 Fyelwch i gael i'r gweithio y ddweud y 2 ym 2024 o'r Econome i'r Ffair Worker Cymru. Fyelwch i'r Gweithio Ash Regan, MSP, sy'n gweithio i'r ffordd o'r sefyllfa. Mae'r ffordd o'r busnes yw'r ddych chi'n gweithio 3, 4, 5, ac 5 yn ffraith, rhai o'r cymdeithasol. Mae'r ffordd o'r busnes yw'r sefyllfa i'r ffordd o'r sefyllfa i'r ffordd o'r sefyllfa i'r ffordd. E seats the ministers here in the questions. Thank you, Good morning Minister, Can I just follow up on that point about when UK Government were first made aware of concerns over the future of the refinery? It has been suggested in recent days that the Scottish Government helped talks with PetroNS The energy sectorushra was warned of the potential closure of the refinery because of the market pressures the company face would it be fair to say that the UK Government were aware two years ago of the potential closure of the refinery Hampton Triennate because of these market pressures and obviously the Direction of travel that we are following when it comes to the energy transition? My understanding is that we we as the second 23rd in the Remember Go period A fyddo i'n gweithio oeddeithio meddwl, Oeddem yn gweithio i gyd, yn cymryd i'r blaffe, a'i'n ddïch yn dechrau i'r aches y dŷlch. A ddweud i ddweud cael hanes yn mynd i'n dda, ond drive a'r ddweud, neu ddweud ddweud desch yn ffosffort, felly yn cael ei grannu iawn ymlaen, ac oes yn cael ei ddweud, yn ôl wedi'i ddweud meddwl i'r blaff, ond rwy'n ddweud ei ddweud ei ddweud mewn ddweud i weld i'n ddweud i ddweud, than the general understanding that it wasn't profitable and something we need to be done either in the form of investment if they can make the numbers work or if we were aware that it was an unprofitable asset that it was possible but they would look to close or change it at some point but I don't think that had been said in terms... Okay, well thanks for that Minister. One of the challenges that we've had as a committee is really fully assessing the likely job impact it should be refining the yn y prifynedlaeth i'r 25 dyn ni. Felly, mae'n gwybod dda'r ffordd i 400 gweithio, ond oes y potensiol gwaith ymlaes yn y prifynedlaeth a'r busgach i'r busgach i'r ymlaes i'r ymlaes i'r ymlaesol, ond mae'n ddegi'r Ffyrdd yn ddigon i'r gweithio i ddegi'r busgach i'r prifynedlaeth i'r prifynedlaeth i'r 25 dyn ni? I don't think we do, obviously, economic affairs are devolved to the Scottish Government who lead on it. My understanding is that there are around 400 roles currently directly and that may reduce to around 100. That would suggest that it may be 300 direct jobs rather than 400, but you may be better informed than me. As I said, the Scottish Government leads on the economic peace. It does seem strange if we are trying to support the company and the community to transition that we don't really have a full grasp of the number of jobs that we do need to support. Is the minister confident that the new opportunities in the energy sector will be available in time for that workforce, whatever the number is, supply and direct jobs? Will the opportunities be available in time to allow them to transition to new opportunities in the green smoke area? That's an excellent question. The UK has a strong base of low carbon businesses to build on with more than 400,000 jobs in our low carbon business. There's a blend change across the country and a turnover estimated more than £41 billion in 2020. We expect there to be at least another 80,000 green jobs being supported in the pipeline because of government policies between now and 2030. I know the offshore wind industry alone suggests that roughly 30,000 jobs currently will be more than 100,000 just by the end of this decade, so there is a substantial increase in the number of green jobs. You'll be aware that Robert Gordon University suggested that 90% of the UK's oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector. Obviously, you can't get cast iron guaranteed where I can tell you that there is very high growth in transition-related industries, and therefore there should be every expectation that there's a good opportunity. In the Robert Gordon University report, we suggest that most people in the oil and gas workforce do have transferable skills, so that gives us a positive reason to be positive. Many of the opportunities that you talk about are, for example, offshore wind, Robert Gordon University up in the north-east of Scotland. However, what are the UK Government able to do to ensure those opportunities in the Grangemouth area for those workers, particularly those supply chain workers in that local community in particular? A transition shouldn't be about workers having to leave their community to find opportunities. We should be trying to create those opportunities in their local community. Again, another good question. One example would be of how seeking to support green industries in the supply chain is the announcement recently of £960 million for the green industries growth accelerator, and that will support the expansion of strong homegrown, clean energy supply chains across the UK, including in carbon capture, utilisation and storage, electricity networks, of course we're having a transformation of those, hydrogen, nuclear and offshore