Seòmar agus comataidhean

Let me play that back for the record, so that I am clear. The projects that were specifically for Grangemouth were already in train, and the Scottish Government’s £10 million is going to them. The remaining £10 million of the £20 million in extra funds arising from the closure of the refinery is in the hands of the UK Government for future energy-related projects, and we do not yet know what those are.

It follows on from a point that my colleague Kevin Stewart made in noting a term that was used. I think that it was a bag full of—

However, PetroChina, with Ineos being at the heart of that, wants to move away now. The Scottish Government has called for a pause in the company’s plans to move to an import-only facility. The company is at the very heart of the growth, and its wish is to close the refinery. That is clearly quite a conflict of interests. In other words, the company is at the very heart of devising the programme that is in its own interests, and I was asking you how you are consciously dealing with that. It sounds to me as if you have not reflected on the idea that there could be, at least, the potential for a conflict of interests, even if one is not currently occurring.

I have a few questions arising from what we have discussed so far, and I suppose that they follow on from the point about the differential structure in the programmes and the references to a flat profile.

I want to come back to Malcolm Bennie with a question, although it might well be a general question for the rest of the panel, too. How are you able to reflect “Events, dear boy”, if you like? I have already mentioned what happened with the refinery at Grangemouth, which resulted in the Falkirk growth deal receiving extra spend—£10 million from the Scottish Government and £10 million from the UK Government—and being rebranded as the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. To what extent was that a last-minute bolt-on response rather than an active, planned part of the growth deal?

I apologise to the rest of the panel. I suspect that that discussion has been a bit Falkirk specific, but I hope that you will forgive me, given my vested interest. Thank you, convener.

You are highlighting, I suppose, the upside of being able to utilise the shared learning around a PMO—the downside is the change management processes that come with that.

I want to pick up on a point that my colleague Kevin Stewart made when you used the term “added GVA”. I am not going to have another go at you; I simply note that, with regard to the announcement by PetroChina, the figures that we have for the impact on jobs is that more than 400 direct jobs will be lost, and the Scottish Government has referred to a wider impact amounting to nearly 3,000 jobs. That surprises me, given that—you can correct me if I am wrong—the £10 million from the Scottish Government for greener Grangemouth was in essence for increasing community wellbeing, instead of specifically seeking to replace jobs. There was reference to the supply chain, and some of the businesses involved were SMEs that provided hamburgers and so on nearby. What are your thoughts on the decision-making processes that led to the focus on community wellbeing rather than jobs, which was the point that Kevin Stewart was making?

Good morning, minister. You might have already mentioned this, but this is just so that I am clear. You are saying, in relation to the mismatch between the lists, that you are seeking to see in the bill the same list of what is specifically devolved and set out in the 1998 act, but that the UK IMA could override that, regardless. I think that that is the point that you made earlier. In that case, what is the point? How are you seeking to address the matter? We know that a most comprehensive cross-party report was done here in Parliament, which set out a wide range of issues in relation to the UK IMA. Beyond the lists matching, what are you doing to make the point about the UK IMA in the light of the situation and the complexities therein?

You rightly made the point that it is an enabling bill—a framework bill. You will be aware that there has been quite a lot of discussion in the Parliament about framework bills and what they enable. Efficiency and effectiveness has been discussed, and there has been scrutiny by MSPs of the matter in the chamber and in committees.

Have you given any thought to how you will ameliorate the potential risks, if Scottish ministers have the potential to give consent, but still ensure that the appropriate scrutiny can take place, given that framework bills limit effective scrutiny in the chamber? That is, in general, considered to be an issue by members across the committee.

That was it—thank you.

My question is for Malcolm Bennie. With regard to the governance of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, while it is ostensibly more simple because only Falkirk Council is involved, it is also more complex, given that Ineos is at the heart of the area’s future, and Ineos’s vested interests will therefore come to the fore. From a governance perspective, how are you consciously addressing that?

If Ineos is on the board, it is clearly influencing it at that level. I would not necessarily expect it to be involved in delivery, but it is a key influencer by merit of its being on the board.