people who thought that they were being trained for a future, one that would enable them to learn skills and therefore provide opportunities for themselves and for their families. They are seeing that, potentially in jeopardy. I am very happy to go for it, minister. I just want to reflect on what Donald Johnson is saying. I certainly get the impression, having spoken to the unions, that the workforce holds the key and the answers to the future of that in terms of the ideas that they have around how their skills can be deployed, particularly in the area of becoming a bio-refinery. I think that it is really important that we retain those skills. I pay tribute to their focus and their commitment to ensuring that there is a viable site at Grangemouth. Let's make no mistake. That is an incredibly important site. There are only sixths large refineries in the entirety of the UK. That will see a major loss of capacity. I think that we also need to reflect on not just the fact that this is important for future requirements such as bio-refining or the production of SAF, and I think that these are important elements, but we have to remember that not all refined products are for fuel. As much as 50 per cent of every barrel of oil leads to products that are not about fuel, such as pharmaceuticals, dyes, plastics and other products, we may be seeking to reduce our reliance on them, but those are going to be products that we will be relying on long after we hopefully stop burning oil. Oil is an important product, and refining is going to be an incredibly important part of that process. We all need to reflect on what has happened here. Ineos has essentially made a decision based on cost. It is profitable, but not as profitable as other sites. We need to ask why they have made that decision. Although I think that it is fair to say that a large degree of confusion is to be precise with those factors. However, it is not just about pure profitability, it is also about stability. We need a plan. I think that that has been a theme across a number of—oh, I am very happy to go back to the show. Thank you very much for giving way. It seems slightly ironic to me and I wonder if he agrees that even if they decided ultimately to move to an import facility, they are still dealing in the same market. That makes me question what is going on, because it is a market itself that is not going anywhere. I even do question the need for or the talk of around spring 2025. I wonder what his thoughts are. I agree with that. I think that we need greater clarity. I do not want to cast aspersions. I think that the workforce is very clear about that. However, I think that if we could understand the basis for the decision, we could provide help. In conclusion, I think that we do need a plan. Other countries have price commitments around things such as SAF that enable investment. Likewise, we need stability around the regime that surrounds this area. I think that changes in policy from Governments and potentially future Governments do not help. We need consistency and stability so that businesses can make confident investments. I am grateful for this parliamentary time, because previously we had one urgent question, and I note that there is a statement, but this is a topic that needs parliamentary time to discuss these matters. I thank you very much. I thank workers, unions and the local community for their thoughts, opinions and concerns about the announcement and the future of the site. Having grown up in Grangemouth and managed only a mile further up the hill, I know how important an issue that is to the entire area. I am angry on behalf of the workers and the community that the announcement was given weeks before Christmas. The bottom line, which, as we have already heard, has been questioned of this company, has been put before the workers and the impact on the community and the timetable, as has been questioned across the chamber, seems arbitrary to say the least. There is a lot of uncertainty and worry across the community, and I know that there are local small businesses worried about what it means for them. We heard from the drop-in organised by Richard Leonard that workers who are parents are concerned about their job security and what that means for uprooting their families. The ripples of the announcement reach far and wide in Grangemouth itself, as well as more widely across Falkirk. As we have already heard, there has been industry on that site for nearly 100 years, and I am sure that there will be industry on the site long after any of us in this chamber are still here. The conversation that I believe we need to be having now, as well as how we continue jobs there for the short term, is what that industry for the future is, what it looks like, how we get there and what it means for workers and those who live close to the refinery. To do all that, we need to save the jobs and we need Government support in that. It is clear that, if we leave a just transition to the companies involved, it just won't happen. We need certainty and quickly to stop potentially highly skilled people from leaving their jobs. We need time for those dedicated and skilled workers to be able to transfer or change their skills to whatever comes next, and we need meaningful engagement with the community as to what they would like to see on their doorstep, which has not happened over the site so far. Unions want to