 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 1-5541, in the name of Bob Doris, on efforts to save St. Rolex railway works. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Bob Doris to open the debate. Mr Doris, please. Presiding Officer, it is a privilege to lead this member's debate on the future of railway operations at the historic St. Rolex site in my constituency. A site that has been a global player in the world locomotive industry since 1856. Importantly, we still have 200 jobs at the site, 120 directly employed and 80 agency workers. It is those jobs that are now under imminent threat. Newt owners Gemini prematurely issued workers with their statutory 45-day consultation notice in January this year. That is a prelude to redundancies and closure. There is an order book until June this year, and therefore such notices would not have been required, if at all, until April this year. That would have afforded precious time to work together to find solutions. I want to thank the many MSPs from right across the chamber who have signed my motion. I also want to thank Unite the Union for the determined and challenging campaign to save both jobs and the railway's future in Springburn. Presiding Officer, it is the job of unions to offer challenge and to defend our members, and I commend them in doing so. Many of us have decided to rally around the Calais as St. Rolex is affectionately known, including Glasgow's Evening Times newspaper, who are also championing the campaign. I warmly welcome their support. This is the second of two debates in the matter, and I thank all those who contributed to yesterday's debate. In that debate, I reflected the anger and disillusionment that the workforce has with GEM and I, as well as the compelling reasons why many of us feel that they have not acted in good faith. Briefly, yes. Elaine Smith Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank Bob Doris for taking the intervention. I am a member of Unite the Union, but I think that it would be good to also recognise that the RMT staff at the facility have an interest as well. I am sure that Bob Doris would want to join me in doing that. Bob Doris I associate myself with all those remarks, and that is now on the record. I thank Ms Smith for that intervention. Anger and disillusionment are absolutely justified, but such emotions alone do not save jobs. It can, however, drive innovation, new ideas, necessitate robust business planning and subsequent strategic action. Our public sector and partnership with the rail industry can secure both jobs and a long-term future for St. Rolex. I spoke yesterday about a pipeline of work available for railway engineering, repair and maintenance. However, the complex and quite frankly ludicrous system by which rolling stock is owned, leased, tendered and funded across the UK does not serve as well. I understand, GEM, that I have bid for all possible work, yet they have indicated that they would be likely to close Springburn, even if all potential work was secured. I described that as a dereliction of duty. Cabinet Secretary, I would request details of whether Scottish Enterprise has discussed the pipeline of work with GEM and I in any detail and sought to explore how that work could be virally procured and carried out at St. Rolex. What work has taken place regarding how many workers would be required for each contract, the skills mix needed and the length of time each contract would run for. That would require a full understanding of overheads, not just for materials, wages and site rent, but also how appropriate it is to approach central costs from their Milton Keynes HQ on top of those overheads. That included an eye-watering £1.16 million for 2018. Such a detailed and costly business plan would be important not only for GEM and I to keep a presence at St. Rolex but also for any other company to seek to carry out any operations at the site alternatively. Is such a pipeline of work projected over several years captured in any one document and is that publicly available? Any strategic approach to the Scottish railway sector must take a systematic look at the likely pipeline of work over the longer term. It must also look at capacity in the Scottish sector. Given that I understand that 60 per cent of that capacity is at St. Rolex, the loss of the site would be a strategic blow to our economic infrastructure interests. We know that Unite has made some specific proposals and I hope that the cabinet secretary can update us this evening as to his most recent engagement with the union and to discuss those proposals with us. I have no idea if the 2P transfer suggested that it is feasible if a worker's buy-out is a realistic prospect, nor do I know the shape or timescale around this strategic railway hub at St. Rolex that has been suggested. However, if those are achievable, we must try and we must try in some detail to secure those. A key question, though, is if GEM and I are not bidding for work to be done at St. Rolex, then who will bid for some work for that work and how can that be facilitated? For instance, have Unite asked for support to develop a business plan from Scottish Enterprise to facilitate a worker's buy-out, or have third parties been actively approached by the Scottish Government and encouraged to bid for work that could be carried out at St. Rolex? I would welcome an update. Let me refer to one contract in particular. I understand that GEM and I have bid for the refurbishment of 33 170-class trains from both ScotRail and Northern Rail. Unite's speculate that work could keep around 40 skilled workers employed at St. Rolex for up to three years. That would retain a foothold at St. Rolex for a meaty period of time to allow the possibility of a railway hub to be explored. However, there is concern that GEM and I will win that work and carry it out at Wilverton in England. I would urge GEM and I and their parent company, Metaris, to ensure that should such work be successfully procured that it is carried out at St. Rolex. Metaris cannot stay silent and I hope that they can be a key player in helping to reset the relationship between GEM and I, workers' unions and other stakeholders. GEM and I may be painting themselves into a corner and perhaps Metaris can assist in finding a solution. Yesterday, I claimed that GEM and I were inflexible, unimaginative, unambitious and