Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

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 already answered my follow-on question. That was fairly well documented.

This is a question that I asked you last year, but I will ask it again, because I am going to put it to every public body that comes in front of me at any committee. How are you preparing for the potentially exponential growth in the use of artificial intelligence? What is your thinking this year compared with last year? What external consultants are you using, and what is your risk assessment? This is just a checkpoint.

I regard the fact that that keeps you awake as good news.

We have talked about your risk assessment in general. In the context of the constraints in public sector funding, you have already commented in response to a number of questions about things that you cannot really afford to spend on. You just referenced the Scottish Government’s human resources and finance corporate transformation programme. Are you alluding to the possibility that that could mean further restrictions or lack of growth in funding or is it as much about what that might bring to you? I am interested to hear a bit more about that.