I am happy to provide that update. It is important to say, though—as Mr Hepburn has said—that a number of issues can lead to companies getting into difficulty and to Scottish Enterprise getting involved. Scottish Enterprise will not always be involved, but, where we have an account manager, there is an expectation that we will be informed of events and the timelines that have been set out for companies.
I will give you a snapshot. Companies can get into difficulty and there is sometimes an opportunity for ministers to get involved. In Michelin’s case, there was clear opportunity for ministerial involvement. In that instance, through our involvement we were able to effect change because of what we were able to present and because the company is quite an ethical company in its general approach, its purpose, its mission and its desire to do its best by Dundee and its staff, which gave us the opportunity to engage with it. Ultimately, that involvement has led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Michelin through what we are describing as the Michelin-Scotland alliance, whereby the company, the council, the Scottish Government and our agencies have come together to make the best of the situation.
As the committee will know, we set out to save the plant as it was and we did not give up on that mission, but it was clear that a repurposing of the plant was the more likely outcome of our discussions. Having met the company and other stakeholders, including the council leader and the chief executive, we were able to arrive at a proposition relating to the circular economy and the low-carbon economy that involved retraining and reskilling, which would be based in Dundee.
Because of our engagement and the showcasing of what we want to do as a country, the company was willing to engage with us. Even though it has confirmed its plans to withdraw tyre manufacturing—of course, there will be a reduced head count as that happens—there will be full redundancy payments, which has been welcomed by the trade unions.
As well as retaining staff, we want to recruit and attract as many people as possible to the new ventures, and Michelin has appointed a senior executive to take forward that work. We also have the memorandum of understanding, and we will have discussions with the company about how that work will be resourced. We are bringing our key partners together to make sure that that happens.
All of that was welcomed by the local community, the trade unions and the local authority as the best possible outcome in the circumstances, other than retaining the plant. In essence, Michelin is here to stay in terms of on-going investment and partnership. We must bear in mind that Michelin is an international company and that, as Scottish Enterprise has said, if it was not already in Scotland, we would be trying to attract it here. We did not want Michelin to go, so we put together a package to encourage it to stay.
That work will be led by the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise. The number of jobs involved was over 800, and the scale of the industrial manufacturing meant that 8 per cent of manufacturing in Dundee was done at the Michelin plant. The plant has had a strong record as an environmentally friendly plant in that it was heading for carbon neutrality because of the renewables on site. There is a lot of potential at the site, and a lot of good work remains to be done to retain as many jobs as possible and, more important, to invest in jobs and manufacturing there for the future. The plant will, therefore, be repurposed as we have set out.
I have listened carefully to the committee’s questions about grant assistance, and I can tell the committee that, if the Scottish Parliament had demanded on day 1 of the Michelin announcement that the Scottish Government go for clawback, we would have lost Michelin completely. The company is staying only because we have engaged with it. I am not suggesting that members said that we should go for clawback, but immediately asking for that when there was something far more positive to be secured from the predicament that we found ourselves in would have been a bad idea. The positive partnership working and engagement with the company and its willingness to listen to us and the proposition that we put to it have led to a far more positive outcome than would otherwise have been the case.
Nevertheless, if conditions in the most recent grant around conditionality and head count are not fulfilled, we can claw back any resource that has been drawn down. From memory, I believe that Michelin received a £4.5 million grant for environmental purposes and that £1.5 million was drawn down. If the conditions are not met, we will claw that money back. However, we will have separate discussions on what we have set out with regard to Michelin in Dundee.
I am sure that Mr Mason will find that answer helpful.