 We continue this afternoon with topical questions. Question number one from Jenny Marra. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to assist the Dundee-based firm McGill, which has entered into administration and announced an initial 374 redundancies. Minister Jenny Hepper. The Scottish Government is concerned that McGill and Co Ltd has gone into administration since being made aware of the company's cashflow problems. Scottish Enterprise engaged wrth gwrs, ac rwy'n gwneud onddd mwynhau mewn uddlion. Maegild Oddydd yn gynnydd dim eto cysylltu a chinoesol yn cyd-igol ar gael angen eu prifyflтыnt yn gwneud o gair i'r cynnig sy'n brydd o'ch glwstdoedd, ac rydw i'n sucheg i'ch fyrddod diwrnod chaos y prgyfyllt, ac yddydd i'ch holl gwyledd wedi ei hunud wedi rhaid o gwneud yn ddiddordebol, ac rydw i'ch gwneud i'ch gwneud i'ch gweld i'u gweld i ffodol i'r gweld i'r gweld i'r gweld i'u Felly, Mcgill's trading situation declined and a positive outcome was not possible. Our partnership action for continuing employment, PACE team was present on Friday when Mcgill informed staff that was appointing administrator, a PACE event to support employees will be held on Thursday and Dundee. I spoke with the administrator in Unite yesterday, the administrator is exploring all options for a sale of business and Scottish Enterprise will maintain contact with the administrators and look to introduce and assist any viable interested parties. We will continue to offer support to those employees who have been made redundant to support them back into employment. Jenny Marra That is possibly the most inadequate answer that I have ever heard in this Parliament. That is not my understanding of the situation at all. I understand on very good authority from Mcgill that they provided all that was asked for in a very timely way. 450 people are going to lose their jobs and our thoughts today are with the workers and their families, but they know that this shouldn't have happened. Mcgill is a company with a £40 million order book. It is profitable. It had a cash flow situation. It went to the Government on 9 November. The same week we heard that Michelin was closing and asked for a loan 12 weeks later last Wednesday. 12 weeks later, Scottish Enterprise went back to Mcgill and said no to that £2 million loan to cover cash flow. When Prestwick Airport received £46 million of Scottish Government loans with no indication of when they will be paid back, when BiFab can secure £35 million, Ferguson Marine 45, why couldn't Mcgill get just £2 million to save 450 jobs when Dundee is reeling from the Michelin and HMRC closures? Can the minister tell me who made the decision not to give Mcgill the loan and why, given the scale of job losses in Dundee, did he not instruct Scottish Enterprise to make that loan available and save those jobs? I am sorry, Ms Marra. I feel that the answer was inadequate. Let me say that she might have thought that she had it on good authority, but my answer is entirely accurate. The issue is that Mcgill had no historic link with Scottish Enterprise. It was not a company that was managed by Scottish Enterprise. The first time that Scottish Enterprise approached was to say that it was in financial difficulty. That was the first juncture that had any interaction. At that stage, Scottish Enterprise offered to support the company through funding KPMG to review the cash position and evaluate options, asking for a business plan. On 18 December 2018, Scottish Enterprise emphasised the need for a revised business and turnaround plan again at that juncture. Unfortunately, the revised business plan did not come until some time after we were first approached and, unfortunately, not within the time for it to be given proper consideration through due diligence. I would regret, though, if we were to turn this issue into some form of political knockabout. Jenny Marra said at the end that her primary thoughts were with the workforce at this time. I hope that that would be the case for anyone in this chamber. That is exactly where my thoughts are. That is exactly where my priority is. Our PACE initiative has intervened quickly. We will have that event on the 7th of this month, only less than a week since the company went into administration. The task now for us all is to unite to support that workforce to get back into employment, not to engage in some form of political knockabout on this most important of issues. Jenny Marra This is utter complacency. PACE is for continuing employment. Does Jamie Hepburn not realise the state of the Dundee economy? The job toll is running into the thousands. Is the minister telling us that companies have to be account managed to approach Scottish Enterprise to save 450 jobs? All they were told throughout this whole process was that they did not fit the Government's model. The minister had 12 weeks to sort that out to get his people at Scottish Enterprise to help McGill to save those jobs. What kind of timescale is that in a commercial environment? It takes 12 weeks to do that, and then they decide that they are not going to grant that loan. Why can millions and millions of pounds go to other parts of the country when Dundee cannot get one penny for McGill's? 450 people are losing their jobs. The minister