wind. There is a vast amount of work going on and investments being made as part of the UK leading the world as we are in decarbonising. Of course we've cut our emissions more than any other major economy on the planet and we are expected by the UN to decarbonise faster than any other major economy between now and 2030. That has seen hugely significant investments in a whole series of industries, not least carbon capture, which I expect to be an important factor in Scottish economic prosperity in the long term. We announced £20 billion for CCUS at the spring budget 2023 and the policies and ambitions we've set out leads to expecting around £100 billion of additional private investment in the period to 2030. There's an enormous amount happening and I know as I was until recently the co-chairman of the green jobs delivery group that one of the biggest challenges for us is to find the people to fulfil all the roles because so much is going on in this country to facilitate that green transition. I recognise the point that you can rightly make about specific workers in a specific area but your questions around that are probably better directed to the Scottish Government who have that local responsibility. I've already highlighted the support we're giving to Falkirk and of course we also have the fourth green free port which is made up of a large consortium of businesses focusing on manufacturing and green initiatives. I think that is going to encourage the generation of job creation in the region. I mentioned the £6.1 million from the UK shared prosperity fund for Falkirk Council and that will deliver a range of interventions that support local businesses, communities, people and skills. We are happy to work with Falkirk Council to look at ways that best support the community that's impacted. Of course we've also got a Falkirk growth deal supported by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government which has a firm focus on themes of innovative industry in great places. We've received £40 million of investment by the UK Government in projects that will create new high value jobs for the future and make the area a great place to live and work. In addition to those things, the UK Government invests through other programmes such as the levelling up fund and the community ownership fund to maximise the investment to an opportunity to engage with and other places like it across the country. The minister has limited time this morning. If I could ask members to be more direct on their questions and if the minister could provide brief answers, that would allow everybody to come in. I will allow Maggie Chapman to supplementary on employment before I move to Evelyn Tweed. Thank you very much, Clen. Good morning to the minister. Thank you for joining us. Just following on from the questions from Colin Smyth, you mentioned in your opening statements around maintaining opportunities for communities in the Grangemouth area and you also said in response to that final question around ongoing work with Falkirk Council to support communities particularly. Can you just say a little bit more about that? What specific work is under way that you are aware of that the UK Government is involved in to support not only the workers directly employed by and affected by Grangemouth, but the wider Grangemouth community? Well, I think I've just set it out as best I can between the fourth Green Freeport, the shared prosperity fund, the full cut growth deal, as well as the levelling up fund and the community ownership fund. Those are the key components. You'll forgive me as an energy minister for not. I'm clear to represent the UK Government and you can ask me any question you like and expect me to be able to answer it. Further than that is to the exact detail of how that is implemented, what the mechanics are of the relations between the local area and all the Scottish Government and officials in different parts across the UK Government. I can't claim to be fully aware of it. It's a pretty significant set of issues and it's against the backdrop of our transformation of our energy system and one in which according to Rob Gordon and others, one would hope and expect it would be a great deal of opportunity for the kind of skilled workers, trained in safety, trained technically, to be able to get new opportunities. I would certainly want to send a positive message to the local community and the individual workers that we are standing behind them. We're working closely with the Scottish Government, not at a nice draw or in some blame game. We're actually working together and seeking to do our best to help the community generally and I'm positive and optimistic for the future. Thank you very much for that. If I can just pick up one other thing that you mentioned in your response to one of Colin Smyth's questions, you said that obviously the UK Government, the UK is cutting emissions faster than elsewhere. One of the questions that the Just Transition Commission raised was around how we can ensure we don't offshore our emissions, emissions that have been associated with the Grangemouth shifting away from refining and those emissions actually taking place elsewhere. What would your answer to the Just Transition Commission on