engage with Petroenios and the Government to explore the reasoning behind the company's decision and what can be done to support workers, and if everybody has not already, I would encourage them to read the briefing from Unite that came in earlier this afternoon. I also believe that the owners of Petroenios and Petrochina, if they have not already, should come to the site to speak to workers and explain their decision. I believe that we need to see a just transition, which is what the workers want to see in their briefing this morning. The site is moving to industries that are better for both people and the planet, which are well paid and have good terms and conditions. I am very aware that there are a range of opinions across the chamber as to what form that next step takes, but I hope that, for the community and the workers watching today, they know that their representatives, including myself, are not taking that line down, that we are committed to saving their jobs and providing a bright future for Grangemouth going forward. Thank you, Ms Mackay. I now call Stephanie Callaghan to be followed by Richard Leonard. I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for securing today's debate in the future of Grangemouth oil refinery, and I agree with him that Grangemouth is indeed a jewel in Scotland's crown. Since its establishment in 1924, Grangemouth refinery has been a steadfast pillar in Scotland's energy landscape, being the main supplier of fuel to Scottish airports and Scottish petrol stations, and, importantly, has provided a foundation to generations of families from the fall beyond, who have worked there since its establishment. However, today, we are here to debate a new reality, the potential closure of the oil refinery, a decision driven by economic realities such as growing international competition and environmental considerations that carry weighty implications. I want to say a little about learning from the past. The impact of Margaret Thatcher's deindustrialisation in my Odinson and Bale's Hill constituency remains profound. Once thriving with coal mines and steelworks, Lanarkshire underwent a tragic transformation with mass unemployment that plunged communities into persistent poverty, which still impacts them today. Communities were stripped of their identities and stripped of hope, with scars that generations will never forget nor forgive. Considering Grangemouth, a town already burdened with high levels of social deprivation, the potential closure threatens to exacerbate existing struggles, as we have heard. Simply put, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Grangemouth needs and deserves a just transition. While Petroenio's decision was driven by commercial factors, we must not overlook the profound concerns regarding the workforce and the regional economy. The Fraser of Allander institute has projected a GDP reduction of approximately 0.25 to 0.3 per cent for the Scottish economy. An announcement deemed both significant and worrying. Furthermore, any jobs lost are not mere numbers. They represent families' livelihoods, and there will undoubtedly be ripple effects, as we have heard, across the wider community. I wanted to ask Stephanie Callan if she agreed that it is very important that we get a proper quantifiable understanding of the impact that the closure of the refinery would have, because that will help to scale what the Government can do and what the Government thinks it can afford in terms of any intervention that might extend the life of the refinery or give us the opportunity of a bridge to the just transitions that she is talking about. I would certainly agree with that. When any decision impacts the livelihood of communities, it is imperative that the Scottish Government step up and facilitate a just transition at peace. That means the provision of high-quality jobs, enhancing the community's prosperity and the safeguarding of the community's wellbeing being rightfully placed at the forefront. A just transition also brings the opportunity to chart a new course towards a fairer greener future for all. Given its history as an industrial hub, Green's Mouth is uniquely positioned to emerge as a centre of green innovation. I am very appreciative of giving her a way. I think that the situation that we now find, if we carry on working in this very collaborative way, which I am personally very heartened about, and I agree with both Governments and I agree about impact assessment, it can actually frame out an opportunity because we have known for some time that the complexities around putting meat in the bones of a just transition are considerable. Does she agree with that? I absolutely agree with my colleague Michelle Thomson on that one. I think that we are all going to be fair. I am moving on to that anyway. It is really good to see the Scottish Government's commitment to collaborating with operators throughout the Grangemouth cluster to spearhead new low-carbon initiatives, including carbon capture utilisation and storage, hydrogen production and bio refining. Everything that is possible must be done to create the right circumstances for Grangemouth, evolve into a flagship for sustainable energy production, and bolster Scotland's ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2045. However, to ensure that those future low-carbon opportunities are realised with equity and fairness at its heart for the