Extracts from Scottish Parliament - Nov 22
|
Stephen Kerr (Central Scotland) (Con) On a point of order, Deputy
Presiding Officer. Members will be aware of the news that broke
this morning, as announced by Ineos and PetroChina, that they
intend to close the oil refinery at Grangemouth by the spring of
2025. Members will also be aware that that would end Scotland’s
capability to refine petrol and diesel at scale and increase our
reliance on facilities south of the border or, indeed, abroad. Let
us not forget that...Request free trial
Stephen Kerr (Central Scotland) (Con) On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Members will be aware of the news that broke this morning, as announced by Ineos and PetroChina, that they intend to close the oil refinery at Grangemouth by the spring of 2025. Members will also be aware that that would end Scotland’s capability to refine petrol and diesel at scale and increase our reliance on facilities south of the border or, indeed, abroad. Let us not forget that the Grangemouth plant makes up 4 per cent of the entire Scottish gross domestic product. Thousands of jobs are reliant on the plant, and the entire supply of petrol and diesel— Mr Kerr, could you please get to the bit that engages the standing orders of the Parliament? I am coming to that very point, Deputy Presiding Officer, because this is a very important issue— Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. I appreciate how important the issue is, but I am trying to ensure that the standing orders of this Parliament are respected. A point of order must trigger a standing order of the Parliament. I implore the member to please indicate further to which standing order the member is making the point of order. I was just coming to that point. Thousands of people’s jobs are reliant on the plant. I am giving context. Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. With all due respect, I understand very well the context. I am asking the member to indicate specifically what his point of order is. My understanding of points of order is that the member has a number of minutes to explain what they are seeking guidance on— Mr Kerr, could you please indicate what you are seeking guidance on? I am seeking guidance on the fact that we need a ministerial statement on this matter. I am asking you, as the Presiding Officer, and I am somewhat surprised about how my point of order is being dealt with, if I may say so, because— Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. I will not take any implicit or other criticism of the chair. I understand that the member seems to be seeking a ministerial statement. I am quite happy to address that request. The member will know— I was coming to that. If I could perhaps finish my comment. The member will appreciate very well the various ways in which matters can be raised in this Parliament. On the issue of a ministerial statement, I imagine that he would perhaps wish to discuss that matter with his party business manager, so that the party business manager can seek to raise the matter with the Parliamentary Bureau. On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. A further point of order, Mr Kerr—[Interruption.] It is all right for you all to sigh, but there are literally thousands of jobs— Mr Kerr, please address the point of order that you now wish to make. Had I been allowed to make the point of order that I was making— Members: It was not a point of order. It was a point of order. I remind members that there are literally thousands of people whose jobs are on the line— Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. I— Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. Mr Kerr has indicated that he is seeking a ministerial statement. I have indicated to Mr Kerr how that can be pursued. Mr Kerr wishes to raise a further point of order, which I am happy to hear, but I wish to be assured that it is a point of order that engages the standing orders of the Parliament. Thank you. My simple point, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that my understanding of the standing orders is that I have a couple of minutes to explain the context for the point of order that I am raising. You allowed me very little time to make this important point of order. I repeat that, despite all the muttering from the Scottish National Party benches, this is a very important matter for my constituents, thousands of whose jobs and livelihoods are on the line, as is the whole economy of the area. Yet, I am granted a few seconds to make a point of order. Mr Kerr, it is now 14:04:37. What is the next point of— I have tried— What is the next specific matter pertaining to the standing orders of this Parliament that the member, by pursuit of a point of order, wishes to invoke? My point of order is as I have expressed it. I am making the point that, under the standing orders of this Parliament, a member is entitled to two or three minutes to explain the point of order— Well, Mr Kerr, I would point out that we are already— —and I was not allowed that privilege. We are already at 14:05. [Interruption.] We are at 14:05. I think that there has been a good—[Interruption.] I think that there has been a good exploration of the issues that the member wishes to raise. There has not been. The member’s point about seeking a ministerial statement has been noted, by everybody in the chamber, I am sure— But not the why. —but, of course, the way in which the member can best pursue that— Not the why. I really would not appreciate the member continuing— Not the why. Mr Kerr, please desist from challenging the authority of the chair of this Parliament. Please have the courtesy to do that. As I was saying—[Interruption.] As I was saying to Mr Kerr, who continues from a sedentary position to challenge the authority of the chair, and who is, in my view, also being extremely rude, the member knows well how a matter can be pursued. That is through his party’s business manager. I suggest that he may wish now to have that conversation. Economic Growth 3. Paul O’Kane (West Scotland) (Lab) To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the reportedly stagnant level of economic growth. (S6O-02751) The Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy (Neil Gray) The cost of living crisis continues to impact the ability of households and businesses to spend, which, in turn, affects the wider economy. Despite those extremely challenging economic conditions, the Scottish economy remains resilient. Our national strategy for economic transformation contains bold and ambitious actions that will deliver fairer, greener prosperity for Scotland, making our economy more sustainable and resilient in the longer term. Similarly, our new deal for business is about creating an environment that supports a wellbeing economy, maximises the opportunities of the green economy and helps businesses to thrive. Although we remain tied to a failed