lacking in goodwill. I asked them to prove me wrong. It would appear that they now have that opportunity. I hope that we can reset the relationship with GEM and I. I have sought to do my bit by helping to establish a stakeholder group that will meet for a third time tomorrow. I have helped to try to reduce the cost base in relation to the lease. I have sought to seek to reduce overheads and increase the range of work that can be carried out at the site by pushing for electrification and I have urged that every possible delivery model to save jobs is explored. Yesterday, I mentioned that companies expand and contract depending on their order book and projected future business. Perhaps a railway hub fully under public sector control and with several companies operating at St Rolex may emerge in the future. However, the future that workers are imminently concerned about is twofold. It is their jobs and it is the continuation of railway works at St Rolex. No matter what happens with GEM and I, we must ensure that railway works continue to operate at St Rolex. We must also maximise the opportunity for as many workers as possible to retain their skilled employment in Springburn. Anyone who does not must have the utmost support to secure skilled employment within the west of Scotland, but crucially Cabinet Secretary in Closing, that must be a turning point for the railway industry in Springburn and for Scotland. Let us secure the long-term and future of St Rolex and its expansion in the years ahead, because, Presiding Officer, those are difficult and distressing times for the workers and their families and we owe it to them to make that vision a reality. Thank you very much, Mr Doris. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Jamie Greene. I want to start off by thanking Bob Doris for bringing this debate to the chamber and, of course, for his work and passion on the issue that has been there for everybody to see. Like others, I am sure that we will mention yesterday's debate, which I brought forward by James Kelly, which I sat in for the vast majority of, and I think that demonstrates the importance of that particular issue. There are a few reasons, Presiding Officer, why I have chosen to speak tonight, not least because there are constituents in Coatbridge in my constituency who work there. I would like to put on record and mention Neil Paterson, who contacted me directly. As did others, I want to thank him for contacting me and letting me know about what the potential devastating impact would be for him. His family should the works close. I think that Bob Doris indeed on that note. That gentleman is one person who has contacted me to let me know exactly how that would impact on him and other workers in my constituency. It was a good demonstration yesterday outside the Parliament and I thank the unions and others who organised that. That is why I went out to attend a demonstration with Bob Doris and others. I also think that that is an issue that will impact all of Scotland, Presiding Officer. I think that Alex Neil summed that up well in his speech yesterday. It is tied to an industrial past and, perhaps in that way, there is solidarity between the Glasgow Lanarkshire and other areas who have this rich heritage of those communities, as people know, are interwind and have a shared history and culture. Like others yesterday in the chamber, James Kelly's moving speech among others, I have often stood in here and talked with pride. If my grandfather has involvement in the heavy industries in Coltbridge and Lanarkshire as a whole, I know that if he had still been here today, he would be fully behind the workers at Suna Rolex. I have absolutely no doubt about it. Of course, in my constituency again, there is the freight liner industry and the business, which I know that the cabinet secretary is visiting soon. I am sure that he will have a very good experience when I visited it. It was very enlightening, and I know that it will also have full solidarity with the workforce at Suna Rolex in a similar line of work. I have listened to what Bob Doris has said quite carefully in his remarks, Presiding Officer, and I have probably come more than, maybe necessarily, known the ins and outs of the business model and what has happened there in a more constituency basis. I have come more from my constituents who have contacted me and the Scottish industry side of things, but it is clear that this company has not treated its workers fairly at all. There may be many different solutions that some have been bandied about. I am not entirely sure what the best option would be, but I think that we are all agreed that every attempt should be made to save the workforce. I will be joining the voices that are calling for Jim and I, particularly to do the right thing, to engage with the stakeholders group that Bob Doris and others have set up and to treat their workers fairly. I think that this is a massive moment for the real industry in Scotland. It is a massive moment for the real industry in the UK. It is a massive moment for industrial heritage and industrial past. I know that, although the operation is based in Glasgow, it has touched the hearts and minds of people across the country. I can say that it has touched people in Coatbridge. I think that we are all united in calling on the company to do the right thing and stand by its workers. I thank Bob Doris for bringing in his motion to the chamber. I am very pleased to be able to participate in this. It is not in my region, but the subject matters very close to my heart. I have taken great interest in this as I meet stakeholders in the real industry over the previous months. It is also fair to say that we should congratulate the work of both the union and the motion, but, as others have mentioned, others who are standing up for their workforce in this matter are clear that there have been some serious communication problems with how this has been dealt with. I followed yesterday's debate. I apologise that I was not participating in it, but I listened to some of the speeches and some of the comments that were made by my colleague Annie Wells as she stood at this site about the significant emotional attachment that many people in the Glasgow area have with the site. We heard stories of members of families, friends, neighbours and colleagues who have worked at the site. Being