Chamber and committees

Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention?

I simply point out that initiatives such as the flood prevention scheme are being critically constrained by cuts in the Scottish Government’s budget. There has been a 20 per cent reduction in capital. Can Sarah Boyack commit to an increase in capital so that those vital projects can go ahead?

I thank Claire Baker for that. She is absolutely right. Perhaps I had not been clear; I was noting that, despite capacity building being clearly mentioned in the report on the north-east and Moray, it did not come up from our members today. Claire Baker is absolutely correct.

The last area that I did not hear much mention of was national outcomes. There is still a lot to discuss, therefore.

I will pick up on points that jumped out at me. To refer back to the convener, we have heard much comment about the refinery contributing 4 per cent of Scotland’s GDP, but that has been fairly firmly rebutted by Mairi Spowage of the Fraser of Allander Institute, who noted that

“chemical AND petroleum production accounted for 1.1% of Scotland’s economic output ... So the figure ... is likely to be much closer to ... 0.25%- 0.3%”.

I note those figures merely for accuracy, because, in reality, we all agree that the impact of the loss of the refinery will be significant.

As regards the convener’s opening remarks, I emphasise and put on the record my disappointment that Ineos declined to give evidence to the committee’s inquiry. I think that Gordon MacDonald commented on that in his contribution. That was an unfortunate decision on the part of Ineos, because it then lost the opportunity to put the good work that it does on the public record.

Also in the context of matters that the convener mentioned in her opening remarks, I am glad that Alasdair Allan has cleared up the uncertainty over financial transactions.

Speaking of Alasdair Allan and his summing-up, I highlight one point that members sometimes forget as we conduct our debates. We are trying to ensure that Scotland is positioned to compete in global markets in areas where we have an ability to do so and where we can differentiate ourselves. He made that important clarification.

Murdo Fraser made an interesting throwaway comment when he queried what serious options for sale were being considered. I know that I brought up that aspect myself. We do not know the result yet, because any discussions by the relevant parties are private, but there might be other buyers in the marketplace. I simply reflect that we must always be mindful of such doors being open.

Thank you very much. I probably was not loud enough.

Sarah Boyack mentioned Brian Leishman. Is she supportive of his call on Sir Keir Starmer to nationalise the refinery?

Will the member take another intervention?

I made it clear at the time that I had signed a non-disclosure agreement. I have also put on the public record that, at that point, which was several weeks ago, the right people were talking to the right people. That is the only thing that I can confirm with authority. The honest answer is that, beyond that, I do not know.

I had better move on, because I know that I have only eight minutes in which to make my remarks. Lorna Slater’s contribution included a useful summing-up and explainer of the implications of land use for biofuels. I certainly learned something from that.

Kevin Stewart always makes his point well, and this time it was about investment allowances.

I quoted from an article in The Sunday Telegraph on industry. Members might argue about that, but it is important to continue to make that point.

Stephen Kerr made an important point about energy security. We might take a view on that, but we need to be aware of it.

A theme that has cut all the way through the debate is the complexity of what we are trying to do. This is really difficult stuff. People are using the term “litmus test”. However, we are not alone here in Scotland—this is a global challenge that many countries will face. Perhaps we sometimes forget that in the course of our debates.

Richard Leonard gave a characteristically spirited contribution, which I enjoyed as I always do, and Gordon MacDonald gave his usual calm reflections on matters. Graham Simpson put it on record that I was with him on the discussions on sustainable aviation fuel. We will continue to consider that aspect.

All in all, I have found it to be a most enjoyable debate, and I am glad that I got in my tuppence-worth through interventions. That is my summing up on behalf of the committee.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member give way on that point?

I appreciate the member giving way, because I have been trying to intervene on a number of members today, to point out and remind people that the scale of the required investment, as set out eloquently by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, was something that we did not consider at the point that we did the inquiry but which is utterly critical to understand. Arguably, Mr MacDonald is right about the £28 billion. However, it is not just £28 billion that is needed; many more billions of pounds than that are needed.

Speaking on behalf of the committee will be an interesting departure for me. I am pleased that I got a chance to get my tuppence-worth in earlier, so I thank members who allowed me to intervene.

Obviously, there are two reports about which members have spoken, so it might be useful to reflect on themes that were delved into comprehensively by a number of speakers, and areas that perhaps surprised me a little in that they did not come up so much.

It goes without saying that many of our speakers spoke about what a just transition is. From the start—with Murdo Fraser referencing a vision—we, rightly, had a lot of references to community. The relationship with GFIB came up as well.

Given the key thematics in the report on Grangemouth, we did not really delve into the impact on small and medium-sized enterprise and wider supply chains there and in the wider area. I often quote people’s references to Grangemouth as a “drive in, drive out” economy—a DIDO economy. That reflects the fact that the wealth is felt in Glasgow and Edinburgh because, often, people commute. Maybe we could consider that more.

The last things that we did not talk about so much, perhaps, were the Acorn carbon capture and storage project and the green freeports. We need to look at the matter in the round.

When it comes to the north-east, we had a lot of discussion about the detail and the specifics, but there was an element—a thematic—in that report about capacity building. I did not pick that up—I apologise if somebody mentioned it, but I did not hear reflections on how we would do that, although we had a lot of discussion about budget cuts and community and societal impact.