Chamber and committees

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.

Thank you for joining us—I am sorry you had such a long trip through. I want to pick up on your starting points. You referenced certain documents and your review of the accounts. First, who did that review? You do not necessarily need to give the company name, but was the review of the accounts done by a fit and proper person? Secondly, when were the documents shared with the Scottish Government and, I presume, the UK Government?

You have turned down the volume with your latter comments. However, I want to be absolutely clear: is it your contention that the information that the committee has been given by Petroineos regarding the hydrocracker and its operational safety is inaccurate, or do you not have sufficient information to be able to make that assertion? If it is the latter, are you able to provide the committee with all the pieces of evidence that you believe support your view? Can you clarify that point for the public record?

Okay, thank you.

I want to look at the bigger picture. I have often heard people commenting about energy security, and Unite has also made a comment about it. In the light of changed geopolitics—an issue that I brought up in committee last week—to what extent do you think that issues around energy security have been fully factored into the decisions regarding the refinery? On the back of that, what level of confidence do you have that the new geopolitical world, and energy security in particular, has been factored into the decision making of the UK Government and the Scottish Government?

A lot of the questions that I was going to ask have already been covered. You have clearly put a great deal of work into the bill, and you acknowledged some of the main questions in your opening remarks.

On the appetite to get the bill through, one thing that struck me was the Scottish Government’s memorandum, which states:

“The financial implications of the Bill on public finances are significant and unaffordable, as currently drafted, and put into question whether the intentions of the Bill are realistically deliverable.”

Those are quite strong words. Although you have indicated that the Government has been supportive and has taken a neutral position, how on earth are you going to get over that hurdle and that statement about the financial implications?

I do not disagree. You have made claims about the value of outdoor education. I think that, if the right funding model could be found, the value could be even greater. Although the benefits are good, they are being derived from only one event during a school pupil’s attendance from primary 6 to secondary 4.

I do not have any further questions, convener, because they have all largely been covered.

I have a few questions. The first is on the potential for delegation to Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. You can delegate responsibilities to those bodies, but you remain accountable. Can you talk me through your risk assessment to ensure that nothing goes awry with that? It is not that I have any particular concerns, but any form of delegation brings risk—that is where I am coming from.