who failed to act here should also consider his position for this utter negligence. The minister should probably listen to the answers that I gave a little more closely. I did not say at any juncture that it is not the case that a company has to be account managed to approach Scottish Enterprise for assistance. However, the point is that if a company has that prior engagement, it might place them in a better place to be able to get earlier intervention if they are having financial difficulties. I am sure that Ms Marra understood that to be the point. I am not going to re-rehearse the points about the fact that Ms Marra talked about no investment going into Dundee. Of course, we have just announced a £150 million city region deal, so the idea that we are not investing in Dundee does not bear up to scrutiny. However, the immediate circumstances before us are a company that has unfortunately not been able to continue to trade. Despite the best efforts of Scottish Enterprise, despite the best efforts of my officials, and I tell Ms Marra right now, despite my best efforts as well in engaging directly with a company, and engaging directly with some of their major debtors at my offer and at their request for intervention and force, we have not been able to ensure that the company has been able to sustain itself. We will, of course, do everything that we can to get the workforce back into employment. That is a priority. We will do everything that we can to support the administrator to get a new buyer. That is something that I hope that everyone in this chamber would welcome, something that we should collectively commit to doing. Shona Robison Thank you. I think that we all acknowledge what a difficult time it is for those who have lost their jobs at McGill and not least the families of those who have lost their jobs. Jo FitzPatrick and I spoke yesterday with the administrator's KPMG and received assurances that they are actively looking for a buyer for the company, which I believe should be possible given the extensive order book that McGill had. Does the minister agree that that would be the best outcome for local jobs? What communication has he had with KPMG about the options going forward? Finally, what support can be offered to the many apprentices—as I understand, around 75 apprentices—to ensure that they are able to continue their apprenticeships with alternative local employers? I think that we need to focus on the workforce and those who are absolutely needing our support at the moment. I hope that the minister can give some assurances in that regard. Can I thank the member for her question? I thank her and her colleague, Jo FitzPatrick, as the city's constituency representative in his place for taking the time to come and meet me earlier today at the request. Of course, I would be happy to speak to any member who wants to speak to me about that particular issue. Yes, I agree clearly that our immediate priority is supporting the workforce that includes and we have our pace event on 7 February. Of course, it includes apprentices. We have the Adopt an Apprentice Scheme, which is administered by Skills Development Scotland, which is a very successful initiative that provides funding for employers to be able to take on. Apprentices have been made with a range of support for the employer and apprentice. We will be making every effort to ensure that apprentices are redeployed and can continue to complete their apprenticeship. On the administrator, as I said in my initial answer, I spoke with him yesterday. It was clearly quite an early juncture at that stage. Rightly, his priority on Friday was supporting the workforce as it should be everyone's. When I spoke to him yesterday, as I said, it was quite early in terms of the prospects going forward. I do believe that, given that there is an order book, we can find another buyer and that should be something that we also set ourselves as a task. It will be something that this Government is willing to do everything that it can to assist the administrator in that effort. I want to follow up a little bit on what Jenny Marrill was discussing earlier. The minister indicated that there was a lack of time for due diligence to be conducted. Why was that the case if it was a 12-week process from which they first approached the business? What were the specific reasons as to why that support or that request for response was rejected? As I have at least attempted to set out, at the time of the initial contact, there was a particular request. There was some engagement between KPMG, paid for by Scottish Enterprise, not by McGill, I re-emphasise. At that stage, it was very clearly indicated that a full business plan had to be made, and that was not provided until some time later at which stage there was not the time for the due diligence to be undertaken, according to the company, in terms of the timescale that it had to operate to. That is unfortunate if there had been, and of course, a few full due diligence would have been provided. Let me say that I recognise that Mr Rennie will probably have constituents affected by this, as will my colleague Mr Day. He will not have had the update for me, because I have written to constituency representatives for the three sites, as well as regional