 The final item of business is members' business debate on motion 15536 in the name of James Kelly on the threat enclosure of the St Rollins railway works. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on James Kelly to open the debate for around seven minutes, please, Mr Kelly. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it gives me great pleasure to open this members' debate on the threat enclosure of the St Rollins railway works. I want to start by welcoming the members of UNITE and RMT to the Scottish Parliament chamber this evening. I'm delighted to see that so many of the workforce have made their way through from Springburn this evening to support this debate, and I know that they've made their views clear outside the Parliament and also in lobbying MSPs in committee room 4. I want to particularly pay tribute to the UNITE rally around the Calais campaign and the successful petition, which has got over 3,000 signatories today, and I think that that shows the strength of feeling that there is. I want to thank all the MSPs who have supported the motion. I pay particular tribute to the constituency MSP, Bob Doris, who I know has worked hard on the issue, and also to Paul Sweeney, the local MP who held the debate in the House of Commons on the issue. This is a serious members' debate, and it comes at a really vital time for the workforce, because people's jobs are at threat and this has got an impact on people's lives. I think that it's particularly poignant when you look at the history of the Calais works in Springburn. It spans back 160 years, and many families have got a history and a tradition there. My own uncle James White worked there throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, and my cousin Claire was recently recalling on Facebook how many of the families used to go down to the works and look at the engines being built and sometimes crawl under the engines. That shows you the memories and the powerful emotion that is attached to it. Many of the people in the gallery carry those traditions on. I know that there are people who have worked more than 30 years at the site, and we do not want to see the loss of experience and expertise in the repair and maintenance of engines at that work. As I said, we are at a crucial time because we are now in the consultation period, which has been launched by the employers' Gemini. That consultation period closes on 4 March. It is crucial that we cannot allow the clock assembly to run down to 4 March with nothing happening, because that would be catastrophic not only for the workers in the gallery but also for the local community and the wider economy. When factories are threatened, people will often focus on what is the economic case for keeping the factory open. In that case, there is a really powerful case to be made for keeping the spring burn plant open. We have many debates across the chamber on rail services. Although there are some heated disagreements around ScotRail and Abellio, one thing that we all agree on is the importance of infrastructure and the importance of efficient rolling stock. From that point of view, the Caliworks has not only got an important role to play, but it has a role to play in growing that economic base and contribution to the economy. The other thing to bear in mind is the skills that there are in that workforce. That is shown by, if you look at the January sales figures at the plant, £1.8 million of sales, greater than the budget for that period of £1.6 million. That demonstrates that, in a very difficult time when jobs were under threat, how well and diligently that workforce performed. If that was translated throughout the year, that would give you sales of £21.6 million. We should not, in any way, end not just the history but the economic asset and the great skills of that workforce on 4 March. We need action now. That is why, along with Unite and RMT, I am calling for a direct intervention from the Government in this case to look at the option of public ownership. It has been done before with Presswick, and I think that the economic case is really strong to be done there at Springburn. There are also a number of issues that can be looked at in relation to that, that would make the site even more viable. The electrification of the site into Glasgow, when locomotives and engines are retained there currently, it costs £10,000 to move them in and out of the site. Electrification would save that cost. The points have also been made by Unite of the potential for a transport hub there, bringing ScotRail network rail all together. From that point of view, I think that what the Government should be doing as a very minimum is enlisting the services of Scottish Enterprise to bring all the agencies together and to look at the economic case. However, it is absolutely crucial that we do not go beyond 4 March without any sort of Government intervention, even if it is done on a temporary basis, to allow the work to continue and to allow the absolutely essential economic assessment to be carried out. We need action now. I think that it is great that we have the workers here in the gallery this evening. When Michael Matheson comes to respond, what I would urge you to do, Cabinet Secretary, is to speak directly to the workers, because that is why they have come here this evening. They want to see some sort of intervention from the Government, so there is a big responsibility on you, Mr Matheson. I know that you are a ffalker MSP now, but I know that you grew up in Glasgow and Tory Glen. You know the devastation that the potential loss of those jobs would cause. I am asking, along with the other MSPs in the chamber, that what we need now is Government intervention, to look at the option of public ownership at now before 4 March, so that we can save those jobs, so that we can save the economic asset that is the Caliworks and allow it to continue, not only so that people still have their livelihoods, but so that we can still make that massive contribution to rail services and the wider Scottish economy. Can I say to those in the public gallery that it is a delight to have you here, but I would appreciate it if you do not clap, boo, jeer or anything at all. The members please that you do not speak directly to anyone. You speak through the chair. Speeches, please, of four minutes. Alex Neil, followed by Richard Leonard. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, I congratulate James Kelly on securing this debate tonight and to Bob Doris for securing his debate tomorrow night, and to the two of them collectively for the first time in 20 years in persuading the bureau to have two debates on the same subject one day after the other. That is well merited in this case because of the importance of this issue. This is not just a spring burn issue, it is not just a Glasgow issue, it is a Scottish issue, and it is about the future of our industrial base. The first thing to say is a word or two about the company that currently owns the facility, Gemini, which is a subsidiary of the Metaris company based in Murich. I am not in any way, naturally hostile to foreign companies coming into Scotland to produce work and production because that is the way that the modern world works, but what I do object to is treating people with contempt, which I think is exactly what is happening here, as has happened far too often in Scotland's industrial history. This facility has been going since 1856, and despite the rumours, I was not there at the opening ceremony. However, for all those years, it has serviced not just the market in Scotland but the wider market across the UK. I have no doubt, by the way, that if this facility were to close, the first-class workers who worked there, many of them first-class engineers, would find no difficulty in getting another job because already they are being well poached by other companies in the west of Scotland and beyond. That is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue for the Scottish economy is how we can retain capacity in a sector that has got a growth future. If that was dealing with a sector where, like diesel cars, the long-term future is highly questionable, we would be in a very different situation. However, it is not. It is dealing with an engineering repair and maintenance facility that has got a potential future if we are able to put that future together. Therefore, it is extremely important, first of all, that we send out a loud and clear message from across all the parties in this chamber that we must do not just as a Government but as a Parliament everything that we can do in the limited time left to try to save this facility, not for yesterday's year, although that is important, but for tomorrow's jobs, for tomorrow's economy. The first thing that we have to do is to try to get this company to see sense and, at the very least, keep this facility going because of the orders to do it for at least another three to six months, to give us time to look at all the options being looked at by the stakeholder group and others to see which option is possible and practical to move forward to. My own view is that those options should include the possibility of setting up a dedicated company not trying to sell it to another company as a branch operation, but we should look at being entrepreneurial ourselves to see whether we can, with perhaps private sector funding along with the public sector, create a new dedicated company to take over that capacity. We should also look in intensive detail at the transport hub idea, and those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. However, the message from this debate tonight must be to explore every single option to do it urgently, to do it ambitiously, to think outside the box, to be entrepreneurial and do everything that we can, not just to save the jobs—that is critically important—but to save the future of this facility if we can do so. Richard Leonard, followed by Annie Wells. Can I draw members' attention to my register of interests, in particular my membership of the trade union unite? I want to begin by thanking James Kelly for bringing this important industrial matter to the Scottish Parliament. That is precisely the kind of issue that this Parliament was established to address. It is what Michael McGarhey described as the case for a decentralised and devolved Parliament in order to involve the people of a country in the operation of power at every possible level, which is why I am delighted as well that so many workers at the centre of this campaign, who are in the fight of their lives, are here tonight in the public gallery. I am sure that in this debate there will be no shortage of contributions that recognise some may even glorify the important role that the Calais has played in Scotland's industrial past. However, I want to talk about its present and its future, because it remains today the largest train repair and maintenance site in Scotland, and its loss would mean that we would no longer be able to repair and maintain our railway rolling stock, which we have been able to do since the dawn of the steam age. Since its privatisation in 1995, the spring burn works has been owned by Babcock International, by