offshoring emissions be? Well, we've recently announced that we were going to bring in a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which the committee may be aware of. The EU is already legislated for, and that is where you effectively put a tax at the border to create a level playing field between operations within the border with operations outside that are not subject to the same carbon price. That's one of the keys and we've announced that we're going to be bringing that into following the EU. That's one method of that. But different things will close at different times. You can't follow every operation. Sometimes an operation will close. That will mean supply comes from somewhere else. Equally we'll be developing more of our own. Of course, the big context in refining is the expectation is that demand for oil and gas, not just in the UK, but across wider markets, will be falling over coming years. Therefore, European refining is expected to reduce. It's also in competition with newer and more efficient refineries in the likes of the Middle East, India and West Africa, which will further increase the pressure on European refining margins in the coming decades. That means we are likely to see further refinery closures, conversions through import terminals or conversions to buy refineries in that time frame. Seat vans and other measures like that are designed to try and make sure we have a level playing field. Otherwise, as you rightly say, we'll congratulate ourselves on the agreement. In fact, we certainly see higher emissions somewhere else. We don't need a supply of anything to be done with higher emissions elsewhere, substituting for a lower emissions system in the UK, which doesn't compete. That's exactly what we're seeking to engineer. Evelyn Tweed, by Gordon MacDonald. Good morning, Minister. What steps will the UK government take to extend the lifetime of Grangemouth? Thank you. Well, subsidising operations at the refinery is unlikely to be valid for money, as it has been loss-making for several years. We're working with the Scottish Government and Petroenios to understand all possible options for the future of the refinery. Grangemouth is one of Europe's oldest refineries, and Petroenios themselves say that its configuration makes it inherently inefficient, and that has resulted in Grangemouth bearing a higher unit cost of production than is borne by other refineries. Public subsidy, as well as not necessarily making economic sense, would also likely draw a legal challenge from its competitors in England and Wales, as well as from elsewhere in Europe. Whether investment in assets or infrastructure at the Grangemouth refinery to improve profitability would require significant capital investment, and that would be a commercial decision for Petroenios. They haven't approached us with a request for financial support, and so it is ultimately a commercial decision for Petroenios. We haven't been asked to contribute, and we don't see, at the moment without that, that it's an obvious thing that we should be investing in a refinery which the operator has unable to make a commercial case for further investment. Gordon Macdonald will be followed by Brian Whittle. Minister, I wanted to ask you about energy security, which falls 100 per cent within your remit. When oil was discovered in the 1970s, there were 18 refineries in the UK. There are now only six major refineries left. At the time of the closure of Teeside in 2009 and Coryton in 2012, the UK Parliament debt committee said that the loss of former UK refining capabilities may pose a risk to the security of energy supply as a result of increased dependence on imports. The international energy authority issued guidance that import dependence greater than 45 per cent is a high risk to a country's energy security. Looking at the situation back in 2012, jet kerosene depended 56 per cent on imports, diesel was 48 per cent and heating oil was 44 per cent. Given that more refineries have closed since that point and were down to six, if Grangemouth was to close that would take the UK down to five and there would be no oil refineries north of Leeds. Can you say what the situation is with energy security today, given the background that was flagged up by the debt committee back in 2012? Well, thank you for your question. The first thing is there, of course, just on one of the reasons that I will be taking through the offshore licensing bill to ensure that we have annual licensing in the North Sea, is that as that basins the clients and expected to fall with new licenses by 7 per cent a year, even with new licenses, our import dependency will increase. If we do not have new licenses, then we will undermine the UK oil and gas sector, we will undermine investment in it, we will undermine the ability to lower its emissions from production and all we will do is destroy oil and gas jobs in the UK while substituting them with oil and gas jobs in other countries because it will make no difference to our actual consumption. Which is coming down, as I was saying, a world-leading way, but nonetheless will continue for decades to come. Just to say on that, it's so important that we support the oil and gas industry in the UK and don't fall for the trap