part of what has been a stronghold of Scotland's real industry for decades now, at one point producing 60 per cent of our locomotive engines, we cannot deny that the Springburn site is a hugely strategically important part of the Scottish rail industry and should remain so. I listened to the great interest of some of the discussions around the reasons for why the site does not have a future in terms of the types of contracts that it is getting. We have heard that we are at a step change moment in the Scottish rail industry. I think that that is true. I think that there are many positives coming through. There is no doubt that, as we change technology, new carriages are introduced into the network, it is no secret that there are over 150 new electric carriages coming into the Scottish rail network in the coming year from a number of providers and they will service on local, regional and cross-border services. However, with that has come the electrification issue and the fact that a site that is not properly and adequately connected to the electric network will always suffer from a downturn in heavy maintenance in the diesel market. That is a UK-wide, indeed a European-wide downturn in heavy maintenance of the diesel locomotive market. However, what has struck me is how other sites have been able to deal with this and how to react to this. If you look, for example, at the light maintenance site at Craig and Tinney, they have had to invest significantly in the infrastructure there to accept different types of locomotives, to upgrade and upscale their workers, to future-proof those skills so that they can deal with new and emerging technologies. However, as we start to see things such as hydrogen and battery-operated carriages coming on line to the network, I hope, we will also see changes in how we get those carriages on to those sites. They no longer should be able to have to be taken off of electric networks and taken by road, which is unprofitable and difficult and cumbersome. It will inevitably be the reason why many operators are not giving their business to the site. I do not want to touch too much on the politics of all this. I think that a lot has been and will be said on how this has been handled. However, I would ask the transport secretary to think about what conversations that ScotRail has had with its current owners on its potential use of the site. I do think that there is a general wider question around capacity on the network. Where will this maintenance work be done? There are competitors who are well equipped to take on board some of the work, but they themselves will have capacity issues. Are they willing to take on some of the workforce there? What are the opportunities there for some of that work? Mr Doris raises some fair points about other uses for the site. Will it require any form of intervention? Is there the possibility of any form of intervention? What about the owners of the site? I do believe that it is the least hold site, for example. Is there an appetite there among those who own the site to even work with Government? It is inevitable that any form of contract that is given around some of the intercity diesel refurb or HST work that contracts are coming up. It is also my view, and I share the view, that any of those ScotRail contracts that that work should stay in Scotland. I appreciate that we are very short in time in the saving area, and a lot has already been said in the matter. I do think that it is very saddening that we are at this stage. I think that it could have been possible to see this coming. The industry has been changing for a very long time, and it is unfortunate that we have ended up where we are. I would like to think that the Government and its agencies are working not just with its current owner, but with all its potential owners and users of that site to do everything that they can to ensure that that workforce there still has worked for many years and decades to come. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just repeat what I said last night? Congratulations to Bob Doris for securing this debate tonight and to James Kelly for securing the debate last night. I think that the message coming out of last night and the message of coming out tonight is that we are united across the chamber in our determination to try to save not just the jobs but the operations at St Rawlix, if we possibly can. I want to, since I spoke last night, concentrate tonight on the practicalities of what we might be able to do in order to achieve the objective of saving the jobs at St Rawlix and the operation. I think that there are two crucial issues here. The first one is the need to secure breathing space, to get Gemini to extend the deadline so that they do not pull out in the next two or three months, but to extend the deadline ideally at least at the very least until the end of the calendar year to give us time to find a way forward that can secure the future operation of St Rawlix. It is going to be extremely difficult to do that in the next few weeks if we do not have the breathing space that we need to put certain things in place in order to achieve our objective. Elaine Smith Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the member for giving way. I would not just agree with that what the member has been saying, but would he agree that, as part of that, the Government could look at a public ownership model? I am just coming to that very issue. That is the first issue, is to buy the time that we need. I say to the minister and to the Scottish Government that we should be using our influence and leverage over the procurement of rolling stock that indirectly puts pressure on the German eyes of the world to live up to our expectations of them in Scotland. I do not see why we should continue to fund an operation where companies treat us with contempt and yet there is no price to pay by those companies for doing so. The second and more important issue is what options we will look at. As I said last night, the transport hub option is definitely worth looking at in detail. However, there is a second model. If we can draw attention to two companies that are one plan to be owned by the Scottish Government, we have unknown to many people in the national health service, a commercial subsidiary wholly owned by the national health service in Scotland. Its purpose in life is