 The next item of business is a statement from Ivan McKee on an update on Dell's historical industrial transaction. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on the minister for around 10 minutes, Mr McKee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 2016, faced with the potential permanent closure of the last remaining steel plant in Scotland in the loss of hundreds of highly skilled jobs, the Scottish Government took action to support the purchase of the rolling mills at Dell and Clyde bridge. Many members will remember that long steel had owned the businesses. Tata Steel UK had taken those over from longs and following difficulties due to energy prices and feasible margins, Tata Steel UK Ltd had morthbald the plants in 2015, and we are seeking to find an alternative operator of the business. In order to facilitate the sale and to ensure the continued operation of this important industrial asset for Scotland, the Scottish Government took ownership of the business for a short period of time, while it transferred from Tata Steel UK to Liberty house group part of GFG Alliance, who continued to operate the rolling mill. That transaction back in 2016 was a unique and unprecedented economic intervention by the Scottish Government. The agreement to facilitate the transaction was concluded over a period of days in March 2016, while Parliament was in the pre-election recess. In my statement today, Presiding Officer, I will provide a point of clarification in terms of one aspect of the agreement between the Scottish Government and Tata Steel UK Ltd, but before I do, I will provide some further background to the transaction. Earlier in 2016, the employees of the rolling mills in the Lanarkshire steel communities left their work to start Christmas holidays in the knowledge that they had been made redundant going into January 2016, with the prospect of a future for the steel industry in Scotland looking very bleak. Only a handful of the people in the plant remained for health and safety reasons. There had been excellent collaborative work from members across the chamber, trade unions and local authorities to support the steel task force. Despite the apparent lack of investors in the Scottish steel plants, the steel task force committed to leaving no stone unturned to find a positive outcome to the potential demise of the Lanarkshire mills. There are currently around 140 people now employed at DL and Clyde bridge. The Scottish Government's intervention resulted in the continuation of steel production and skilled employment at Liberty Steel DL. It was a detailed and complex negotiation that led to the transfer of the ownership of the plants to a business that has since supported the workforce and ensured the continued manufacture of high-quality steel slab products from the Lanarkshire rolling mill. The matter that I bring to the chamber today concerns one particular point within the contract. I wish to explain the issue. The work that has been done by the Scottish Government to clarify that with the businesses involved and, importantly, to assure the people of Scotland and the Parliament that the decision to facilitate the continued manufacture of steel in Scotland was the correct thing to do. The steel industry across the UK and globally has faced many challenges in recent years. I sat in this chamber on 24 March 2021, the collapse of the Greensill capital finance house, a major financier of the GFG Alliance, had highlighted a risk to the steel industry in Scotland. Ministers over this year have previously advised the Parliament of our continued work to retain and support the economic opportunities that the Lanarkshire steel mills provide. I have met with local elected members to keep them informed of the work that has been done to protect the steel industry in Scotland. Officials have been working to better understand the Scottish Government's position in respect of the GFG Alliance, as would be expected, given the jobs at stake and the support that it previously provided. It was during a detailed review of the previous transaction to inform the contingency work that officials discovered a detail that would need to be considered by the companies involved. It is also important to note that, while there is on-going monitoring of the situation across the current businesses in Scotland, as I know, we are aware that the UK Government has also been active in as part of the wider GFG Alliance activity at the larger plants in other parts of the UK. There has not been a request for support from the Alliance. The businesses in Scotland can still continue to operate and produce under challenging circumstances, and that, Presiding Officer, is a credit to the Scottish workforce. On 24 March 2016, Tata Steel UK and Liberty House agreed for the Scottish Government to act as an intermediary between the companies to facilitate a sale of the plants from Tata Steel UK to the Scottish Government, which would immediately sell the sites to Liberty House. There is one specific part of the contract arrangement that has arisen during our contingency work that we are advised may not comply with state aid rules. That clause granted an enduring indemnity from Scottish ministers to long-steel, whereby Scottish ministers would be liable to cover the costs of certain liabilities arising from the Tata Steel ownership of the Lanarkshire plants. It is also important to ensure that the chamber is aware that there has been no call on us indemnity to date, and the circumstances where that would have been called upon are, in our view, unlikely to materialise. At the time of the deal, a parent company guarantee was signed with Liberty House, meaning that, if part of the company at Liberty Steel