people who live and work there, continued collaboration will be paramount. The Scottish Government must continue working with industry, workers and communities to combine shared economic, social and environmental objectives. Like others today, I would also urge the UK Government to continue collaborating on a truly optimal future and meaningful prospects for Grangemouth. While the establishment of the Grangemouth Future Industries Board marks a promise to start, the UK Government must, as we have heard, focus on lifting the UK-wide barriers to sustainable aviation fuel. In closing, we must secure Grangemouth's future from a financial, environmental and social perspective. Through a just transition that embraces innovation, sustainability and compassion, we can shape a positive trajectory, one that recognises Grangemouth as a valuable asset that can propel the Scottish economy forwards towards a cleaner, more resilient tomorrow. Listening, collaborating and meaningfully engaging with effective communities, workers and industry will be key. Two weeks ago, the First Minister, unfortunately, laid the foundations for a blame game. Grangemouth's hard workers and the wider community cannot be left at the mercy of the UK Government in action, he opined. The key powers lie regrettably at Westminster. I will stand second to no-one in demanding that the conditions are created for a sustainable aviation fuel policy for the UK and one that will generate jobs in Grangemouth, but the message that I bring from that wider community, from those hard workers, is that they do not want to be a political football between two opposing Governments or, indeed, between Government and Opposition. At this time, in their hour of need, when we are ready—I'll take an intervention. Minister. Thank you very much. I hope that Richard Leonard has said what I said in response to Stephen Kerr for the early doors in this debate in that regard. Yes, I do, and I very much welcome that commitment that's being given, but I did think that it was worthwhile reflecting on the position of her boss. We are at a time when the workers are in their hour of need, and when we are deciding on our future energy requirements, so they want both Governments and all parties to be on their side working together for the common good. They want an extension to the operation of the refinery, they want the hydro cracker restarted, they want investment and jobs, they want transition and protection, they want ambition and hope. Petroiniost themselves say that nothing changes until spring 2025, so there is still time for the Government to commit to supporting a programme to extend the refinery's operation and to invest in new technologies, such as biofuels and sustainable aviation fuel at the site. In my discussions with the refinery workers, it has not gone unnoticed that the Cabinet Secretary has variously called Grainsmouth, and let me quote him exactly, an ageing site. To emphasise the point, the refinery is more than 100 years old, he has told us, as if we are dealing with a dilapidated, decrepid, obsolete, antique technology that hasn't had a penny spent on it for over a century. The closure of the refinery and the opening of an import terminal was, he said, in any case, a commercial decision, which will future proof the site, as though we were dealing with a world based on rational decisions, but we are not. The Grainsmouth refinery is not uneconomic. It is not making a loss, it is making a profit. I say in plain terms to the Minister that it is a strategic national asset. These are strategically important manufacturing jobs. This is a strategic national energy supply, and its future should not be determined by offshore billionaires or overseas governments. This is Scotland's only refinery. It is linked to the Forties pipeline. We should be refining and manufacturing our energy, not simply importing it, because never in economic history has there been an import-led economic recovery. So let us finally see from this Government an industrial strategy, which is jobs first, people-centred, manufacturing-led, environmentally sustainable. If that means a stake taken out in this enterprise by the Government, that is what should happen. Those workers need not just words but action. They need political leadership, they need an economic strategy and they are looking to this Parliament and to this Government to provide it. Before I call the next speaker, I would advise that due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept emotion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I now invite Stephen Kerr to move a motion without notice. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I now call Ash Regan to be followed by Monica Lennon. I commend Mr Kerr for securing the debate and for his thoughtful contribution this afternoon. Grangemouth is a strategic national asset for Scotland. Decisions regarding it need to be taken in that light. Crude oil is refined not only for fuel but for feedstock chemicals that are used right across our economy. Scotland, of course, produces 90 per cent of UK oil and gas and has just one refinery. To contextualise just how profitable the oil and gas produced in Scotland is to the UK, last year saw a record £10.6 billion in revenue flowing from Scotland to the UK treasury. When I had the opportunity to question the UK energy minister Graham Stewart on this just a couple of weeks ago, he admitted that the revenue from Scotland's oil industry is funding reductions in energy bills for the whole of the UK. I wonder if other members were surprised to hear from him as I was several weeks ago that, up until that point, the UK Government reported had had no approaches from anyone seeking funding for a rescue package. £10.6 billion a year as an industry is hugely valuable of course to the UK economy, a country state rather of 67 million people. If we imagine just for a moment how much further that would go and what we could do with it in a country of just five million people, so Grangemouth needs investment to save it and to make it profitable into the future and it's estimated that the investment that is needed is around about the £80 million mark. £80 million is but a drop in the North Sea compared to the billions upon billions that Scotland's oil and gas industry has poured into the UK treasury. £80 million is in fact only 0.7 per cent of last year's revenue, not even 1 per cent of a year's revenue. Scotland only has one refinery, the rest of the UK has six but it is the Scottish one that is marked for closure. And if Grangemouth is to be no more, Scotland will find itself in the very uncomfortable position of being the only top 25 oil producer globally with no refinery. The only one, this is a disgrace. Would she agree with me that by using a language like Grangemouth no more, however, it completely ignores the fact that Grangemouth in the refinery has great deal of potential if we get this right and we invest some of that oil and gas revenue into its just transition to perhaps a biaf refinery? I don't completely agree with that, no. My imagining of a just transition, the just part, is about the people. In the future that the Government is imagining, the people with the skills will largely be lost to the site if it is turned into some kind of import terminal. Also, Scotland needs to have a refinery once it is independent. We must continue to have a refinery, we must refine our own oil in it, not produce it and send it away and then buy it back at a premium. Of course, this is also an energy security issue. Reliance on global markets creates insecurity for Scotland, which is simply absurd for an energy rich nation. This is not an issue for the Government, any Government, to sit there and shrug their shoulders and just say, oh well, there's nothing we can do. The Scottish people expect more and they expect better. The UK Government and the Scottish Government must find some vision and some ambition and work together to secure a rescue plan. The UK Government must provide the funding and the Scottish Government must wake up and find a backbone. Anything less than that will be a betrayal of the workforce and the country. We cannot stand by and see more of Scotland's key assets lost. History tells us that once they are gone, they are gone forever. We can't stand by and see a key strategic asset lost to us forever. Monica Lennon, who will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond to the debate. I refer to my register of interests as a member of Unite the Union, the GMB and other trade union activities. I join colleagues in thanking Stephen Kerr for securing this important debate time today. I echo my Scottish Labour colleague Daniel Johnson, who is right when he says that the Scottish Government needs to devote some of its time to bring a fuller debate to the chamber, because that allows a fuller debate and more parliamentary scrutiny. I was about to mention them, but I'll take the minister. Will he be able to provide that opportunity next week when the cabinet secretary is delivering a statement? I say that it's up to the bureau to decide whether or not that's extended and of course you all have people who go along to bureau. I also just say that we're in recess next week. Monica Lennon. I will be guided by you as always, Deputy Presiding Officer. What I do welcome from the minister is that commitment that she gave to Stephen Kerr at the very start of the debate is that what workers and the people of Grangemouth and indeed the people of Scotland need is that collaboration between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, but all the key stakeholders. Before I go on to make a few other remarks and I will be really brief, I think that Stephanie Callaghan was really right to bring us back to what matters here. It is about people and their families, it is about livelihoods so we can get caught up in the big economic picture here, but this is about people and we need to hear their voices too. I'm not a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee so I'll defer to colleagues who were part of the inquiry looking at just transition for Grangemouth, but I think it is important and significant that the committee did that piece of work. I think that the report is very good and some things have been addressed, but I was concerned to read at the very top of the report. I was disappointed to learn that Ineos turned down the committee's opportunity to give evidence. I'm not sure the reason for that, because that would have been a good opportunity to set out and get on the record what work the company is doing to contribute to Scotland's net zero targets. Yes, of course. I really appreciate it, thank you, but just to be completely accurate, it was ineos that the committee approached rather than petrol ineos, so just