Siemens, by Alstom, by railcar, by Norbrems, who sold it to Metaris, and then last year Metaris formed a new code, Gemini rail, a wholly unsubsidory that, according to companies house, was previously known as Norbrems rail services UK limited. I have to say that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our economy works when a site can change hands so many times in such a short space of time with little or no say for the workers, the very people whose livelihoods depend on it. In 23 years it has been in British ownership, in German ownership, in French ownership, and it is back again in German ownership, and it should be in public ownership instead. There is something fundamentally wrong as well when our economy allows for the power to decide the future of 200 jobs and extinguish thousands of years of collective working experience, the power to close down a critical part of our industrial base, which has been in place for over 150 years, when that power rests with a new company, which has just owned a business for a matter of weeks. It cannot be right when an owner who is just in the door has so much more power than the workforce, which is successfully delivering its budget, meeting its targets and generating profits. I want to close by focusing on the future of the Calais, because there is nothing preordained about this. There is no invisible hand of the market locking the padlock on these factory gates, no iron law of history determining that somehow the Calais works should close. Indeed, I say to the minister today, we make our own history. Why don't you seize this moral, social, economic imperative that demands action, that demands government intervention to save these jobs and this vital part of our productive base? Gemini Rayleigh is bidding for work on the ScotRail-class 170 turbo-star contract. It is a value of £8 million that represents 40 per cent of the annual turnover of the Calais site. If Gemini wins this work, it would be work carried out in Milton Keynes, so we would have a situation where we will be transporting railway carriages, no doubt by road, to a site that is some 400 miles away. The Calais site needs a bit of vision, it needs innovative government, a government with ambition, which is prepared to seriously consider bringing this site back into public ownership as part of a commitment to bringing the whole railway system back into public ownership. That is what those workers deserve. That is why I am happy to give my full support to their campaign to save these jobs and to save this site. Let's save the Calais. Annie Wells, Colin Smyth, Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and my thanks to James Kelly for bringing this debate to the chamber today. I think that the strength of feeling regarding this issue can easily be shown by the fact that there are two separate members' business debates planned this week regarding the St. Wallach railway works, otherwise known as the Calais. As well as a large number of RMT and Unite members here in the gallery this evening, I would like to give my apologies. I was meant to pop along today, but I couldn't get out, so I was more than happy to meet later. That is the central debate that tins with many emotions for myself. More importantly, there is a great sadness, concern and regret that those historic works are under threat. Having grown up and still living in Springburn, the railway has always played an important part of my life, from my dad being a guard at the Cow Lairs depot to known friends, family and neighbours who worked at the Calais. Indeed, the site continues to employ many people who live locally, for whom the railway is the only industry that they know and are extremely passionate about. With the 120 full-time jobs at stake, with many other jobs linked to agencies, the situation is at a critical point. The site's historic links cannot be understated and deserved to be highlighted, particularly with regard to the current situation. At the height of the industrial revolution, the site at Springburn was used for the Caledonian railway, which had moved away from Greenock, giving a major economic boost to the area and keeping it in pace with major industry changes that were occurring across the UK. That is not a site that has failed to keep up pace with technological changes over the years, including this very day. In recent years, the works have played a key role in overhauling many of Scotland's class 156 and class 320 trains. When so many livelihoods at stake affect so many families in an area that I know so well, I believe that the Government should be doing all it can to help to secure a future for this vital site. We read reports of a meeting with the transport secretary, Unite and site owners, Gemini, that took place in January 23. That is almost a month ago, and the consultation period ends in under two weeks. I would like to think that more discussions are planned between all interested stakeholders. I was pleased to hear that the Scottish Government has urged Transport Scotland to accelerate a commission looking at the electrification of the depot. Electrification is certainly a viable option for the future of this site, given its geographical location. I, too, support that idea, and I want to ask the cabinet secretary if he is able to provide an update on how those calls to Transport Scotland are progressing in relation to any potential electrification at the Calais. I would also like to back calls made to extend the consultation period to allow more time for the depot to be saved. The Calais is not a site that is beyond saving. In fact, it is the exact