United Kingdom economic model and do not hold all the financial levers that are needed, we continue to use all the powers that we have to grow a fair, green and growing wellbeing economy that meets the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland. The cabinet secretary spoke about resilience. The news from Grangemouth this morning is deeply concerning. It is a huge blow to those communities, as it affects not just the thousands of jobs at the site but also jobs in the supply chain. There are significant issues in Scotland with stagnant growth, and less well-off areas are growing more slowly than better-off areas. The news will have a significant impact on not only the regional economy but our national economy. When was the Government made aware of the announcement by PetroIneos? What discussions has the Government had about it? Crucially, what action is the Government taking to protect and safeguard jobs, move to a just transition and keep the Parliament informed? I will, of course, endeavour to keep Parliament informed of updates on discussions with PetroIneos. The decision that has been taken by the company is a commercial one. We were informed last night that it intended to take that decision, and there was no timescale on it. We were given reassurances that PetroIneos had fully consulted the workforce before going public. As Mr O’Kane would expect, I am endeavouring to have further conversations with PetroIneos in short order, to understand how this will operate. We have been given assurances that the changes that PetroIneos is looking to make at the Grangemouth site are about ensuring a sustainable future for industrial work at the site and ensuring that there is a long-term future for jobs and investment in the area. That is what we would expect, and I am incredibly exercised about ensuring that that can take place. I will continue to liaise not only with PetroIneos but with the UK Government, which has a locus here, and I will update Parliament in due course. I have received requests for supplementaries from four members. Given the issues that could be raised in relation to this question, I will seek to take all four, but I hope to have brief questions and answers. Colin Beattie (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) There is no denying the economic impact of Brexit. However, as the ever-increasing damage of leaving the European Union continues to mount, it seems that Labour and the Tories are keeping their heads in the sand. Can the cabinet secretary provide any update regarding the latest assessment that the Scottish Government has made of the impacts of Brexit on economic growth? Will he join me in calling on Opposition members to wake up to the reality of those impacts and to join us in standing up for Scotland’s place in Europe? Yes, I can. I appreciate that question from Colin Beattie. Brexit has caused economic devastation to Scotland and the UK. The UK’s inflation rate in October 2023 is still higher than the rates in France and Germany. In a recent survey of small and medium-sized businesses in the UK, most respondents said that Brexit had affected them negatively. In March, the Office for Budget Responsibility repeated its expectation that the UK’s gross domestic product will be 4 per cent lower in the long run due to Brexit. It is clear that the costs of Brexit outweigh any costs of UK membership of the European Union. Joining the European Union as an independent nation would offer Scotland the chance to regain what has been lost because of Brexit. Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) With 4 per cent of Scotland’s GDP dependent on the Grangemouth refinery, does the minister not see that the Government’s rhetoric towards the oil and gas sector—matched by the rhetoric from Keir Starmer’s Labour Party towards that sector—is not helping to support an essential part of the Scottish economy on which hundreds of jobs will depend? The decision is a commercial one that has been taken by PetroIneos. The age of the site causes a challenge in terms of what is required for the future. My understanding of conversations that have been had, and from the conversations that I have had with PetroIneos, is that the decision is about ensuring that there is a long-term future for the site, which includes ensuring that it moves to more sustainable operations. As I said in response to Mr O’Kane, I will look to engage in further discussions with PetroIneos. We will ensure that Mr Fraser and other members are updated on discussions not just with PetroIneos but with the United Kingdom Government, which has a locus in the issue as well. Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD) What is the point of having an economy secretary if he does not know what is happening to one of the major employers in this country more than 24 hours in advance of a decision? Surely he should be integrated into the company and understanding what is going on. If a just transition is to mean anything, we should have had a plan ages ago. Does he have a just transition plan for the plant? What is he going to do about it? Yes. Work has been on-going over a long period to engage with PetroIneos and the Grangemouth site to ensure that there is a sustainable future for it, in exactly the ways that Mr Rennie describes. That is about ensuring that there can be a sustainable future to provide jobs and that there is continued industrial capacity at Grangemouth. We will continue to engage with PetroIneos and the UK Government, which has a locus in the issue, and we will update Parliament in due course. Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Can the cabinet secretary advise members which economic levers that are currently reserved to Westminster would help to boost economic growth the most if they were devolved to this Parliament and which of those, if any, the Labour and Conservative parties have committed to devolving and would help to save Grangemouth? I appreciate that question from Kenny Gibson. The Scottish Government has consistently argued for the devolution of migration powers to the Scottish Parliament, which would help us to attract working-age people and their families, thereby ensuring that our businesses can access skills and people, and meeting the needs of the parts of Scotland that are most at risk of depopulation. The UK Government has blatantly ignored those calls on more than one occasion, despite the fact that the UK’s immigration system is not designed to meet the needs of Scotland and is having a damaging effect on our economy and communities, especially in rural areas. We also continue to call on the UK Government to devolve employment powers to this Parliament so that we can introduce the real living wage and boost the rights of millions of workers across Scotland. I hope that the Labour Party supports those calls. However, with the full powers of an independent country, we would, of course, do much more. |