::Given the immediate and severe impact of the ending of the investing in communities fund, could the First Minister tell members when community organisations will be informed about the transitional funding or bridging arrangements that will be provided to prevent the collapse of vital local services?

I have been made aware that Dr Bell’s community centre in Leith, which supports more than 600 families every year, will have to close its doors because of the abrupt withdrawal of that vital funding, which will leave families without the essential support that the community centre provides. Will the First Minister make a commitment to listen to those organisations across Scotland that are facing collapse, to give clarity and to act now?

This is an important debate. SAF is important because one of our key climate emissions in Scotland is air travel. It makes up 4.5 per cent of our total emissions, with transport at 16 per cent. How we power our planes is absolutely vital going forward. Although short-journey flights could be powered by electricity, SAF is an absolutely key part of our long-term solution, so the requirement to have increasing amounts of SAF to fuel our planes is vital.

I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, its clerks and the witnesses who gave important evidence to the committee. The fact that the committee is happy for legislative consent to be given to the relevant provisions in the bill is significant. I watched the committee’s evidence sessions, and it interrogated the issues that were raised by witnesses very effectively.

If we do not produce sustainable aviation fuel in the UK, we will have to import it. That would be a massive missed opportunity in terms of jobs and our economy, but having to import low-carbon sustainable aviation fuel would also be an energy security issue for our aviation sector. I believe that we need not only to agree to the LCM today—agreeing to it is important for giving confidence and clarity to the sector—but to support the opportunity to produce SAF in Scotland.

As the convener of the committee said, the recommendations included in project willow could enable investment, which would mean having highly skilled high-quality jobs in Grangemouth, lowering our carbon emissions and enabling a supply of SAF in Scotland that could be transported to our key airports.

Last year’s commitment by the UK Labour Government to invest £200 million was vital in supporting progress at Grangemouth to deliver innovative low-carbon outputs and jobs. As the committee discussed, it is vital that we develop innovative production methods for the use of biogenic CO₂ and green hydrogen, for example—it is critical that we use our low-carbon electricity in Scotland to deliver green hydrogen—and for the use Scotland’s timber and wood waste as a sustainable feedstock for second-generation bioethanol, which can then be used for fuel blending for SAF.

Unite said that we could deliver those ambitions by the early 2030s, but it is absolutely clear that we need to give investors the confidence to invest now. Other countries across the world are investing in the technology to be able to produce SAF, so we need to produce it, too. This an opportunity to lower our carbon emissions, which, as we regularly discuss, are deeply damaging, create high-quality jobs, deliver energy security for our aviation sector and allow Scotland to lead the way in delivering innovative SAF production.

Agreeing to the LCM is important, but I hope that the Government uses this opportunity to keep working with the UK Government, bring potential investors together and update Parliament. The issue is not going away, and it would be useful to keep it on the Parliament’s agenda. It is a huge opportunity that we cannot afford to miss out on.

I have a bit of a cold, so I hope that my voice will not disappear. What have the benefits been of the significant increase in renewables over the past 10 to 20 years? What lessons have been learned with regard to those benefits? I also want to ask about where we have missed out, but perhaps we can start with the benefits. I will go to Claire Mack first, as she represents the sector.

I will follow up on the question that the convener asked about the extent to which the instrument will incentivise businesses to invest now, given the changes that are going to take place incrementally, but actually quite significantly, over the next few years. I was thinking particularly about the hydrogen sector and the discussions about grey, green and blue hydrogen. To what extent will the instrument support investment now because these changes are taking place?

I will ask a question that I was going to ask much later, because it fits in here.

That leads me on to my next question, which is about the community benefits and community ownership angle.

Professor Hannon, you said that there was a missed opportunity there and that we were not moving forward in relation to how we get the right community benefits that will benefit people in the way that is needed. Is there not a mix of community benefit opportunities and community ownership opportunities? For example, at a recent cross-party group meeting, we heard about Point and Sandwick, which has huge community benefits compared with other projects. Is there a way for the Scottish Government to encourage more community or shared ownership of renewables projects, so that the focus is not just on community benefits but on community ownership, which could involve councils, individual communities or co-operative models? How could that be delivered in practice?

I did, convener, because I had not heard of a correction slip either, so I wanted some clarification on it. It is useful to have had that clarified on the record that such a matter can be addressed in two ways. Neither is significant, but as long as the solution gets the support of all four nations, it will be workable, and the committee will be informed. Having that on the record is really important.

Yes, I have a follow-up question. I appreciate the comments that Gemma Grimes has just made; indeed, I know of constituents who were about to put in heat pumps and then, when the funding for the solar went, they stopped. It was all about joined-up thinking—it was about getting an incentive and then making that investment. That raises issues about supply chains and, potentially, jobs and confidence, so I very much agree with what you have just said.

You also mentioned the just transition. Some research out there suggests that, if people on lower incomes had solar panels, it could result in quite a significant benefit to their homes. Should we also be looking at homeowners in this respect, too, and trying to more solar in situ right across the sector, as it will be good for the economy, help the just transition and bring down climate emissions at the same time?

There is also turbine production. You mentioned Berwick Bank. We could build the kit in Leith. How can we provide certainty and ensure that that actually happens? That involves not only approving a project, but ensuring that the renewables developers follow on, do the manufacturing and develop the supply chains. They will have the confidence once their project has been approved.

Matthew, would you like to respond on what opportunities exist, what we have delivered and what more we could have done?