opposite. That is why it is such a shock when plans were announced to close this much-loved site, and that is why there is such a fight to save it from closure. I fully believe that the St Rollins railworks have a viable part to play in the economy of Stringburn and beyond, and the thought of the closure going ahead would be utterly devastating for the local community. I hope that the debates in Parliament and the passions shown by members across the chamber can redouble efforts to find a way forward ahead of the consultation period ending. That is the minimum that the workforce and their families deserve. I refer members to my register of interests as a member of Unite the Union. I can also thank James Kelly not only for tabling his motion, which has allowed today's debate to take place today, but also for his campaign working in solidarity with workers at the Calais alongside Glasgow North East MP Paul Sweeney and the trade unions Unite and the RMT. As we have already heard from the RMT and the right members on the streets outside Parliament earlier and from James Kelly, Richard Leonard and others in today's debate, the Labour movement is very clear. We will not allow St Rollins to close. It would be devastating for the hundreds of high-skill workers at the Calais, their families and their communities, and it would be devastating for the long-term future of railway engineering in Scotland, where the skills lost may never be recovered. The Scottish Government, this Parliament owes it to the workers at the site, the local communities, the Scottish railway engineering industry to protect this national asset and take every possible measure to stop this closure, including if necessary, the Scottish Government intervening to take over the lease of the site from Hanstein. Labour unashamably supports public control of our railways. That is not a return to a 20th century model of nationalisation, it is a modern 21st century vision of democratic ownership that puts passengers not profits first. It is a vision that recognises that public transport is a public service. If that vision means that we have market failure in key sites that serve our public transport system, also bringing them under public ownership, then so be it. That would not be a last resort, in my view. It would be an opportunity to develop a publicly owned Scottish railway engineering hub to meet the needs of the Scottish rail sector. St Rollins is the largest St Rollins stop repair site in Scotland. If we want Scotland's railways to be maintained, to be refurbished and to be repaired in Scotland, then we need to save that site. It is clear that, despite the challenges that it has faced, it is a financially viable site with work to keep it operational during 2019. It is a turnover of more than £20 million a year, but it has been let down by the transfer of posts south of the border by the current owners and a lack of vigour to secure contracts, leaving the site to whether on the vine instead of reaching the potential that we know it clearly has. That is why every option needs to be explored to secure the site's future and why the site also needs to support to grow, including electrifying the line to the depot. That will be a small investment but one with huge benefits, given the site access to a significant market that has been closed off until now, but is critical to future proofing the depot. With diesel, multiple units now making up just 12 per cent of pipeline rolling stock orders, electrification is a necessity for the future of the site. Beyond that, we need to see investment in diversifying the depot to protect existing skills, ensuring that it is not overly dependent on one particular form of work and protecting the site against the cyclical nature of project work that currently plagues the rolling stock engineering industry. We also need to look again at the impact of the way rolling stock is now procured, particularly the effect of design build and maintenance contracts, and the impact that that has on the location of works and the skill base. The crisis at Springburn brings home to us all the huge issues that are currently facing the industry. The need for a new strategy to protect the skilled workforce who have given their livelihoods to the rail industry is needed now more than ever before. We now have less than two weeks to secure the site, to rally ruin the cally and save the jobs at Springburn. The closure of the depot would be devastating for the workforce and for the local community. It would have a lasting impact on the Scottish rail engineering industry, but there are alternatives to closure. The Government needs to vigorously pursue those alternatives, including taking the site back into public hands and show solidarity to the workers who have come here and given us that strong message today. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and thank the workers from the cally and my constituency for coming to the Parliament. I will lead a second debate tomorrow evening on the same theme where I will have more time to expand my comments and get into much more detail. The owners of St. Rolex, Gemini, have acted and have not acted in good faith. They put off engaging with Scottish Government agencies and the stunned employees in Springburn by announcing the company's intention to close the site before Christmas. I raised the matter at First Minister's questions and visited St. Rolex to meet workers. My ask of the First Minister was to establish a stakeholder group to save jobs and to save the future of the site. That group will meet for a third time on Thursday this week. Gemini's inaction and interaction with that group has lacked both imagination and flexibility. I met Gemini in December and it emerged that her order book would run up until June 2019. That means that any statutory process for redundancies that we obviously did not want to see anyway did not have to even commence until April this year. I urged Gemini not to commence the redundancy process early but instead used the time to consider alternative plans. Gemini ignored the requests and needless notices that were served to workers in January. That lacked good will and that lacked good faith. Once again, I plead to them that this process has not been required. I am concerned about Gemini not proactively seeking work and lacking enthusiasm and commitment when it seeks orders for her order book. I informed Gemini that the owners of the St. Rolex site would be interested in thinking imaginatively to reduce the cost base at that site and work collaboratively with Gemini or whoever occupied that site. It took me to push that matter forward. Gemini had not explored that option. That is a dereliction of duty. At the stakeholder meeting, myself and Unite raised the prospect of electrification of the line at St. Rolex to further reduce business costs and potentially to significantly open the site up to a greater range of work. The Scottish Government is now actively exploring that. Efforts to find a solution and save jobs continue, but Gemini and I appear ambivalent at best. I hope that Gemini and I take exception to my painting of them as being inflexible, unimaginative, unambitious and lacking in goodwill. Please take exception, but prove me wrong and step in to save these jobs. In 2018 St. Rolex actually made a gross profit, but a marginal net loss when overheads were applied, a tiny loss based on a £20 million turnover. However, Gemini then decided to allocate central costs of £1.16 million, and we are not sure why. There is an urgent need for Gemini to disaggregate those costs to better understand those numbers. That will improve the prospect of attracting both public and private sector investment. I mentioned what Gemini could bid for. Gemini has asserted that, even if she won that work, she may still seek to close the site. I find that astounding and short-sighted position. In fact, it is just unacceptable. There appears to be no effort by Gemini to explore how she could expand or contract operations at Springburn based on a changing order book. Can Gemini limit redundancies and maintain operations and expand in the future? Of course she could. Are they trying to do it? No, they are not. We have heard of up to 100 jobs at Wabtec and Kilmarnock for those who may be made redundant in Springburn. We do not want to see redundancies, but we hear of 100 jobs. That could be welcomed as part of a planned contraction at Springburn that retains key skills at the site to expand further in the future, but that is not what is happening. When Gemini have not shown vision, we must show that vision. Unite has asked for the Scottish public sector to explore taking over the site as well as the two pae of jobs. Of course, that must be considered. I will say more tomorrow about how Unite believes that there could be a viable order book for St. Rolex from around December 2019. I will also explore the prospect of securing a railway hub at Springburn for generations to come. On those two suggestions, let me make one key point. The Scottish public sector must have strategic control over the St. Rolex site. That requires a long-term agreement at the very least between the public sector and the owners of that site, not Gemini. If the site is to be invested in as part of a strategic infrastructure of Scotland's railways, we must have strategic control over it. I urge the cabinet secretary to reply to that point and to sum it up. I look forward to exploring some of those issues in more detail tomorrow, including the potential of a workers buyout. In the meantime, I appeal for Gemini to come to the table in a meaningful way to discuss various ideas and their parent company, Metares, to be more hands-on in doing the right thing by a workforce who has been involved in railways at that site since 1856. For the moment, I remain absolutely committed to rallying in Calais and will return to those issues during tomorrow's debate. John Finnie, followed by Elaine Smith. It is customary to congratulate the member and secure an debate. I do not suppose that Mr Kelly would want me to congratulate him for that, but I congratulate the combined work that has gone on with Mr Kelly, Mr Doris and Mr Sweeney. Most of all, they are empty and unite. Come this stage of the debate, much of it has all been said, but I would like to touch on what Richard Leonard said. That is when he talked about the succession of private companies involved at the site following privatisation since 1995. The obligation that is placed in each and every one of those companies is to maximise profit for their shareholders to have minimal regard—a lot of them will have had for the workforce. The term used by Mr Neill, Alec Neill, is entirely appropriate. There is no contempt from the Scottish Green Party. We will lend our support and equivocal support to any group of workers in this situation. I want to talk about the broader situation with rail and how fragmented the rail industry is across the UK. We have the tracker infrastructure, the franchises, the freight train operators, the rolling stock—primarily owned by the rolling stock leasing companies—and we know that rail still enjoys significant public subsidies, but there are a lot