Chamber and committees

I thank the witnesses for joining us—it has been a very worthwhile session. I want to finish off by getting your reflection on Brexit, which, incredibly, we have barely discussed. You comment that

“Weak growth in imports and exports over the medium term partly reflect the continuing impact of Brexit”.

You then refer to a decrease in trade intensity, which I think that I asked about this time last year.

My question is about the impact on potential productivity in the light of the budget being projected as a growth budget. I know that you commented on that in March earlier this year, but it would be useful to get your latest reflections on the specific impact of Brexit on productivity. Obviously, we have the nearside issues, but I am asking about the longer term—I think that you used a 15-year projection.

You have just made the point that I was going to come on to. We face the geopolitics: we are out of the EU, we have the diminishing trade intensity and we have activity in the rest of the world. We have President Trump and there are geopolitics going on, so we could end up being in a very isolated place when it comes to replacing some of that trade, notwithstanding the point that you make about services.

I want to return to the subject of growth and the link with capital. I think that it was David Miles who reminded us that, on capital, we have a short-term bounce of about 2.5 per cent. There was a lot of sleight of hand in the budget in relation to the short-term nearside position but, in the longer term, capital investment will continue to be very low. How on earth will we be able in any way to mitigate—if we can mitigate it at all—the damage of Brexit over the longer term, given that, as we have discussed throughout this meeting, we have had only marginal nearside increases?

I was about to say, “Always look on the bright side,” but the outlook does not seem to be terribly bright.

I want to come on to that but I think that my colleague Kevin Stewart also wants to pick up on one of those points.

Have you had any response from the Government to the documents that you sent?

Okay. I want to focus my questions on a positioning that involves looking at the ways in which we might be able to keep the refinery online—I will go on to the hydrocracker in a moment—to allow a sufficient period of time for other moves to be made, whether on SAF or something else. I do not want too much of our time to be taken up with the future rather than the here and now.

You mentioned the hydrocracker and the evidence on that from Petroineos. There seems to be a slight misunderstanding and I wonder whether you can clear up. In May 2024, it was reported in the media that the hydrocracker had been brought back online, but Iain Hardie, in evidence last week, said that the unit has been offline since April 2023. Can you comment on that and put a bit more meat on the bones of what you have set out? If the hydrocracker was online, what could that mean for bottom-line profits? Finally on the hydrocracker, you might have caught the comments about a number of different trials. I think that the company stopped at four, citing safety concerns.

That is my first wee batch of questions on that.

The evidence session thus far is proof that, if you keep quiet long enough, all your questions get asked, so I thank my colleagues for contributing. There has been some great content so far.

We keep coming back to the point about the globalised nature of business. You mentioned the £600 million underwriting of one of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s businesses in Antwerp. Therefore, that is what my question relates to, and he, in some respects, is the elephant in the room. Ineos is his global business, and Ineos is absolutely at the heart of this. To the best of your knowledge, thus far, has anyone had a conversation with Sir Jim Ratcliffe about his intentions, given the global nature of his business?

My last wee question is about the fact that many of the things that you have suggested and alluded to would require a forensic accountant. I asked you about your people in Unite who have looked at the accounts. Once the sweet talking had been done up front, anyone who wanted to buy the business would send their own forensic accountant to look at the books. A plan to point out some areas that you think would be worth a refresh would require a forensic accountant. Is there a general concern about a forensic accountant—that is a very specific term—looking at what has been accrued to whatever in the books of Ineos and Petroineos?

Thank you both for the additional information.

An interesting letter, from Sharon Graham of Unite, was posted on Twitter. It would be helpful for the committee if you could put more meat on the bones of the plan that that letter suggests. I understand that the plan has gone to Ed Miliband and—when it is deemed appropriate—I suspect that the committee would be interested in seeing the detail of it.

It would be useful, however, if you could walk us through your findings, and what you are suggesting, in a little more detail than what is in currently in the public domain in that letter.