to commercialise the research and development that takes place in our great national health service in Scotland. Although it is a small company, it is the model that can be used to try to see if we can save Synrolix for the longer term. The Government is planning its own national energy company. Again, that is a model that might be applicable here. What I am suggesting is that, as well as looking at the transport hub and any other ideas, we also look at the idea of creating a company dedicated to Synrolix, not just to produce for the Scottish market, but to produce for the wider market in the future. Let's see if we can put that together with investors from elsewhere in the public sector, Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Government being two examples, bringing in where necessary if we can, private investment, bringing in the workers for part ownership, bringing in the unions for part ownership and create a company that is well capitalised to be able to take over the Synrolix work and turn it into a long-term viable business, not just to safeguard the jobs that are there, but to look towards expansion in the future so that we can take full advantage of the work that will be coming downstream in years to come. That requires a lot of detailed work to establish. Can it be done? Is it viable? Is it financially viable? If so, what do we need to do to make it happen? I believe that that is a model led by the public sector, which can work if we do our homework on it, but we need time to do the homework. We need time to put the business plan together. We need time to raise the equity. We need time to prepare and make sure that we can make that happen and make it a viable proposition. That is why the prerequisite is buying the time now from Gemini, which they owe the workers at Synrolix and O Scotland. If we can do that, we can turn that into a phoenix rising from the ashes. I am being quite lenient with time because I have not got so many speakers. I am quite content if I take the extra minute or so, so I am not bothered. I call James Kelly to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start off by congratulating Bob Doris on securing the debate tonight and complimenting him on the work that he has done in support of the workforce at Synrolix. I again place on record my thanks to Unite the Union and RMT for the successful campaign that they have run. I think that the strength of feeling and emotion that you saw from the workers that were here last night and were around the Parliament is a testimony to the strength of those trade unions and also how important this issue is in those local communities. We have heard a lot in the various speeches that have been made over the couple of nights about the case for retaining the plant at the Calais. The strong history and the traditions are going back to 1856. The many families who work at the site up to the current day are crucially the skills that are there, the skilled workforce among the 200 people that are employed there. I think that some crucial points have been made about the rail industry in Scotland and how that has a strong future. It would make no sense at all to see the plant closed when we need an industry that provides efficient and smooth running rolling stock. I think that the other point that I would make is that this is the second debate that is taking place, but it allows us to press home some pertinent points that were not fully in the parliamentary chamber last night. The issue that I would like to raise directly with the minister is the contract in relation to ScotRail class 170. It has been put to me that this contract has been set up to be awarded to Wilburton. If that is the case, it is wholly unacceptable. That is an £8 million contract involving 33 trains, which would start in December 2019, run for a three-year period and secure at least 40 of the jobs. The bulk of the work relates to ScotRail. It strikes me that, if Alex Neil made the point, in terms of procurement, if work is bid for that relates to ScotRail trains, that should be carried out in Scotland at the Calais site, it should not be getting passed down to Wilburton. That is a matter of deep concern. I would ask the minister to clarify the precise position in that contract. I would say that the Government has got to ensure that that contract remains at the St Rolock site and that it should not be getting set up to Wilburton. I have a question to ask, but I should put on my record my thanks to James Kelly for yesterday's debate. It was a remiss of me not to do that, so let me do that now. You make an important point about the 170 work, but it will also be working six months, one year, two years, three years. In terms of what that pipeline of work looks like, there seems to be much more openness and transparency across the railway sector. What work is likely to emerge to allow for forward planning in the industry more generally, but St Rolock is in particular. I think that the valid point that Bob Doris makes is that there is a pipeline of work there, and we have a skilled workforce at the site. It is paramount that the Government, in its broad agreement across all the parties, ensures that come March 4, when the consultation ends, we do not see the site beginning to close down. We need to keep it open. That brings me to my final point. Bob Doris has said that motions on their own do not save jobs, and that is correct. What is needed now is not motions or warm words, but specific action from the Government to ensure that come March 4, we have still got the time, as Alex Neil said, to develop the models and ensure that the work is in place going forward. From that point of view, the Government needs to look at the issue of not just intervention but public ownership, if not on a permanent basis, at least on a temporary basis, from March 4. That would allow the work to take place to assess the viability of the transport hub, to look at how we take forward the issue of electrification, which would ultimately save a lot of costs and make bidding for contracts more viable in the longer term, and to look at how we can ensure that we get contracts in place. It is crucial that the minister gives those assurances any sum in upspeech, but I reiterate the point that, if ScotRail work is awarded in contracts, we must intervene to assure immediately that that is being allocated