MSPs for the north-east of Scotland, for Lothians and for Glasgow. I would be delighted at the wrong term, because the circumstance is, of course, but I would be very willing to provide him with an update and send him how many information he requires to be able to update his constituents accordingly. Bill Bowman Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I just refer to my register of interests, which explains that I was in the past a partner in KPMG? No connection now. The SNP Government and SNP run councils seem content to sleepwalk into a Dundee jobs crisis. It appears that the minister knew of difficulties at this vital local employer and did not act effectively. This follows the inaction on Michelin before their bombshell news about its intention to withdraw from Dundee. Rather than form a coherent jobs first strategy for the city, armed with early notice of difficulties at major local employers, they seem content to cry crocodile tears after the fact. How is the minister arming the construction and manufacturing sectors in Dundee to avoid a repeat of those unfortunate circumstances? Let me say in terms of early notification. As point has been made before, when we are in dialogue with a particular company, it is on the basis of them having approaches to looking for our assistance. We offer every assistance that we can, but in many situations that members in the chamber will not learn about because that assistance is successful and allows the company to continue. It would be entirely the wrong thing for us that that early juncture to flag the concerns publicly because it would breach trust and I believe that it would cause further problems. In terms of support for the Dundee economy, I reiterate a point. Of course, we have a £150 million Dundee city taste city region deal, which will support up to 6,000 jobs level, over £400 million to the city region economy over the next 10 to 15 years. That is a serious commitment to Dundee and the wider area. Of course, we also have a significant pipeline of billions of pounds worth of investment and construction through our infrastructure investment plan, which will support the construction sector as well. Right now, with the specific circumstances with McGill's, my commitment, my clear effort is to do everything that we can to support the workforce that has been badly impacted. Question 2, Liam McArthur. What are its responses to the reported allegations of mismanagement and a cover-up at the former Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency? Police Scotland is considering the courts judgment that was published on 31 January. Obviously, that is an operational matter for Police Scotland, but it will pay close attention to how it intends to respond and close attention to members' concerns. It is important to establish, of course, first and foremost if those allegations are accurate and if so, how the circumstances surrounding them are then to be scrutinised. It is important to mention that those matters are still under active consideration by Police Scotland. Liam McArthur. For that response, the Sunday post has published details of an episode that sounds like a scene from life on Mars. Chaotic filing, a stash of documents from passports to credit cards and receipts, officers sent to buy an incinerator and petrol, documents taken to wasteland on the other side of the river to be disposed of before later being burned in a car park. That all throws up serious questions. However, I appreciate that this happened in 2011. Has the Scottish Government asked anyone at Police Scotland for their version of events? Has the Scottish Government considered referring the matter for further investigation by Perk or another police force in the UK? Can I say that to the member that I spoke to the chief constable this morning? It is fair to say that he also shares shock at the alleged practice within SEDEA. It is important that we keep referring to those allegations. It is important that we also recognise that that was before Police Scotland was established, notwithstanding all of that. The member is absolutely right to make the points that those practices would, of course, raise concern. What I would say about the current regime—it is really important that I make this point—is that, around the current regime in Police Scotland, there is independent and judicially led oversight by IPCOAM, which provides oversight of investigatory powers. Police Scotland's most recent inspection took place on 17-21 September 2018, which was led by Lord Bracadale and Lord Bonomy. However, there is the ability for Police Scotland to appeal that judgment. Therefore, it is important that we let Police Scotland determine what route they intend to take forward. However, the options that the member raises in relation to further scrutiny are all options that should be on the table. I thank the justice secretary for that further response. He says that this was not the responsibility of Police Scotland. It does not sound like it was the responsibility of anybody. Two of the people who were right at the top of the SEDEA announced their retirement last week. It was denied that this had anything to do with those matters. The Scottish Government has already asked Dame Elish Angiolini to look