of folks still to get their cut there. What is important is the role of those premises to not only the immediate communities but others have touched on that it is a national asset. Like others before, it is certainly the view of the Scottish Green Party that rail, including infrastructure and support services—importantly engineering being part of that—should be in public ownership, run exclusively in the public interest. We would start by removing the franchise for a bell from a bellio. With that sort of everything, no, it certainly wouldn't, but it would give us strategic direction. In recent years, we know that staff at the works are focused on rolling stock and component refurbishment. I am grateful to the letter from Mr Cash, the general secretary of the RMT, when he talks about the format of contracts at the moment. They are design, build and maintain and commenced the approach of an integrated rolling strategy. I think that that is something that needs to be seriously looked at. It is this fragmentation that is the lack of a single direction that is importantly operating exclusively in the public interest that brings about many of those problems, in my opinion. This is the largest rolling stock repair site in Scotland. There are two other smaller ones. I will not repeat all the figures that are there and clear for everyone to see. I would say that there are very clear opportunities. We know that there is a new rolling stock coming on with less demand for repairs and maintenance, but inspecting repairing and replacing is an integral part of any system, as has been touched on by 88 per cent, is going to be electric. I welcome the expansion of electrification and I appreciate all that will be said about control periods, but it seems to me that if there is to be a collaborative approach adopted in relation to that, we need to ensure the electrification of all depots. It even seems ridiculous to say that. That should have been a defect. We announced a billion-pound road today. The costs are insignificant in terms of the benefits that can be accrued. I am aware that the white-collar operations have moved to Malton Keynes. It is very supportive of looking at other innovative approaches, not least in respect of a transport hub. Of course, the nature of rail is that we want to have and will continue regardless, and we support the devolution of network rail and we want to run a public rail network, but of course there is going to be co-operation across the small islands, but Scotland will be in. That is a quote from the Westminster debate, at a huge strategic disadvantage in maintaining its own rolling stock depending on the rail we maintain facilities elsewhere. Prestwick has been alluded to. Can I give two examples from my own area where public sector involvement in transport is seen for the wider public benefit? That is not simply CalMac, but Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd. I am not impressed with the idea of entrepreneurial. I just want the Scottish Government to do what is in the interests of the Scottish people and that is to maintain that side. The last of the open debate contributions is from Elaine Smith. I am a member of Unite and convener of the RMT's parliamentary group, and I welcome members of the unions here tonight and Paul Sweeney MP as well. Like others, I thank James Kelly for bringing the debate this evening and making a short contribution in support of that. I also thank Bob Doris for his motion, which will be debated tomorrow evening. As others have said, the Calisite and Springburn is the single biggest step of its kind in Scotland, and it is essential to servicing and supporting Scottish railways. The importance and expertise of the services of the Calisites was recognised when the site was sold on to Metareys only last year. At that time, the chief executive officer said, rail services hold a unique market position in the UK, providing excellent expert services and know-how for the railway industry. Both companies have strong growth potential and they are an ideal match for our on-going operations. It is therefore shocking that only six months later, the staff are now on statutory notice. The site, of course, had already suffered a reduction in staffing levels over the years and it was disappointingly not given assistance from the Government in 2013 when former owner rail care was placed in the administration. Now we know that nearly 200 highly experienced staff are facing an uncertain future, but unfortunately the Government does not appear to have seen urgency in this situation and I will explain the reason why I say that. In October, I lodged questions regarding the future of the Springburn site when it was highlighted that the lease was up for renewal. I was advised four weeks later and I quote, officials from Transport Scotland have made contact with Gemini rail services UK Ltd, the division of Metareys have taken over North Bremsh rail services and will be meeting representatives soon to discuss the future of the Springburn site, its staff and its workload. Considering that the transport minister had already been made aware of the situation directly by the staff and their trade unions, it is surprising that no maintenance had taken place earlier, I have to say. This busy site has got an unrivaled excellent work record and it has got the largest capacity in Scotland to service orders and it has invested in key specialist equipment. Given the amount of public money that the Government is happy to invest in a bellio of ScotRail, it is concerning that the potential loss of this major report site was not higher