DLCs to exist, then the liabilities would pass to the wider group. I would reiterate that our contingency planning and recent reports on the wider group have highlighted that the Lanarkshire plant is operating well considering the current conditions that it has faced. If the wider group fails to exist and the site is going to be repurposed to a different use, then some of those liabilities for environmental remediation might crystallise to the operators of the site currently and to any previous operator of the site. Many varying factors would need to happen before such a scenario would come to fruition. It was ever imperative that having identified that clause was no longer valid, I made the relevant business and the chamber aware of the situation. The chamber will also want to note that no money has been paid or will be paid under that contract by the Scottish Government beyond the £1 paid to purchase the business that was immediately recouped upon its sale. In 2016, the contractual negotiation was proceeding at pace in a highly pressured commercial environment without our aim being to save a totemic Scottish industry, a name in which we were successful. It was not our intention to sign to a contract clause that might not comply with the state aid requirements. The conclusion that reached on state aid, based on advice at the time, was different to what I have outlined today, and we decided that we were able to proceed at that time with the transaction. We have informed Tata Steele, as members around the chamber would expect. We have ensured that they have been provided notice of that statement to allow them to consider any commercial implications for their business. As a global business, we also needed to ensure that they had time to notify their head office in Mumbai. It is understandable that they will need time to reflect and consider their position. We will continue to have supportive dialogue with Tata Steele and the company of access to our officials as they require. We have also formally informed Audit Scotland and will be taking steps to communicate with Liberty Steele UK and the European Commission through the relevant UK Government department. I would summarise that the detailed analysis of commercial interventions taking place now demonstrates that this Government will always do its very best to ensure that any agreements that we enter into are the right ones. My officials will work with stakeholders to go into further detail and analyse any lessons that should be learned. I opened my statement by acknowledging the collective efforts across the chamber back in March 2016 to ensure that steel communities in Scotland are a future. Today, high-quality steel products continue to be produced in Lanarkshire. Skilled manufacturing employment continues, which would not have been the case without our intervention. It was our assessment at the time that this was the best way to ensure the reopening of the plants, to secure a key Scottish industrial asset for the future and ensure that Scotland's steel industry did not fall silent. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I would be very grateful to members who want to ask a question, could press the request-to-speak buttons or place an hour in the chat function if they are joining us remotely. I call question number one, Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. Both in this session and the previous session, I have questioned the ministers on the issue of transparency around the Scottish Government's exposure in the form of guarantees and support to the GFG Alliance. We have seen the extended attempts by the Financial Times newspaper to access what should have been relatively straightforward figures for the Government. The taxpayers' exposure relating to the Lekaba operations are some we discovered amounted to some £586 million. Now in today's statement, we have seen the Scottish Government appear to be, when they are unaware of their own commercial exposure to the operations in Lanarkshire, and have been advised that their arrangements rushed through ahead of the elections in May 2016, with Parliament unable to scrutinise, but ministers able to make political capital out of the deal may be unlawful. When was the Scottish Government first advised that their agreement might not comply with state aid rules? How much of the potential liabilities to the Scottish Government are exposed to in the deal, and how long will those exposures remain? Will the minister recognise that, for this chamber to have any confidence in the transparency or even the clarity of the Scottish Government's agreements here, will he agree to full transparency into the Scottish Government's relationship with the GFG Alliance and commit to making available to MSPs any information relating to those agreements? The first point to make is that there are no exposures to the Scottish Government as a consequence of what I have outlined today. The second point to make is that, of course, we are committed to full transparency within the limits of legal advice and commercial sensitivity, and we will continue to be so. The third point I would make is that, with regard to Lekaba, this statement that I am making today has no bearing on Lekaba, which was a completely separate transaction. The point that I would also make is that the numbers that the member quotes with regard to the Scottish Government exposure, he will be well aware, because that information has also been made available and that that is more than covered by the assets that the Scottish Government has security with regard to Lekaba. There is no exposure to the Scottish Government without regard to that transaction either. The final point that I would make is that the