of thinking that it's not net zero compliant, it is falling faster than is required globally. It has a lower carbon footprint than bringing in imports, and it supports up to 200,000 jobs in the UK, most of which are in Scotland, and tens of billions in tax. Just if that's always top of my mind, because it's absolutely... By issuing more licenses, there will be more oil, but most of that oil is exported for refining, and then we have to buy it back in the international market. We are subject to currency fluctuations, which makes the price more expensive. My question is again, where do you see us with energy security in 2024, given the background of the DEC report, which said that any dependence of more than 45 per cent of any individual fuel is a high risk to a country's energy supply? Sure, I hear you, but effectively there is a European market. For historic reasons, as you will know, the refining of most UK oil takes place in other European countries, and then, as you rightly say, we then buy back the product. Our output, and the output that would come from new licenses, goes into helping European energy security of a market at which we are part. So it's just worth making that point. It seems odd to focus on energy security at the same time as not supporting maximising supply of gas and oil, which is local to us. If it's refined in other European countries, which is the vast majority of the dollars, 90 per cent, again, that is with friendly neighbouring countries, you don't have to get through the streets or whole moves in order to deal with that product. The UK already imports significant amounts of diesel and crude oil from a wide range of global sources, and given the diverse nature of supply of finished petroleum products, this transition does not make the UKs or Scotland's fuel supply inherently more vulnerable. So we can't accept the argument made from the DEF Committee at face value. We currently import crude oil from a variety of sources with the USA and Norway accounting for more than 66 per cent of crude oil imports in 2022. Other significant sources include north and west Africa. Similarly, the UK already imports refined petroleum products, diesel and jet fuel with the Netherlands, Belgium, India, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia being major partners. It's likely that imported products to replace the production at Grangemouth refinery would come from similar locations, although that will depend on the status of the market at the time. Across Europe, as I've said, the refining sector is expected to decline over the next 10 to 20 years because of this expected decline in regional demand alongside increasing energy costs and increasing carbon pricing and the growth of global competition that we expect that to happen. I've mentioned the more efficient refineries in the Middle East, India and West Africa. I'd rather say that means we're going to have more closures. The UK, in terms of the quality, which might be another concern, UK has strict regulatory standards that all fuel has to meet. Just to update you, you gave numbers on the imports as a share of demand. In 2022, petrol imports constituted about 25 per cent of demand, diesel 56 per cent and jet fuel 81 per cent. One of the benefits of our leading the world in cutting and decarbonising our economy is that we can reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels and we've seen the impact of being dependent on that economically over the last couple of years. That's why we are expanding renewables and the like, but we are still dependent on oil and gas for about 75 per cent of our overall energy needs right now, and that is as the most decarbonised major economy on earth, and we will need oil and gas in 2050 and beyond even when we've met net zero. As I said, that's why if you care about energy security and not supporting the 200,000 jobs and tens of billions of tax and the fact that our production has a level of emissions that imports is, to my mind, a crazy policy position and I urge all those who hold up to move. Can I ask you my last point about crazy policy situations? We were told by Ian Hardy from Petroenius when he gave evidence on the 13th of December that discussions were taking place with the UK Government on what steps it could be taken to ensure the refinery continues to operate. He also highlighted that in order to operate beyond May 2025, the refinery required investment of £40 million in order to have an operating licence in order to continue to refine. So, are you able to give us a flavour of what those discussions were? Given that, since oil was discovered in the 70s, the UK Exchequer has had £300 billion, surely £40 million is a drop in the ocean in order to secure energy supply in the UK given the figures that you've just given? Why not? I think maybe, and you're there to ask me the questions rather than me putting them back at you, but as I've said, if Petroenius can't see the commercial sense of investing in a refinery which they themselves have been unable to make profitable over a substantial period and that, shall I say, is inherently inefficient, I do not think that would be a sensible use of British taxpayers' money, especially as our estimate is that it doesn't change from