to the St. Rolox site and not the Wilburton site. Thank you very much. I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Bill Kidd, Mr Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I add my thanks to Bob Dorris for bringing this evening's debate and to James Kelly for bringing yesterday's debate. I signed both motions, but I sadly was not able to stay last night for James Kelly's debate, and I am pleased that I am able to stay for this one. The unions, as others have said, should have all of our thanks and support for the work that they are doing. Obviously, to respond to the immediate threat to something in the region of 200 highly skilled jobs that are at threat, we need to do whatever we can to prevent that threat from becoming a reality, not only to campaign against the planned closures, but to find opportunities for that site to go forward with a stronger future ahead of it. The debate also forces us to confront some deeper issues about the nature of ownership in our modern economy and the role of the private sector. Very few of us would suggest that the private sector should have no role at all in a modern economy, but too often, too often at the moment, private ownership comes with rights and not responsibilities. We do not expect enough in terms of the commitment that owners need to show to the communities that they are engaged with. That applies whether we are talking about land ownership, housing and other buildings, and certainly ownership of companies. The fact, as was remarked in yesterday's debate, is that we can be in a situation where a company that has owned the asset for not much more than five minutes, can then make a decision not even to recognise it as an asset that is of importance to the community and to the economy, but merely as part of its economic portfolio and decided to dispose of it in this way. To announce that in the run-up to Christmas as well, it showed that nothing short of contempt for the community affected. We need to challenge the notion that private ownership confers absolute rights and not the responsibilities to invest in and to protect the people who are affected by the decisions that owners make. We should also recognise some of the positive advantages that can come from public ownership, particularly in a situation such as this where there is not a simple continuous throughput of work. We should all be pleased that there are fewer very old carriages running around on Scotland's railways. We should be pleased—and I think that most of us are—that we are seeing upgrades and a new rolling stock in place. However, if that means a change to the amount of refurbishment work that is going to happen, it is not forever, because a new rolling stock does not stay new forever, so there will continue to be a need for the capacity to do the maintenance work that is required. The site has the skills and needs the infrastructure to be able to access the work that will be needed in future to continue to refurbish not only Scotland's rolling stock but those in other areas as well. Having travelled on a Northern train just in the past week or so, I can confirm that there is some refurbishment work needed there as well. I will give way. Jamie Greene I thank Mr Harvie for giving way. It is on this point of continuous work on rolling stock. Given that, however, there are two other businesses that operate in the same space as the site in Springburn, what effect would public intervention in terms of ownership of that business have on the other two businesses' ability to also accept contracts if one is publicly owned and the other to be privately owned? It is a genuine question than what he thinks. Patrick Harvie It is a serious question and I am sure that it is the kind of serious question that would have confronted the Scottish Government in looking at taking public ownership of Prestwick. Where there is another airport on the west coast of Scotland, there is a potential that a publicly owned airport might change the economic context of a privately owned airport. However, our objective and our priority in making those kind of decisions should not be what is in the best interests of the shareholders who own the privately owned part of the economy. It is what is in the best interests of the whole of our economy and of the people who work in it and the communities that are affected by that work as well. The last point on ownership is—I want to reflect on Alex Neil's speech and welcome some of the points that he made—it was good that he took this opportunity to remind the Scottish Government that it already has a record of seeing opportunities for the role of public ownership in the economy, in parts of the economy where the private sector is also active. Some of us would like that role of public ownership to be bigger than it is now, but the Scottish Government does have some record of seeing opportunities for a role for public ownership. I would encourage the minister to respond to those points in summing up. Reading the report of yesterday's debate, it seemed that the minister wanted to give more emphasis in the first debate on the wider issues around the rail industry. I hope, therefore, that he will take the opportunity in closing on this debate to respond specifically to the two objectives in the UNITE campaign. The electrification measures that he did reflect on briefly, can he tell us what certainty the Scottish Government is undertaking to look into that? What certainty is that giving to the owners? Are they responding to that? Is that going to change their decision? Are there any signals that it will change their decision? On the wider point about a public intervention from the Scottish Government, it may be that Presswick is not the ideal model. There may be others, as Alex Neil suggests, but we need to hear a response from the Scottish Government on that specific proposition in order to know how we are going to move forward. When you come in near the end of a really, really classy—I have said that, honestly—a really thought-out, intelligent debate, in particular one that stretches across the chamber, you feel as though, sometimes, as if most of what you want to say has already been said, but I would like to speak here specifically in order to show that the weight of support that is here for St. Rolex and the workers there—I am not just saying that because I am