on the agenda. I do hope that it is now with two debates taking place this week and I am sure that we will hear from the minister and he is summing up about that. We are all too aware of the constant disruptions of passengers as trains seem to break down on a weekly basis and toilet services are more often than not out of use. I can only imagine the difficulties that will be caused if the future repair and maintenance is to take place over 300 miles away and cannot be completed at the Calais. I support James Kelly's call for Government intervention to own it publicly. I will finish by quoting the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Ash, who said, "...the planned closure of the Springburn rail depot in Glasgow is in that of industrial vandalism. Well, every effort must be made to ensure that our ScotRailways are fully supported with the expertise and knowledge that is readily available at the Calais and this Parliament and Government must make a stand against this unjustified, costly and short-sighted act of industrial vandalism." I believe that public ownership is the way forward and, once again, I thank James Kelly for bringing the important debate this evening. Colin Michael Matheson, to respond to the debate for around seven minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I, like others, begin by congratulating James Kelly on securing time for this debate? I am conscious that this is one of two debates that we will have this week on the Calais and the future of that particular facility. I am very conscious of the need to put on record my thanks to the local member, Bob Doris, who has been very diligent in pursuing this matter on behalf of his constituents and the company that is based and the site that is based within his constituency. He has pursued this matter with vigor and I fully respect his commitment to trying to achieve the best outcome for his constituents and for that particular site in its future use. One of the things that I want to do tonight, given that we have two debates this matter, is to emphasise the importance that we place on the rail industry in Scotland. We are in a situation just now where, as a Government, our investment in rail is at unprecedented levels. We are making sure that we are making the right type of investment into our rail services. For example, over the past four years, as part of our support to the ScotRail franchise, £475 million has been invested in new and refurbished rolling stock. Part of that work from the refurbishment works that has been taken forward has resulted in at the site in Springburn, where some £36 million of that investment has been invested for the purposes of that refurbishment work. Alongside the wider work that we are doing in the industry, whether it is the Caledonian Sleeper or the new Hediatria trains that have been introduced, a lot of the work that we have been undertaking in refurbishing rolling stock has been taken place in Springburn, the Wabtec rail Scotland base in Kilmarnock, Brody's engineering facilities in Kilmarnock, Alstrom in Pomodi, the maintenance depot there, and, as I mentioned, also at Springburn. There is a range of depots that have been used for some of the refurbishment work that has been undertaken in Scotland. That sits alongside the investment that has been made by, for example, Hitachi in the Craig and Tinney site for maintenance of that particular rolling stock as well. There is no doubt that, from the investments that were made by passengers and the public that benefit from that, it also helps to sustain and support employment as well. Of course, we want to see that continuing as we move forward. This though, Deputy Presiding Officer, is a sector that I think has historically been under recognised for the contribution that it makes to our economy. It is also a sector that I do not think has been properly recognised as being able to sustain investment over an extended period of time, where too often companies find themselves in a situation where they have work or they do not have work, depending on how the leasing arrangements in the rolling stock operators choose to roll these things at their investment programmes. This is a sector that has a significant number of people employed in Scotland. It is now estimated that there is something in the region of 1,200 workers directly involved in the maintenance and in the preparation of our fleet on a daily basis. That is a significant workforce across the country. Those are jobs that are skilled and ones that will continue to require in the future if we are to make sure that we continue to sustain and improve our public transport network. I also want to share with the chamber my view and why I think that this sector has been under recognised over a long extended period of time. It is estimated that the supply chain to the industry in Scotland alone, the gross value of that, is in the region of £668 million a year, sustaining some 13,000 people in employment. This is a sector that is important and one that we want to grow, which is why we have also been seeking to attract and being successful in attracting Talgo of Spain to use the Lengannad site for the investment of developing a new site for train manufacturing in Scotland, which could create up to 1,000 jobs. Having said that, that is why it is disappointing that GEM and I have taken the approach that they have taken with the workshops at Springburn. Despite repeated requests directly to them, they have refused to postpone or delay their consultation exercise, which has been undertaken at the present moment. Why is it important that they