being a refinery to an input terminal does not fundamentally affect the energy security of the UK or, indeed, of Scotland. I will allow Ashrygan to request a supplementary, would you? I'll allow you one supplementary before I move to Brian Whittle. Yes, good morning. I just want to follow on from the question that Gordon MacDonald raised here. Just last year, so that's the figures for 2223, the revenues from Scotland's oil and gas activity reached a record amount and that was £10.6 billion. It's flowing from Scotland's oil and gas activity into the UK treasury and it has been reported that it would take an investment into Grangemouth around about £80 million, and that would be to extend its life, but also to make it profitable, because that's also the discussion that we've been having here this morning. Does the UK Government not understand that in this context Scotland and the people of Scotland would reasonably expect a share of the revenues coming from oil and gas to be invested back into Scotland's infrastructure? Well, of course, the oil and gas industry is, you know, some of us in Scotland, but it's part of the one United Kingdom, and of course it comes in tax receipts to the government and has allowed the government to subsidise Scottish and every other household energy bills over the last few years. The expectation is that between 22 and 25 of cost of living support will be more than £104 billion, so we have one of the highest tax rates on oil and gas in the world, which is why I was expected to bring in £30 billion over the next five years in tax revenues, which of course would all be put at risk by those who refuse to allow new investment, new licentia. And we move forward with the new licentia and manage the decline of the North Sea putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs in the North East of Scotland and 200,000 jobs across the UK. So it is, we are absolutely right, we need to join that rational policy, which optimises both energy security and the welfare of our peoples. But Scott, can I just follow up very briefly? You talk about one United Kingdom, but Scotland, it's Scotland that produces 90 per cent of the oil and gas for the UK and it is Scotland that will be left with no refinery. Can the minister say they would be so relaxed about this if the boot was on the other foot and it was England that was having no capacity to refine oil? We make an assessment on, we are the United Kingdom government, we look at the numbers and assess the security for the whole of the United Kingdom, that's how we look at it. We don't look at it through some separate lens, we try and look at it where we treat everybody as having equal value and we work together and it's that union that of course has been a great strength of this nation for such a long time, a union which I'm confident will continue for many years to come. Thank you, we'll move on. Brian Whittle, to be followed by Colin Beattie. Thank you, good morning minister and thank you for giving us your time this morning. I wanted just to touch on earlier the increasing of the green free port policy and it has been suggested that there's future development such as potential for biofuel refinery at Green's Mouth. I know some of my colleagues are going to talk about potential for hydrogen, potential for sustainable aviation fuel. The Scottish Government has suggested that the planned import term was not incentivised by the green free port policy but that those other potential industries may be. So how can the Scottish and UK Government ensure that any activity benefiting from that kind of tax incentives in the green free port area represents the kind of additionality that we'd like to see? Well, I think as you rightly say, Mr Whittle, that Petronials said that there are potential benefits relating to a bio refinery at the Green's Mouth site in the future from the fourth green free port. Generally speaking, Scottish green free ports will support businesses to create high quality, well paid new jobs, promote growth and regeneration and make a significant contribution to meeting our net zero ambitions as well. The two Scottish green free ports, including the fourth green free port, have submitted their outline business cases which articulate their strategic visions to the green free port areas and are currently being appraised by both the Scottish and UK Government. Of course, the green free ports will extend the free port model being delivered in England, providing simplified customs processes, offering tax measures to incentivise private business investment, having carefully considered planning reforms to facilitate instruction and make it quicker to do, and additional targeted funding for infrastructure improvements in free port areas so that we can level up communities and increase employment opportunities. Of course, free ports will also have access to seed capital funding, innovation support and trade and investment support. In total, the UK Government is providing up to £52 million for the delivery of two green free ports in Scotland in close collaboration with the Scottish Government. It just occurs to me that, given my colleagues' conversations earlier on with you about trying to maintain high quality jobs within the