going to bring weight to it, but the numbers that I think you speak should show that this Parliament cares a great deal about this issue. I would like to recognise the efforts of Bob Doris MSP and Transport Secretary Michael Matheson and others to ensure that the voices and hopes of the workers at St. Rolex Railway Works are heard and prioritised at this very difficult time. In order to achieve the best possible outcome for the highly skilled and specialised workers at the Calais, there must be good faith shown on all sides. A genuine commitment to honouring the years of high-quality efforts that the workforce at this site has shown, and we must maximise the time available to ensure that all viable avenues are assessed and given due consideration. St. Rolex is a historic site, as has been said, and its loss would leave a gaping hole in the community to this day. From 1856, empowering the industrial revolution, where 60 per cent of the world's locomotive engines being built at the Calais is a significant of 19th century Scottish industrial history, but it resonates right to this very day with the workforce there. There might be operational changes to be made, but with reports of contracts having been turned away, there must be life left yet. As I said earlier, good faith must be shown, and I urge Gemini to accept an independent review of their finances concerning operations at St. Rolex, because independent analysis could lead to new approaches to business plans for the site and business going forward. I believe that that is the least a responsible company can do as an employer. I know that the workforce at St. Rolex comes not only from the Springburn area, but from across Glasgow and the west of Scotland, including my own Annie's land area, and that the quality of work that they produced would not be easily replicated anywhere else. Further, it is not only the direct jobs at the Calais, but many others in the surrounding community rely on this being a viable working site. A good and competitive business is built with planning, management and a skilled workforce, and it would be a foolish investor who would put money into a company that does not recognise that. I believe that Gemini should remember this going forward, because I am sure that they would not want to appear to be driven by asset stripping allegations. As I said at the start, the transport secretary has played a key role in chairing the working group, and I know that the Scottish Government will do its best to secure a viable St. Rolex site and continuing jobs for this valuable workforce, and I think that the contributions that have been made here tonight will help in achieving that. I thank Bob Doris and James Kelly for bringing these debates forward. This site is not in my region, but it is a national asset, and it is a national piece of infrastructure that is very important, and that is why I have an interest in it. If you think about the time that this business plant has been around for 160 years, I am sure that 160 years ago there were businesses making, say, penny-farthing bikes. If they sold them, they went out of fashion, out of style, and they were unable to diversify into new products, then that business would fail, and it would probably deserve to fail if they were unable to keep up with the times. However, that is not what is happening here, because this is a plant that has kept up with the times and has been able to produce over all that period of time. That analogy does not fit with the site. What the workers need at this time is not worn words. They do not need their sympathy. I am sure that they have had heaps of that from other people. What they need is action. They need action to protect jobs and protect their futures, because we cannot have hugely important industrial sites passed on time and again and again and again by owners, owners and companies with little care or regard for those who produce the profits that generate the shareholder dividends, but they have no regard for their wellbeing. We have seen that with this company that has been passed on over half a dozen times. It is a profitable company. This is not a lame duck, but a profitable business. I have to ask. It is a bit like looking at the east coast line. A profitable business comes in to public ownership, and then what do they do? They want to flog it again to the private sector. If that is a profitable business, what would be the barrier to taking it in to public ownership, to then generate profits that would go in to the industry and into the sector or indeed to the wider economy? If it was a lame duck asset, then I would see the point of shirking away from that, but it is not. It is a profitable sector. That could be the first part of bringing the rail sector and network back into public control. If it is too big an apple to bite at once, let us take a wee bit at a time, and that could be the first step in that process. That is what we should do. If we look at what Scottish Enterprise does, it provides grants to businesses time and again. Some of those businesses, in my opinion, are absolute chancellers. I look at what happens when I am over Christmas in my area. Given money, time and again by Scottish Enterprise, with very questionable conditions attached to that money, and yet they get support and then, within a few years, they are off leaving 300 workers with no job. This is a business that has been around for 160 years. Surely this deserves that support, too. We know that our railways are run by the Dutch, but that asset could be taken under our control and run by us. It is part of that incremental move towards full public ownership of the rail network. That is what we should be doing at a time, particularly at a time when we are supposed to be moving freight and passengers off roads and on to rail with all the implications that it has for our health, the environment and the economy. I think that if we were to leave that plant to whither on the altar of lessy fare economics, where the market rules over long-term planning and sustainability, that would be absolute madness. I have to say to the minister at this point that sympathy is fine. I am sure that we have all good sympathy, but that will not cut through with any of the workers at this plant. What they need is action and specific action from the minister. I hope that tonight he will tell us what that