Chamber and committees

Okay. Finally from me, you have mentioned the expression “in distress” a couple of times. Could you define what you mean by “in distress”? How do you decide that a business is “in distress” and might require intervention?

Thank you very much. At the start of this morning’s evidence session, I said that we were hoping for some illumination, and I think that we have had quite a lot of illumination actually. It has been a useful evidence session. We might still have some unanswered questions that we want to put to you, and we might follow those up with you.

I thank you, director general, for your time and for the range of questions that you have been able to field. Mr Rhatigan and Mr Cook in particular, I thank you both for answering some more far-fetched and difficult questions than you were perhaps anticipating before you came in—[Interruption.] I am speaking about my own questions. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much indeed for your co-operation this morning. With that, I move the meeting into private session.

And is directly accountable to ministers.

Yes, it was. Thank you.

Secondly, you said that you thought that the global refinancing would need to be completed before the investment in the billet plant would be made. What happens if that does not materialise?

Okay, thank you. I am going to bring in our deputy convener, but before I do so I have a couple of quick questions, which I hope will have quick answers.

Mr Rhatigan, did you say that the guarantee that the Scottish Government struck with GFG Alliance was also offered, via Rio Tinto, to the other four prospective bidders?

And the venue of that is?

Our principal item of business this morning is to consider the Scottish Government’s approach to financial interventions, and in particular to inquire into the operations of the Government’s strategic commercial assets division. I am pleased that the following witnesses are joining us this morning to help to illuminate that question and to answer others that we might have.

I am very pleased to welcome Gregor Irwin, the director general of economy at the Scottish Government. Alongside Mr Irwin is Colin Cook, who is the Scottish Government’s director of economic development, and Dermot Rhatigan, who is the deputy director of the strategic commercial assets division.

As I have said, director general, we have some questions to put to you. Before we get to those, however, I invite you to make an opening statement.

Yes—based on the nods and smiles of the cabinet secretary, I will seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 16, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 192 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

The cabinet secretary should read a very good book by the undercover journalist Günter Wallraff, which is called “Lowest of the Low”. It is about how the West German economy treated migrant workers in the 1980s. The treatment that migrant workers in Scotland are undergoing is completely unacceptable, and the accommodation that is provided for them is way below the standard that any of us would accept. If the cabinet secretary is saying to me that imminent legislation will address that, I will, of course, withdraw my amendment. However, it would be helpful to understand from the cabinet secretary what the Government’s timetable is for that alternative legislative proposal that would address a very clear gap in current competence and legislation.

I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests, particularly my membership of Unite the union, in the register of members’ interests.

The purpose of amendment 16 is to broaden the scope of those people in the industry who are covered by continuing professional development. It seems to me that having farmers, crofters and line managers in there is fine, but what about the workers?

For “farm workers”, the definition that I would use—I know that Alasdair Allan has lodged a similar amendment—would be people who are covered by the scope of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. On that point, Unite the union, in its submission to the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board in 2024, argued—I will quote it directly—that:

“The challenges around the climate emergency and net zero targets will require a suitably reliable and qualified workforce and the development of new skillsets, targeted upskilling/reskilling and Continuing Professional development.

Opportunities should be taken now to develop existing and new skills and provide the workforce with opportunities to access support and time off to take up training.”

Unite went on to say:

“More funding must also be made available to develop Apprenticeships to raise awareness of the sector amongst young people and to make it a career of choice, and to build a cohort of new recruits with the skills to ensure there remains a future in the industry.”

The gist of my amendment is to say that continuing development is a matter for the whole industry, not just for managers and owners, and we should be encouraging the continuing professional development of all.

I move amendment 16.