Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning, gentlemen. I have a couple of quick questions to get clarification, so that I understand exactly where we are. We understand that, at some point, you will no longer be importing and refining crude at the plant, but you will be importing refined fuel into the plant. What assessment have you made of the impact of that on the decarbonisation process?

Also, will you clarify how that potentially impacts on production of hydrogen and SAF at the plant?

You said that you have an offtake for the blue hydrogen that you produce at the plant. Is that a particularly promising area for development of the site? Looking down the line, do you have potential for much greater offtake of hydrogen?

Have you thought about moving to green hydrogen production? Do you have the capability to do that?

If you were to play back an earlier part of the meeting, you would find that one of the witnesses said that they could increase capacity at Grangemouth and use that at other sites in other areas.

We are behind the curve on the development of hydrogen and offtake in this country, but we have a huge opportunity. Yes, currently, production takes place at the site and the offtake is at the site, but it was mentioned that the capability is there—with the right policies and the right support—to develop more for other areas.

Just to be clear, the blending level is around 10 per cent currently but it could go up to 20 per cent. Is that right?

I have a final small question on an issue that has been niggling away at me for some time. Did the hostility that seems to be being heaped on the oil and gas industry at the moment have any impact on the decision-making process?