to make that distinction. That's useful clarification, but I think that the report mentioned the Grangemouth Future Industry Board, which I understand has been recently repurposed. I think that Graeme Simpsons touched on that, but there are definitely questions in there about getting the right people around the table, including the potential role for the Scottish National Investment Bank and again people from the community, including the workers and trade unions. I know that, recently, the UK Government has held the repurposing of the future industry board as an opportunity for both Governments to come together. I hope that that is a spirit, because, as we have heard today, this is largely being consensual in its cross-party. When Richard Leonard hosts a recent draw-pin where we met with United Shop Stewards, they don't want to hold politicians to account, but they want us to work together in the national interest. I know that time is short, and I have taken a couple of interventions. I will conclude by saying that, when we heard from Derek Thomson, the Scottish Secretary of Unite, he said that every option must be on the table. As we try very hard to build a just transition for workers and communities, we have really got to get our act together collectively. Every option must be on the table, but we need a planned approach. We have heard about the importance of an industrial strategy. That has been lacking, but today we have heard that commitment for joint working. Let us see what happens after recess. Thank you, Ms Leonard. I now invite the minister, Jolene Martin, to respond to the debate. I just nearly did this all out of a week's recess. I apologise. In the spirit of Monica Lennon's contribution and her final words, every option must be on the table. Possibly should be the phrase that we keep in mind as we go forward here. I want to thank Stephen Kerr not only for bringing this to the chamber but for the extremely constructive and collegiate speech that he gave and for his general attitude and also everyone with the odd exception that has carried on in that spirit. My colleagues are all right. The wider Grangemouth area, the wider Falkirk area and the community are watching what we say in this. We all have to put our shoulders to the wheel and look at every option. I fully believe that, although the announcement has been greatly worrying to the people who are currently working in the refinery, that we have everything to gain if we get this justice. This is a test for us. This is a test to make the first test of justice transition if we can keep the refinery open in some shape or form. I want to reflect on—before I go into what we have been doing in Government—I want to reflect on some of the things that have been asked of me. We need to look at the barriers of deployment for a buyer refinery in particular. In coming to Mr Kerr's point about that, he will probably be aware—if he is not, I can certainly send him details on the recommended that he gets in touch with colleagues at Petroines—about the regulatory barriers that they have identified to us that are there about becoming a buyer refinery in terms of the HEFA cap. The HEFA cap is, of course, the cap that has been put on, the use of the crops that would provide feedstock for a buyer refinery. At the moment, the UK Government has said that there is a cap on that. It is quite complex because it is about food security as well, about how much percentage of crops can be used for a buyer refinery. I want to reflect on what has been told to me by executives at Petroines in this regard. They have said that, if the cap is lifted on HEFA, they could transition to a buyer refinery very, very quickly. They are already doing an appraisal phase of the buyer refining, but they have also said to me in the meetings that we have had that staff could be very quickly trained within, I think they said, six months, but I could be wrong on that, but it was a very short period of time that I have taken into account. I am very careful use of the word could, but would that be part of their intention? Is that part of their intention? Is it beyond words? Is it a would rather than a could? That is all the same question that is best put to them because they are making commercial decisions, but I very much got the sense that, if that option was on the table and that the HEFA cap was looked at again by the UK Government, Graham Stewart was in that meeting as well. He said that it was not within his portfolio arrangement. Obviously, that goes into a wider agriculture portfolio, but certainly I myself, the cabinet, two cabinet secretaries, both Mary Gougeon and Niall Gray, have written to follow up on that on behalf of Petroines, because that is what the workforce wants as well. They are ready to go, and that could secure the future for it. I also want to mention about the economic impact assessment. It is absolutely vital, but just as vital is the just transition plan that is action-focused and makes an assessment on the economic gains for the site and the wider community if we were to change to any of the options that are on the table. That is just a bit important. I see that as being part of the Grangemouth Industry Forum Board remit. I am very grateful for the Minister for Giving Weight. I wonder if those two points come together in an important way. It is well and good to talk about just transition and a need for a plan, but