成人快手

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 19 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1622 contributions

|

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

You rightly made the point that it is an enabling bill鈥攁 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 成人快手 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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

That was it鈥攖hank 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鈥檚 future, and Ineos鈥檚 vested interests will therefore come to the fore. From a governance perspective, how are you consciously addressing that?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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鈥檚 拢10 million is going to them. The remaining 拢10 million of the 拢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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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鈥

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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鈥檚 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.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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 鈥淓vents, dear boy鈥, if you like? I have already mentioned what happened with the refinery at Grangemouth, which resulted in the Falkirk growth deal receiving extra spend鈥斅10 million from the Scottish Government and 拢10 million from the UK Government鈥攁nd 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?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

City Region and Regional Growth Deals

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

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.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Budget Scrutiny 2025-26 and Economic and Fiscal Forecasts

Meeting date: 10 December 2024

Michelle Thomson

You have commented that the amount of capital funding that is available is much clearer but that the rate at which it can be spent is less clear, because it is front loaded. Does that add to the overall opaqueness?