Scottish Government moved the transaction through at pace in March 2016. That was not as a consequence of the election time table, as the member is perhaps implying. It was absolutely as a consequence of needing to move fast to secure that commercial deal to save those jobs. It was a commercial reality that we faced at that time. Frankly, we are proud that we did in order to save those jobs and save the Scottish steel sector, and it was the right decision at that time and continues to be. There is still a steel sector in Scotland. People are still employed, high-skilled jobs are still employed in that sector in Scotland. As I have made very clear, there is no exposure to the Scottish Government as a consequence of my statement today and the actions that we took at that time. I encourage members to ask their question and listen to the responses. Question 2, Daniel Johnson. Noted, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by reminding the chamber of my register of interests. I am a member of community, the trade union that represents steel workers. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. Despite the Government acknowledging that it broke the law, there is no implication for the security of the 140 jobs on that site. That is perhaps the most important question. From one former business person to another, can we put that into plainer terms? What are we talking about? Is the Government saying that if GFG and Liberty House were to collapse, it would have to pay the cleanup costs? If so, what would that bill be? The cleanup cost for Ravenscraig was £70 million 20 years ago. Given that it has written this indemnity, that there is a theoretical liability for that, is there any obligation whatsoever for Tata to rescind that? The Scottish Government may have broken the law, but there is no obligation on Tata to let them off the hook. When did that come to light? I do not believe that the minister answered that important question from Jamie Halcro Johnston. How is it possible that such an important deal could get through government due diligence and not have spotted the fact that it breaks the law? In terms of the timing point, I have a number of questions from Jamie Halcro Johnston. We have been looking at that through the course of the past months as a consequence of the situation evolving with GFG to understand what we may need to do to be involved to say that those jobs should have a difficult situation transpired. As I said in my statement, it is all credit to the workforce at the site that the plant continues to operate successfully in the face of significant challenges. There is clearly a very complex situation. I have to be worked through and advised taken as to the situation with regard to where we are just now. That process has been worked through in due course and as we have become a chief clarity on that situation and taken the relevant advice, we are now bringing forward this statement to provide transparency to the Parliament and others as to the current situation. With regard to the situation with regards to liability, the whole point of the statement is that that is not the case. There is no liability as a consequence of the current position to the Scottish Government. I made that very clear in my statement. As a member of the steel task force, which of course was a cross-party endeavour, I am aware of how vital it was to save the jobs in both the steel mills at DL and Clyde bridge. Steel making is synonymous with my constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw. What impact, if any, will the substance of the statement today have on the on-going Liberty steel operation at DL and Clyde bridge and the 140 jobs still protected by the deal made by the Scottish Government? By Wales, 140 people employed that at the sites. Jobs that would not have existed if the Scottish Government had not intervened and protected the sector. There are many jobs in the supply chain in the wider community that are supported as a direct and indirect consequence of that. The statement today makes absolutely no impact on that. Those jobs continue to operate as long as the plant continues to operate. As I have said, I have been working closely with officials working on a very regular basis, and I am engaged regularly with the business, local members and trade unions and others to understand the latest position. The business continues to operate successfully, and the Scottish Government is very engaged to understand what we need to continue to do to ensure that that continues to be the case, because we are committed to the sector in Scotland. For clarity, the statement today makes no absolutely no impact on that situation at all. Minister, this afternoon's statement says that Scottish Government officials will work with stakeholders to analyse any lessons that should be learned. Given the lack of transparency around the agreement, can the minister confirm which stakeholders will be involved in the process, and whether the findings will be shared fully and expeditiously with the Parliament and the wider public? I will make a statement today that talks about the fact that we are committed to transparency on the situation and continue to be so. We will look at the internal processes with regard to the decisions that were conclusions that were arrived at in 2016 and why they differ from the conclusions that we have arrived at at this point in time. The advice that I have said within the restrictions placed on us with regard to disclosure of legal advice and commercial sensitivity, we will make available the information as necessary to ensure full transparency with the Parliament and beyond. In terms of engagement with stakeholders, we have already made