into complaints handling investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing, following concerns that senior officers could retire in order to avoid being the subject of misconduct allegations. Does the cabinet secretary think that those rules now need changing? I am not going to do anything to prejudge Dame Elish Angiolini's review in the times that have appeared in front of the justice committee. I have often said to the member that it is important that Dame Elish Angiolini has the independence to take the review in the direction that she wishes. If the member wants to make direct representation to Dame Elish Angiolini on that matter, he absolutely can. As I said, it is important to see and to determine what Police Scotland's next moves will be in this regard. However, in terms of scrutiny, independent scrutiny of those allegations, determining whether they are accurate or not, I am open to listening to members' concerns and suggestions in that regard. Liam Kerr, by Daniel Johnson. As with the number of scandals that have rocked Scottish policing in recent years, those allegations look like a failure of leadership and oversight at the top. Now, the cabinet secretary talked of the current regime being more robust, so can he assure us that the practices that allegedly took place at the SCDA would be impossible in the new structure of Police Scotland? Well, as I say, having spoken to the chief constable himself, he said that he is absolutely shocked at those allegations. Therefore, I would not expect those practices to be taken place in Police Scotland. However, it is really important to distinguish the SCDA from Police Scotland. The allegations of less practices took place in 2011. In terms of the first part of his question, I reiterate that there is currently independent and judicially led oversight in terms of investigatory powers and the CHIS code of practice, so it is important to say that oversight exists. It is important to say that it was only a matter of months ago that the inspection team led by Lord Bracadale and Lord Bonomy reported a routine investigation into Police Scotland's investigatory powers, and there were no substantial issues that were raised in that regard. However, notwithstanding all that, as I said to Liam McArthur, it is important that we let Police Scotland decide how they are going to move forward in relation to a specific case. Equally, in terms of scrutinising those allegations, we should keep an open mind to how that is done. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer. The reports in the Sunday Post are worrying, because I think that they reopen many of the questions regarding undercover policing, but they also cast a shadow of doubt regarding the previous investigation into those issues. I have heard what the cabinet secretary had to say, but surely there is a question whether it is appropriate to leave it to Police Scotland. Surely we need an independent investigation into the destruction or alleged destruction of this evidence, and surely that requires an external police force in order to do that. Indeed, overall, does he not accept now that we have to have a full and independent review, not just into these matters but into undercover policing as a whole because of the questions that this raises? Michael Matheson I will take the various points that he makes. Let me try to clarify what has been said as being misinterpreted. When it comes to Police Scotland, I am saying that they are currently subject to this proceeding. They have a choice on whether to appeal that proceeding or not, and therefore I would not want to prejudice that court process. When it comes to scrutinising the veracity of those allegations and the accuracy of those allegations, I do not disagree with what has been said by Lee MacArthur or Daniel Johnson. To give confidence to that, there would have to be a measure of independence. We know that Police Scotland, for example, has made one suggestion that should be on the table, and there are a number of routes that that could take place through. I hope that I can clarify the nuance of that point. On a public inquiry, it is worth saying that the Pitchford inquiry is known. The most recent letter from the Minister of State for Policing and Fire Services then, in June of last year, made the point, and I will quote directly, that the inquiry under its current terms of reference can receive evidence from key witnesses in relation to the tasking by English and Welsh forces of undercover officers who were also deployed outside of England and Wales. Therefore, in terms of English and Welsh forces and the serious allegations that were made in relation to their practices in Scotland or potentially in Scotland, that can be investigated by the inquiry. The current structure of undercover policing, as I said, was an HMICS report and an independent report. Of course, there is independent, traditionally led oversight of that as well. What I would say is that the possible extension of the Pitchford inquiry was, of course, subject to judicial review. That judicial review was dismissed. I'm sorry, that's all we have time for this afternoon. We've already gone six minutes over. Apologies to Rona Mackayn, Neil Findlay and John Finnie, who all wish to ask for the