 Fe fyddai'r gwaith i'r gaelio'r gweithio'r gweithgafno i'r gwneud i chi'n dweud i'r cembaith yw'r mewn. Mae gydigodd i'r gweithio'r gweithgafno i'n ddiddordeb yn bwyf, gan eich gweithio'r Gweithgafno i'r gweithgafno i'r parlymynydais, roedd yn cael eu cyflosfawr o'r anonwch i'r gweithgafno i ddiddordeb yn cyfrifiadau i'r parlymyniadau i'r talu o ffawr oedon nhw i ffawr yn y bwysig ymlaen nhw, a i'r ddiolch yn ein cyffredig o'r ysgrifffau cyllidau ymlaen nhw. Felly, rwy'n credu i ddweud ei wneud. Diolch yn fawr i'r ddiwrnog. Michelle Thomson. Rwy'n credu i ddweud oedd eich ddweud mewn cyflawn ffawr. Felly, rwy'n credu i ddweud eich ddweud eich ddweud eich ddweud eich ddweud eich ddweud I would like to note that I, too, as the constituency MSP for Falka East, of course I'm shocked about this as well. I've spent this afternoon already in dialogue with Petroenius and I've got a meeting tomorrow with the union and indeed had submitted an urgent question to address exactly that, so perhaps he'd be willing to allow me to carry out my role tomorrow as the constituency MSP if he was agreeable. I would expect nothing less from Michelle Thompson than she has taken the interest of our constituents to heart and has set up these meetings. However, that does not negate the responsibility of the Scottish Government to bring a ministerial statement to this chamber to allow members of this Parliament the right to ask questions and to seek assurances and answers. Now, as I say, people do expect their Government to work to secure their best interests, so I think it's reasonable to expect and it's certainly reasonable of my constituents and Michelle Thompson's constituents to look for those assurances from the Government and it should be raised in Parliament. That is why I'm asking ministers for a statement tomorrow. I think that is reasonable and it is proportionate given the impact on the entire Scottish economy. Grangemouth is responsible for 4% of the Scottish GDP. It produces the fuel that we... I'm not sure I'm going to get any time back by giving way, am I, percent? So I'm going to continue, please, because there are some things that need to be said about the importance of this. This is the place that fuels our cars, our buses, our ambulances, our police cars, our fire engines. It fuels agricultural equipment, emergency generators. Fuel need to be said is important. Now, we know that the SNP and the Greens have shown latent and open hostility to the oil and gas sector and I think we need to understand whether this has been a factor in the decision of petrol engineers to end refining. Now, in 2016 the Scottish and UK Governments worked together to maintain gas processing in Grangemouth. I think it's worthy of this plan to ask questions of ministers. Is that being explored now? Is there an option for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work together in the best interests of our constituents? What policy does the Scottish Government have about the importance of domestic production of petrol and diesel? And how does the potential removal of large-scale refining from Scotland, how does that impact on emergency planning, on our resilience, our economy? What will the Scottish Government do for the employees of the plant affected by this proposed change? What support will they make available for the people of Grangemouth? These are all questions that we as members, especially those representing Grangemouth, have a responsibility to ask. These are questions that are reasonable for our constituents to hear being asked with answers from ministers. One cannot help but wonder if this plant and these jobs were at risk in Glasgow or Edinburgh if the Government would have already scheduled a statement for tomorrow. Members may disagree with that last point, but that's a consideration for people in central Scotland. I know that the First Minister has seen fit to make a statement about the Grangemouth situation. I understand that it was in Bute House in front of journalists, so I don't understand. I don't think that it's unreasonable for a statement on this crisis to be made here and for questions to come from elected members. I know that Neil Gray, the relevant cabinet secretary, has offered to meet some of us in a private Zoom meeting on Friday afternoon. That's good, but let's have an open discussion and statement in this chamber ahead of any such private meeting. I am grateful for your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer. If our Parliament is not here to discuss matters of importance like this for the people of Scotland, then what is it here for? Mr Kerr, can you move to your amendment? Yes, sorry, I did. I thought I did, but I do move the amendment. Thank you very much. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau Minister up to five minutes. At the heart of this discussion and debate are the families and the people employed at BP Grangemouth. Those are the people and the community that the Scottish Government takes very seriously, and the cabinet secretary particularly, when we are discussing this. The cabinet secretary is currently seeking to meet the trade unions. Let's not forget that this whole decision is a commercial decision taken by the industry and is not a decision or a responsibility of the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary has today invited his shadow spokespeople and MSPs from the area to a meeting to discuss this. The cabinet secretary also answered questions on this important issue earlier today and is committed to updating Parliament as the situation develops. On a more parliamentary business point of view, Mr Kerr's amendment to business came in at 4.59 pm. It literally came in after the first division bell had given way—yes, I will give way to Mr Kerr. I thank the minister for giving way. Mr Kerr had the opportunity to ask questions around about Grangemouth this afternoon, as other members did. However, after a point of order that was dealt with by the minister who he was unhappy with, he chose to flimce out of the chamber when others asked questions about Grangemouth. I wonder if the minister would like to make comment on that. I think that the member makes a very important point here. At 2 o'clock, there was that point of order, and then this amendment came in at 4.59 pm after the first division bell had run. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Let's first of all address the issue of 2 o'clock. I did attempt to raise a point of order. It was dealt with by the Deputy Presiding Officer. I did not flounce out of the chamber. I had another important obligation that I left the chamber to fulfil. Members may find that funny, but serving my constituents is something that I take seriously, and I hope that they would as well. On the 4 o'clock mark—on the 4.59, I think, he said—the business manager for the Conservatives has been trying all day since the announcement was made from Grangemouth to get a minister to agree to timetable a statement. The fact that they have not—and we have come to this point—reflects very badly on the priorities of the Scottish Government. The Parliament has processes and one of those processes is parliamentary questions. I think that Mr Kerr needs to have a look at himself and decide how he will interact with the Parliament. 4.59 is not an acceptable time in a matter of such importance for the individual to do that. Finally, I believe that he is not showing the Parliament any respect and is disgraceful, but I revert back to what I said at the very beginning. We are not important in this issue. The families involved in this are the ones we should be thinking about. Thank you, right? The question is that amendment 3174.1, in the name of Stephen Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 3174 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting platform.