is. Thank you very much, Mr Findlay. Michael Matheson will close the way for the Government Cabinet Secretary, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, like others, offer my congratulations to Bob Doris in securing this debate. As I said last night, Bob Doris is the local constituency MSP that is very diligent in pursuing the issue on behalf of his constituents and the future provision of a rail site at the St. Roilock site at the present time. I will continue to work with him in pursuing these matters through the stakeholders group and the on-going work that has continued to be taken forward by Scottish Enterprise Transport Scotland and in partnership with the unions. Last night's debate, Deputy Presiding Officer, I highlighted to members the value that the rail industry has to the Scottish economy and the fact that we are going through a period of unprecedented investment in the rail sector in Scotland. That is why it is particularly disappointing that GEM and I have chosen to end its continued involvement at this particular site. We as a Government are also determined to do what we can in order to build up this sector. It is one that I mentioned last night that I think has often been overlooked and undervalued. One in which the work that has now been taken forward by Scottish Enterprise with the sector is about trying to build that up and to sustain it in moving forward. Attraction of Talgo to the Longannet site is a very practical example of the work that we are doing to try to build up at the rail industry in Scotland. Having said that, this is an industry that still has very significant challenges. It has significant challenges for what a number of members have pointed out because of the new rolling stock that has been introduced. There are some sites that are largely dependent on undertaking heavy rail refurbishment work on what is effectively British rail rolling stock, a rolling stock that was in the network prior to its privatisation. The reality is that the amount of that stock that requires refurbishment is in decline. That is not just having an impact here in Scotland, but it is having an impact right across the UK and beyond the UK. A key part of that is about making sure that we can try to help to ensure that where rolling stock is requiring work to be undertaken, that as much of that as possible is undertaken here in Scotland. However, there are specific challenges around being able to achieve that. Bob Doris referred to the complexity of the rolling stock environment within the rail industry 1, which places considerable challenges in making sure that that work is undertaken here in Scotland. Jimmy Greene, in his contribution, highlighted very well the challenges within the sector and the changing nature of the sector. Alongside that, we have a springburn site, which is over 160 years old, designed at a time when the needs and the demands of the industry were different and designed in a way that does not reflect the needs of and the demands of modern rolling stock and the maintenance and refurbishment of modern rolling stock. One of the things that is extremely important—I will come on to that in more detail around the hub idea—is extremely important. However, the reality is that, for this site, with Jim and I at the present time, the work will be finished at the end of July. It has been extended by some additional work, four trains that have been put in there by ScotRail in order to have some heavy engineering work carried out on them. However, it echoes the point that was made by Alex Neil in his contribution, that time is very limited. One of the things that we have been pursuing with Jim and I is the need to try and build more time into this in order to give us the opportunity to pursue some of the wider options about providing sustainable employment on this site and ensuring that it can still be used for heavy rail work going forward. That is why Scottish Enterprise and Transport Scotland have been involved with the whole of the sector in Scotland—the rail industry in Scotland—in looking at how we can repurpose the site in order to give it a sustainable future for employment in the rail industry going forward. That will take us some time to be able to achieve that. A key part of looking at that is to see how the existing site can be reconfigured in order to make it attractive for other interested parties to come and base themselves on that particular site. One of the things that has been highlighted is the issue of electrification. It could align into this particular site to be electrified. It is around four kilometres that will have to be electrified. I have already given direction to Network Rail to look at undertaking that work. The scoping work has already started in that. That is one of the key things that we need to do in order to deliver a new rail hub at this particular site. However, that will take time to have that work carried out, but the feasibility work and the assessment work have already been undertaken by Network Rail. I will give way to Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie. The minister is giving us some more information about that. We all understand that it cannot be done with the snap of the fingers. It will take some time. Can the minister tell us what will be the financial context of a decision that Network Rail may need to make, or will the Scottish Government be able to make that final decision? Would that have to come from the Scottish Government budget, or would it come from Network Rail funds? Who decides and who pays once the feasibility work has been done? In effect, the Scottish Government would have to pay for that through its contribution to Network Rail. The average cost is £1 million per kilometre, so the electrification of that line into that particular route could cost us in the region of £4 million. That is why it is also before we undertake that work, it is critical that we look at how we can reconfigure the site to see if we can get rail industry work undertaken there before we start just commissioning work if it turns out that we cannot get rail work undertaken in that particular site. I will give way to the member again, but I am very conscious of time. No, I am content if members are content, and Cabinet Secretary, if you are content, let it run a little longer. Can I just check the Cabinet Secretary about timings, are you content that we are running it about? I will continue as best I can, Presiding Officer. I know, because then we have other engagements. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. Very briefly, would that cost not also reinforce the need for some way of recouping the increase in the value of the site, either through a public ownership option or some other way of recouping that public investment, rather than simply resulting in it being an increase in the value of a privately owned asset? The site is owned by a private company at the present time, a lease holder at Hansteens. It is also fair to say to them that they are presently undertaking work on how they can reconfigure the site to make it more viable for the rail industry going forward. There is an important element here about making sure that as we look at the options in redeveloping the site, our focus is on how we can do that to make it viable for the railway industry, for the future needs of our railway industry and do it in a way that can create sustainable employment for people on that particular site. That is central to the work that has been undertaken by Scottish Enterprise and also by Transport Scotland. I will give way briefly to the member but I do want to make progress because I am very conscious of time and I have got other matters that I have to deal with, Presiding Officer. I think that the chamber will note that briefly, Mr Kelly. Thank you briefly. Can you address the point that I made about the ScotRail 170s contract? I am going to be a member, but I am going to be a member. I am going to be a member. I am going to be a member. Can you wait till I call you, cabinet secretary? Just a moment, please sit down. Can you just wait until I call you? I know that you are desperate to answer, but not doing your feet at the one time. Please sit down now, cabinet secretary. I will address that point if the member lets me make progress on the issue. Bob Doris raised the issue. If it is not Gemini in this site, then who is it going to be in this site? It has been put to us that ScotRail should step in and take over the site, or that Network Rail should step in and they should take over the site. Both parties have considered this matter in detail at the request of the Scottish Government and also engaged with the trade unions on this matter. Neither ScotRail require the site. They have existing capacity within their own engineering workshops as it stands at the present time, and Network Rail do not require it at the present time. However, there is a potential for them to be interested in being involved in some form of hub if it is progressed in being moved forward. That is why the work that we are doing with the industry in order to understand their needs and the potential use of the site is so critical to finding a sustainable future for that. That is why the hub idea could involve public and private sector involvement in creating the type of environment that allows us to create that sustainable approach. That is exactly what we are doing. However, it also meets the challenge that Alex Neil raised. That will take his time to be able to do that. That is why we are applying as much pressure as we can to Gemini and Mataris and looking at other rolling stock providers if there is any other work that can be put into that site in order to try and sustain it going forward. That is what we will continue to try and do. We are not going to give up on the site. We will do everything we can, but time is limited in what we can actually do. James Kelly raised the issue of the 170 class trains and the ScotRail element of those. Those trains are not owned by ScotRail. Those trains are owned by a leasing company called Porterbrooke, who owns them as part of the leasing arrangement that ScotRail has for rolling stock and, I believe, another rolling stock provider. It is a northern route franchise in England. That is part of the challenge. The franchising nature of the industry means that the rolling stock is very often not owned by the service provider themselves, but by private companies. Therefore, the decision on where that work should go to is a decision that is made by Porterbrooke, not ScotRail, because it owns the rolling stock. We are trying to make sure that as much of that type of work that can be undertaken in Scotland is undertaken. I need to make progress, I am afraid. A key part of that is to recognise, as was rightly pointed out, that there are several other companies in Scotland that are involved in bidding for that type of work that employ significant workforce in the sector. We do not have any option on franchising. Legally, we have to franchise because of the railways act as it stands at the present moment. That continues to be the case. That is for a debate for elsewhere. It does not address the issue in relation to Springburn. In the limited time that we have had, we have been working very closely with the unions and with all of the industry in Scotland to try to find a way in which to repurpose this site. The hub is the most effective way that we believe that we can go about achieving that and repurposing the site, given the design of it and also looking at electrification of the site. If that helps us to achieve that and looking at how that can meet the needs of the industry in the years ahead, what we will continue to do is to work with all to try to achieve that. At the same time, pressing Gemini and others in the industry to try and give us more time to allow us to develop that as we meet the demands that are being set by the timescale being set by Gemini. Equally, as it stands at the present moment, the Scottish Government's agencies from Scottish Enterprise through to Transport Scotland and PACE are all doing what they can. PACE stands ready to offer support and advice to the workforce as and where necessary. However, I can assure members that we will continue to do everything that we can within the limited abilities that we have in this matter to try to make sure that that site continues to be used for heavy rail purposes to serve our industry here in Scotland in the years ahead. I thank all the members for their contributions in this very important debate. That is why I have extended the time for it and I thank the cabinet secretary for extending his time. That concludes the debate and I close this meeting of Parliament.