clear that we will engage with full range of stakeholders on a regular basis, including the GFG group, including Tata, including local members, trade unions and others in the local community, and the wider industry that has an interest in matters and the interest in the Scottish Government's continued support to ensure that the steel plants in Lanarkshire continue to be in place. Having worked at DL 35 years ago and Clydebridge briefly before that, I was heartened that the Scottish Government acted to save the remains of an industry that lost 16,000 jobs in Scotland in the 70s under Labour and 10,000 in the 80s and 90s under the Tories. In addition to the 140 direct jobs, how many people are working in the supply chain whose jobs have been saved by the actions of the Scottish Government? I am interested in you answering that question from myself, because it is clear that the Opposition is not interested in that in particular. To be honest, I find it hard to believe that Kenny Gibson could have had his short trousers on when he was working there 35 years ago. I commend him for his efforts as a youngster in supporting Scotland's steel sector. He identified 140 direct jobs, but many many jobs in the supply chain and the wider communities that depend on the continued operation of the plants at DL in Clydebridge. As I said, the Scottish Government has committed the actions that we have taken to take forward those complex transactions to make sure that the deals could go through to ensure that the sector was saved and absolutely the right thing to do. We see greater opportunities for the sector as we move into an environment where the net zero economy becomes more significant and there are conversations on going with the planet about how it can take advantage of that and continue to innovate and provide a strong future for those plants in the changing steel sector as it evolves rapidly at this point in time. Richard Leonard joins us remotely to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by referring members to my register of interests and say that I was also a member of the Scottish Steel Task Force and my first priority is saving these jobs. We know that Greensill capital has collapsed with losses of £1 billion and we know that the GFG Alliance is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. We know as well that Audit Scotland will tomorrow publish its audit of the Scottish Government's consolidated accounts. Is that why this statement has been rushed out to Parliament today? The member is absolutely correct in terms of the focus being on saving those jobs and that remains the priority. I am proud to say that we have been successful in that and people are on work over the past five years that otherwise would not have been the case. I have answered members previously that bringing forward a statement is to ensure transparency to the Parliament. It is a complex situation. We have been working on it as a consequence of the evolving situation at GFG, which has led us to have a look at all possible scenarios in terms of what may unfold as a consequence of that. Thankfully, despite the difficulties with Greensill, the GFG business continues to operate and the management team at the Lanarkshire plants continues to produce high-quality products and sell them to what is a strong market for their products. We continue to engage very closely with them. However, as a consequence of us having worked through those very complex situations over the course of the past months, we understood the situation as it transpired and as a consequence of looking at the scenario planning in detail as to what the future might hold and looking at previous transactions as a consequence of that, led us to have a complete review of all the work that was done in 2016 in coming out of that work. Some questions were asked, which we then took forward to take expert advice on to understand the implications of that. That is a consequence of that. That is why we are bringing forward this statement today, which I reiterate has no bearing on liabilities to the Scottish Government as a consequence of what I have said today. Thank you, minister. I am going to have to ask you to be a bit more succinct in your responses, Gordon MacDonald, to be followed by Willie Rennie. First, the Scottish Government's actions to save the Clydebridge and DL plants have been very welcome. Members of the Republic will want to know that this has come at good value to taxpayers. For the sake of clarity, can the minister provide assurances that the contract has come at no cost to the Scottish taxpayer? Yes, I can confirm that. The Scottish Government incurred no upfront cost from the transaction. I said that I would pay a pound for it and got that money back. The Scottish Government's official supported work to complete the transaction as part of the normal range of duties. As I have said earlier, the news that I am sharing with the Parliament today does not create any financial liability for the Scottish Government and does not create any financial liability for the Scottish Government. Willie Rennie joins us remotely to be followed by Colin Beattie. I think that we will go to Colin Beattie and come back to Willie Rennie if we can sort out the link. Can the minister provide any further information as to the latest assessment that has been made as to the productivity of the Lanarkshire plant? Thank you for a very important question, because the plant will also survive based on its ability to be able to sell into the steel market. Officials, as I said, meet regularly with the local management team. It is heartening to say that, even during current challenging circumstances, it will continue to operate and produce