community, incentivising those particular industries is a way of maintaining a high level of skill within the green free ports facility. Are the Scottish Government and UK Government specifically looking at those industries and incentivising those industries within the green port area to make sure that we don't need for that migration of jobs away from Grangemouth? Sorry, which particular industries were you referring to? Around things like using the Grangemouth facility for biofuels, for hydrogen, for SAF, that seems like a logical way in which we can maintain high levels of jobs at the Grangemouth facility. Well, I think there is, as you say with your colleagues who may come to that, there's a great deal of potential in those areas. We do recognise as well the Scottish League on the economic development piece, but I think both they and we, while promoting net zero and transition industries particularly, but trying to be as technology-neutral as possible, trying to create, is a framework, the incentives in which businesses of various kinds can come in and participate, because otherwise the danger is me sitting in my desk in White Hall, someone sitting in Edinburgh, thinking they know better than the market, which is the best opportunity in that area. But I think it's what I would say to that. But obviously we have, we are specifically supporting, we came up with our biomass strategy last year, we have SAF mandates being worked on and policy there, we are also working on hydrogen. So, the whole series of areas where we are specifically supporting and promoting, hopefully we will combine those kind of national level policies with the very specific support mechanisms that the green free ports can deliver, and we will see those industries being encouraged to be in the Grangemouth area and, as you say, ensure that the jobs come to the people rather than forcing the people necessarily to travel to the jobs. Colin Beattie, to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Thank you, minister. The committee has heard that the regulatory environment has to be right to support the development of a hydrogen industry in Grangemouth, and indeed across the UK, including regulation about the transportation of hydrogen, and I have two questions from that. First is, what is the UK government doing to ensure that both the Scottish and UK government's ambitious targets for the hydrogen activity are supported? And secondly, has the minister had any discussions with industry about the potential for hydrogen production at Grangemouth? Well, thank you for that question. We are working flat out because we can't see a route to net zero without hydrogen, and what we are doing is seeking to support, as we've been, I guess you can think of it in three parts, the production of hydrogen, because no one else is going to alter their processes until they know they've got a regular supply, so we're trying to do that. But really sure, those who are producing it will give or have a business model that means that they can invest even though they don't know about the demand side. Then we've got the transport element as well and getting the rules around that and the business model for that, and then the storage, as well as supporting the demand side as well. So, we are moving as fast as we can as a government, and we are, as you know, we announced I think in December 11 projects which are being supported, and we are looking to speed up our business model for transport and storage as quickly as possible. To give me, it's not my specific policy area, but the aim is that we will have open our allocation round before the end of this year while continuing to work in parallel with the business model so that in 2025 we will not only have a business model, but we will be able to allocate, quickly allocate and initiate work in the transport and storage space. And rather than waiting to do as a pilot, the aim is to try and come up with the right approach for the long term up front and get projects off the ground so that we actually have the production, the use, the transport and the storage happening and the infrastructure that needs to be built for that in up and running. As quickly as possible. That's the aim that, of course, looking forward, we expect to need a great deal more hydrogen going forward. The first thing to do is to de-risk it by showing that you can build it at commercial scale with all the component parts, and that's what we're working on. As to specifically around your range of math, I don't know specifically whether we've had those conversations, but our door is open to talk to any, every area, and we're keen to talk to people at political and technical level about the potential to develop a hydrogen economy, which would see as a big potential for the whole of the UK and Scotland as well. Thank you for that. Just to be absolutely clear, does that mean at this point there's really been no substantive discussions about hydrogen production in Grangemouth or the potential for that? I don't want to misinform you, so could I, if with your permission, I'll write to the convener on that and give you the answer. I'm not aware of the specifics, but I know that we have multiple engagements across many fronts on hydrogen in the CCUS and a whole series of other things, so I don't want to misinform you one way or the other. Thank you for that. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Can I ask you, minister, if the UK Government would be so hands-off if it was the folly refinery in Hampshire that was earmarked for closure and job losses? I don't recognise that we are hands-off. We have a devolved settlement with certain things on which the Scottish Government leads, but we're working closely with them. I'm turning up giving evidence today. I'm attending the board tomorrow with the Secretary of State who's met with people. I can see the politics of suggesting that we are hands-off when we treat Scottish assets with less interest than we do English ones. I could see to your agenda, but I don't think it's fair. I don't think, from the evidence I've given that you would support that as a case, I would hope we're very much hands-on respecting the roles of the parties concerned. I want to follow up on the hydrogen questions that Colin Beattie has just asked. One of the difficulties that there is in moving forward in terms of hydrogen, whether that be at Grangemouth or elsewhere, is the snail's pace of the UK Government in terms of setting out the regulatory regime for production, for transportation. Even for using hydrogen and injecting it into the natural gas supply. When will the UK Government be in a position, like some of our other competitors, to have those regimes in place so that we can get on with it? Mr Stewart, I already answered that when I said that we would have the business model for transport and storage in 2025, which is when we said that we would do it, and that we are bringing forward the start of the allocation process to this year so that we can move as soon as we have that business model developed. We're able to take it forward at pace, so we're actually moving more quickly than we originally set out. As I said, I'm not a particular expert on hydrogen, but I'm not aware in terms of the business models and development of that transport and storage of that many jurisdictions that are ahead of us. Perhaps you could enlighten the committee. We can maybe send you some of that detail, Mr Stewart. Again, you said that you don't have a way behind, but you can't give me a single jurisdiction that's ahead of us. I can give you jurisdiction where, for example, the Germans are injecting hydrogen into the natural gas supply, so there are examples out there, minister, as many of them are, and I'm sure we can give you more. You said in one of your answers that the UK is currently importing 81 per cent of its jet fuel, which, as my colleague Gordon MacDonald says, does not seem to ensure energy security. One of the other things that there has been a lot of talk about is sustainable aviation fuel. Can I ask you about the regulatory regime for SAF and how quickly the UK Government can move forward in that? Are there opportunities for Grangemouth and elsewhere in terms of the production of SAF once we get those regulatory regimes right? Thank you for that question, Mr Stewart. We want the UK to be a world leader in the development production and use of sustainable aviation fuel. We've committed to driving demand by introducing a SAF mandate from 2025, which will require at least 10% of jet fuel to be from sustainable sources from 2030. We've allocated more than £135 million to UK SAF production facilities, so we've been to Kickstarter domestic industry. We've launched the UK Clearinghouse to support testing of these normal fuels, and we're working with industry investors to build long-term supply. In September, we committed to design and implement a revenue certainty mechanism, and we are going to consult on the detail of this by the 26th of April of this year. But we recognise there are barriers to investment in UK SAF production given it's a first-of-kind technology. These include revenue certainty, feedstock availability, technology and construction. That's why we're providing grant funding to support technology and construction, and in September we committed to introducing, as I say, a revenue certainty mechanism by 2026. We also included provision in the Energy Act, which received Royal Assent on the 26th of October, that requires a government to publish a consultation on the options for designing and implementing that revenue certainty scheme. Within six months of the Energy Act, receiving Royal Assent, as they will publish that in April, there are different ways to design and deliver such a scheme. This will be the subject of the forthcoming consultation. The government is committed to working with industry on the design and development of the scheme, and we'll continue to look at any potential barriers to investment to ensure that we remain at a very attractive place for SAF production. Thank you, convener. Thank you. Marda Fraser, do you wish to have a question? Thank you, convener, and good morning Minister. I think Kevin Stewart just stole my question on sustainable aviation fuel, so I don't think I need to follow that up. Okay, thank you. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. Thank you to the minister for joining us this morning. I now close the public session and move into private session.