continue to work with us in order to try and get additional time in order to look at the matter in greater detail? Tonight, I call on GEM and I again to delay any decisions relating to that particular site in order to allow us to undertake further work on that matter. I will give way to the member, yes. James Kelly I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention and I appreciate the overview of the rail industry that he has given. However, in terms of the consultation that is running currently, can he maybe set out what specifically the Government is going to do that will stop GEM and I handing out redundancy notices post-March 4? That is what I think the workers in the gallery want to hear. Excuse me, chaps. Michael Matheson I am coming to that particular point, because there are some issues in terms of engagement and the level of engagement that are not accurate from some of the member's opposite here tonight. What I can assure members of is that, from the very outset, when there was an indication that there were concerns about that particular site, is that Transport Scotland officials did engage with the company and also with Scottish Enterprise to look at those issues. Since we got to the point where there have been concerns about their decision and the future use of that particular site, Transport Scotland and Scottish Enterprise officials have been engaged in that process, as have I been engaged in that process. One of the aspects that I have come from is that I need to try to make progress. There is a debate tomorrow night for the member to raise a matter again if she chooses to. One of the things that we have been doing is working with the sector in order to look to see whether we can change GEM and I's mind, or whether we can look at repurposing that site in a way that gives it a sustainable future to be used. That is where the hub idea for the industry comes in, to look at how we can utilise that potential site for the provision of heavy rail and heavy engineering work going forward. The work that we have been doing through Scottish Enterprise and also through Transport Scotland is to give focus to that. That is about making sure that we can utilise that site sustainably in the future to help to support the rail industry in Scotland in heavy engineering matters. In order to do that, there are a number of actions that we have to take forward. One of the actions that we have suggested is the issue of electrification of the line. The member has misguided in suggesting that he would like me to look at doing something about that because we are already doing something about that. The work has already been commissioned to evaluate the electrification of that particular line into the site if that can help to support making sure that the site continues to be used for heavy rail purposes going forward. Network Rail has already been directly commissioned to undertake that work, and that decision was made last month in order to try and progress that particular issue. However, having said that, as Annie Wells raised that issue as well, that is not something that can happen at the drop of a hat. There is a detailed piece of work that has to be undertaken to electrify what potentially could be about four miles of line into the depot in order to make it suitable for any other company coming in, and it will take time to do that. That is why we need to work with Gemini and others in the industry in order to try and get them to get more time to preserve the site for going forward. That is why repurposing the site is absolutely critical. Let me go through a number of the things that we are undertaking. For example, Scottish Enterprise has been engaging with the whole of the rail sector in Scotland to look at how it might utilise its potential site if we move it to a hub model going forward. That includes engaging with the site owners, because Gemini and I do not own the site. Handsteens own the site, and they lease it. The present arrangement for the leasing arrangements does not appear attractive to other operators coming in. Handsteens are now working with Scottish Enterprise to look at how they could change the leasing arrangements and the existing site arrangements to make it more attractive for others in the industry to look at utilising that site. That work has now been undertaken, and we expect to get that report from Handsteens in the next couple of weeks, setting out how that potentially could be done to our support and encourage other companies to come into that site. Alongside that, Scottish Enterprise is working with all those in the rail sector industry in Scotland to look at how they could come together to look at utilising the site if it was to move to a hub model. That has now been taken forward on a formal basis with a partnership right across the industry. That work will continue to be undertaken in order to try to make sure that we achieve a sustainable future for that particular site. I am very conscious of time and a number of points have been raised. I will try to address them if not tonight, but certainly tomorrow night's debate, given that we have a second opportunity to look at this matter. I can assure all members and I can assure those workers in the galleries here tonight that, as a Government, we are doing everything that we can within our powers to make sure that that site continues to be utilised for heavy rail purposes in the future, and we will continue to work with all those in the industry in order to realise that as we move forward in the weeks and months ahead. That concludes the debate, and this meeting is closed.