Chamber and committees

That is a difficult role. Do you have any final points, Sam?

With all due respect, I was not asking a political question; I was simply asking what would need to happen for you to pause the process. I think that you are alluding to only one element—incidentally, I do not have the cheque book of either the UK Government or the Scottish Government; I am simply floating this.

In your answer, you alluded to some kind of financial benefit, which you highlighted would need to be considerable. Am I correct in saying that you were suggesting that that could be a consideration?

I have a final question that brings me back to some of the themes that I followed up earlier. When I asked you what needs to happen for there to be a pause, my recollection—you can correct me if I am wrong—is that, during our exchange, you said that financial incentives might have been a consideration, but you suggested that we were nearly at the point of no return. I think that that is what you said.

Thank you.

Congratulations on your appointment, Colin. I think that it is time for you to take the chair.

Okay. We look forward to hearing more about that.

My last question is on project willow, which you have referenced. An issue for people on the outside looking in—and one that we raised in this committee when we looked at the just transition—is that the governance of the Grangemouth future industry board was at that point a little uncertain. I know that things have now changed and that there is dual convenership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but the board’s operation with regard to its accountabilities and responsibilities is still not clear to me.

It seems to me that, given Ineos’s role at the heart of absolutely everything and in driving project willow, you have been able to adopt a highly successful hedge position. You will win if you win, and you will also win if you do not win, because you are absolutely at the heart of all measures that are driving Falkirk district forward, whether it be the Forth green freeports, what has happened with project willow and so on. How have you personally, or as a company, assessed the risk of a conflict of interests between yourselves being at the heart of all those things and what is best for the wider area, including the community of Grangemouth?

My colleague Kevin Stewart asked about taking things up a level. The act of Parliament that underpins Consumer Scotland has five key areas of focus. For the record, the top two are reducing harm to consumers and increasing consumer confidence. How are those linked and do they imply a hierarchy of importance? In particular, is there any point in increasing consumer confidence if there is no resulting reduction in harm? I would like to understand how you square those up.

That was a very comprehensive answer in which you fairly recognised the complexity of what you have to do.

Given the way in which you operate, how effective is your relationship with other key stakeholders? One could argue that you occupy quite a niche position from the point of view of your research methods and how theirs might differ.

Yes, and yes, and also an assessment of the impact on society—those three elements.

I thank the witnesses for joining us this morning—I really appreciate it. I want to start with geopolitics. What assessment have you made of the impact of a Trump presidency, Trump’s closeness to Vladimir Putin and the implications of that for your future plans in Scotland and the UK? Have you had any discussions with the Scottish or UK Governments?