Chamber and committees

Would you expect there to be more mention of that in the bill? What the bill intends is great—I do not think that anybody is particularly objecting to it—but I am not hearing much dialogue about how you actually make it happen. We will probably start to derive a much clearer set of benefits by focusing on the how, and I feel as though there is a slight disconnect in that respect.

Good morning, panel members, and thank you for joining us. There is a wider perspective on the bill than that which relates to procurement. I have a general question about how you see things changing in a range of areas that would help to direct moneys positively to enable some of the community wealth building activities that are under way. How will the bill help to firm that up?

A range of mechanisms could be used, some of which are probably already being used. I am thinking of community asset transfer, compulsory purchase orders, local sector pension funds or the entirely different route that is provided by SNIB. I accept what you said earlier in response to Daniel Johnson, but will anything change as a result of the bill that will get money into projects? Jackie Taylor, you mentioned the commercial aspects, so perhaps you or Jane Martin could offer some thoughts on that.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. Throughout this mini-inquiry, our focus has been on the refinery, and now we are looking forward.

Jan Robertson, there is obviously a great deal of work going on at Scottish Enterprise. Certainly, I have had a large number of approaches, meetings and discussions on the matter, which I have referred on to Scottish Enterprise to triage. It would be useful if you could share what you can about the type and nature of the projects that are coming through. After that, I will have further questions. I appreciate equally well that there will be commercial sensitivities, but it would be useful to put on the record what you are able to say at this point.

On that point, I will raise a question that has come up, which I asked Michael Shanks when he was before us. A lot of future activity is predicated on Ineos being a landlord of the site, which carries both opportunities and risks. You might well want to come in on this point, cabinet secretary. What is your assessment of the potential risks that any future projects will need to consider in order to work for Ineos—or, rather, not work against Ineos’s commercial interests? What consideration have you given to the risks of the considerable power that Ineos retains?

You have introduced the Scottish speciality chemical cluster, which I had wanted to ask about later. A lot of the focus has been on enabling that, which we will come on to, but I will ask about the latest thinking. You referenced the money that was given to Syngenta. I have asked quite a number of questions in the Parliament about the strategy around the chemical cluster. I sense that there is not the same focus on it, but there should be, because it is excellent, is high value, plays into provenance and brand and has high margins. What is the thinking and the strategy around retaining and growing a specialist chemical cluster?

Do either of our two guests who are online want to come in on that point? Emilia Crighton, I see that your hand is up.

My last wee question is about economic inactivity. I have previously asked about the extent to which you disaggregate data by sex, because that often gives interesting patterns. It makes me wonder to what extent we might see emerging patterns when we do that. Obviously, there will always be a big proportion of economic inactivity related to childcare. Have you got any sense of what patterns there are? Do you disaggregate data in that way? Have you got any further plans to derive more key insights?

Sorry to interrupt, but the scale of the ONS data set for Scotland has been an issue in recent years, has it not? Has that moved on at all?

Good morning. I will start by following up on the point that Craig Hoy was asking about. It would be useful for me to understand a little more, Mr Kennedy, about the direct engagement that you have had with the Government to express your concerns about costs. You mentioned the Sheku Bayoh inquiry. That tent seems to be out there, given how long that inquiry has been running and the costs that have been incurred. You might not have been in place at that time but, at the start of that inquiry, did you express concerns about the potential implications of cost and the operational challenges that would result therein? It would be useful if you could walk us through how many meetings have been held and how frequently you have raised your concerns with the Government.

You mentioned the justice secretary. There was quite the media campaign by the lawyer representing the family of Sheku Bayoh to have the scope of the inquiry increased, and it was the Deputy First Minister who said, “No, we are not going to do that.” Have you have had any engagement with the Deputy First Minister?

I appreciate that you were not in post then, but it would be useful to understand from you, even anecdotally, where those conversations went. If concerns were being raised about the operational impact on your core duties, did anything arise from that, or were those concerns simply noted—or noted and put in a box somewhere not to be looked at again?