high-quality steel plate, and steps will continue to be taken to increase the productivity of the operation in the Lanarkshire plant. Something that the Scottish Government issues the support of and something that I am kept updated on on a regular basis. There is still an issue with Mr Rennie's connection, so we will go to Maggie Chapman, who also joins us remotely. I think that we have lost all of the connections, so we will go to Liz Smith, who joins us in person. I am here. Minister, I have listened very carefully to the answers that you gave to Jamie Halcro Johnson and to Daniel Johnson. I did not hear what they were asking for, which is, when did you actually find out when there had been a breach of the contract? When did you actually find that out? As I thought, I have been very clear that this has been a process of working through a range of questions and then seeking clarification on the implications of that. We started earlier this year in the light of the GFG situation to assess the current situation at DL, what the implications of that might be, what some scenario planning could look like as a consequence of that. I also had a look back through all the previous transaction that took place in 2016 as a consequence of that. Through the course of that work, a number of issues were raised that we looked at and discussed with expert advice to understand the implications of them. Clearly, we have had to have discussions back and forward to understand what the implications of those are to seek clarification on what is very complex transaction. We have brought that statement to the Parliament as soon as we have clarified the situation with regard to the questions that we had to ask on that advice. We were able to articulate a statement that took into account all of that advice, ensuring that all of our questions had been asked and answered and that we had complete clarity on what the situation was. I think that members would not expect us to come with a statement that was half-baked, where we had not asked the questions. We just became aware of that. Members are now shouting that we were not even in for the statement, so can I ask Mr Kerr in particular please to pipe down and listen to the response from the minister? We have brought that statement to the Parliament as soon as we have clarified the questions that we had about that advice to be sure that what we are bringing to the Parliament today was a robust statement that took into account all the factors and all the information available at this time. We still appear to be having connection problems, so I call Fulton MacGregor. As a representative of a constituency with a proud steelwork heritage, including the Gart Cross finishing mill closed in 1986 to a huge public outcry, I can confirm that I was only six at the time, but my grandad did work there. Can the minister provide any further detail as to the Scottish Government's latest engagement with the steel sector stakeholders regarding the challenges and opportunities that the sector faces in order to ensure a healthy future for steel in Scotland? The Scottish Government, as I said, is hugely focused on understanding how the sector is evolving. We will watch that very closely. I am a member of the UK Steel Council, which includes all the major steel producers across the UK and is chaired by the sector of state for business, energy and industrial strategy. There are huge opportunities for the steel sector in the move to a net zero economy. Zeroway Scotland is looking at the circular opportunities for the energy transition in Scotland in its report, How Should Scotland Manage Scrap Steel Speaks into that space. It is the first in a series of reports that I have produced. I very much welcome the work that is being done by Zeroway Scotland and others in this area. I look forward to seeing the fall-up reports that will help inform our policy going forward. It is very timely, given the emphasis from COP26 on helping energy intensive industries, such as the steel sector, as they move towards net zero. Maggie Chapman joins us remotely. I thank the minister for his statement. We know that steel has been an important part of Scotland's industrial landscape, providing jobs and materials that are much needed in our economy. I echo his remarks about the resilience of the workforce. Given the issues surrounding the GFG Alliance, as others have already mentioned, and the high-carbon nature of the steel industry, can the minister outline what role he expects the steel industry to play in Scotland's future and how we can ensure that we retain the skills and expertise of the workforce in Scotland's industrial future? Briefly, please minister. Absolutely. A very good question for that. The clear, as I said, regards to GFG, we are watching that situation very closely and running extensive scenario planning on how we may be able to respond to any developments. In terms of our point about the sector, of course, we absolutely understand the energy intensive nature of the sector. There is a huge commitment within the sector in Scotland, across the UK and internationally, to move towards a net zero future and to decarbonise steel. Production and creation of green steel has a huge focus. It is something that we are very supportive of and engage very closely with. I think that a just transition for this sector to ensure that the workers continue to be engaged in producing high-quality green steel in the future is something that we are very focused on delivering for the workers of the community and across Scotland. Finally, Willie Rennie. Willie Rennie, can you hear us? That answers that question. Unfortunately, we will need to pause briefly before moving on to the next item of business.