unless they draw in things such as the HEFA decision that she mentioned, but other decisions that may lie in other departments, we do not really have a plan. It really needs to be joined up. After all, there is an investment gap because peak oil was 20 years ago, but we only have 10 per cent of our installed offshore wind-generating capacity. It is a really important point by Daniel Johnson. I was going to come on to that because we also talked, and Graham Simpson talked about this, about the market, the market for what they would actually be producing, particularly sustainable aviation fuels. I am just a little worried about what is happening in the Scottish Government space around that. We have actually got a working group with Manny Macallan set up with the airports of Scotland. Indeed, the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, is actually meeting with airlines and airports in Scotland as well about that market, but Grangemouth has the potential to be a leader in the UK in providing sustainable aviation fuel. If you look at our climate change targets for both Governments, what difference would that actually make? If the airlines and the airports are willing to put the set out their stall in saying, we will take on this product, then what difference would that make in terms of the sustainability of aviation in the future? I want to mention a couple of other people who have made a Gillian Mackay impact on the wider Grangemouth towns economy, and that was backed up by Stephanie Callaghan. Those lessons in history are absolutely important. The chamber will know that I am a child of Clydebank, who suffered the same kind of situation that Stephanie Callaghan did. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. The nature of the Grangemouth site is quite unique in how close it is to the town and where people live. Will she commit to involving the community, as that is in some cases across a road in a grass verge from people's houses, that she will commit to involving the community in what the site looks like and what comes next in the impact on their living environment? I think that that is a really important consideration. At the moment, the Grangemouth Future Industries Board has the unions involved, obviously it has petrol unions involved, but it also has the council involved and community councils as well, so that is possibly the conduit, but if it can be widened out in some shape or form, I am up for that. I also want to say in terms of the Grangemouth Future Industry Board. I was at the first meeting that we had there and we actually thought that we need to have more frequent meetings and we are ready outlined as well and we also need to look at the scope of what we do and maybe even potentially have some subgroups around that as well and also be action focused, not a talking shop, actually looking at the plans for the future and looking at how we are lifting the barriers off that. Emerging technologies such as hydrogen production, bio refuils manufacturing could sustain that refinery. It could provide jobs for the existing workforce, but also for the future workforce of Grangemouth and the wider area as well. Business cannot do this alone. Commercial decisions get made, but I am so heartened on the tone of this debate about both Governments working together. Myself, Graham Stewart and John Lamont were in that meeting and the Cabinet Secretary, Neil Gray, off the back of that meeting. Myself and Neil Gray wrote to the UK Government ministers to follow up on some of the assurances that they had given us that they want to be fully involved in protecting the future of that refinery. Before she concludes, can she comment on the issues raised about the hydrocracker? That seems to me to be a vital component in extending the life of the refinery, as it is. On the economic impact assessment that a number of us have spoken about, has the work on that begun? Does she have an estimation as to when that might be produced? Simply because I think that it will give all of us a huge impetus to make sure that what we are talking about in relation to transition actually happens. I will wind up a bit, but I want to thank the same care for reminding me that I was going to come on to the hydrocracker. There is actually not much I can say because it is commercially sensitive, but we do know that the site operators are working at pace to get it back online as quickly as possible. That is really all that I can say. That has come from themselves. It is absolutely fundamental. At the point about the economic impact assessment, that has actually been done by the group itself. Obviously, we have got our officials involved in the assessment of the economic impact as well—the Scottish Government assessment. We have got Scottish Enterprise involved as well, as you would hope. From my point of view, everything that has possibly been done to look at what we can do as Governments and agencies and the private sphere as well to realise the potential of the site that is ideally located geographically, has a long history of providing fuel and energy security for Scotland and has the most expert workforce whom we cannot afford to let down for the reasons that all of you have said in this debate today. You have my assurance and the Cabinet Secretary's assurance that we in the Scottish Government will work with whoever has solutions to prolong the life of the refinery.