Diageo (Task Force)
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by John Swinney on progress on the Diageo task force. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his 15 minute statement. Therefore, there should be no interventions or interruptions during it.
I want to make a statement about the work that the Scottish Government and its partners are undertaking to respond to Diageo's announcement of significant job losses in the west of Scotland.
I acknowledge the valuable support that East Ayrshire Council, Glasgow City Council, Scottish Enterprise, the trade unions and local elected representatives have provided for developing and maintaining a strong partnership approach to reverse the Diageo proposals. In doing so, we have been united by the need to safeguard employment and protect communities in already economically fragile areas.
On 1 July, Diageo published the outcome of its internal review, "Global Supply Scotland". It set out proposals for the consolidation of its packaging operations from three sites to two, which would result in the closure of the Kilmarnock packaging plant, with the loss of around 700 jobs by the end of 2011; the closure of its Port Dundas facility in Glasgow and the adjacent Dundashill cooperage, with the loss of a further 140 jobs; and £3 million of investment in its packaging plant at Shieldhall, which would result in the loss of a further 30 jobs. The Diageo consolidation warehouse in Hurlford was to be transferred to a third-party logistics company—64 warehouse employees would transfer. Despite frequent engagement between Scottish Enterprise and Diageo on a range of individual projects, and requests for progress updates on how the company was developing the intended review, Diageo chose not to advise either Scottish Enterprise or the Scottish Government in advance on the nature and scale of the proposals.
That was a matter of real regret. On many occasions, companies approaching restructuring discuss the issues with Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government and seek advice and co-operation. Those approaches are always—I repeat, always—treated with great care and in the strictest confidence. Nobody from Government, or the unions, or the elected representatives at council or parliamentary level had any prior warning of changes in employment. The loss of 900 jobs in the west of Scotland, particularly in the current economic climate, represents a body blow not only to the individuals who are likely to be affected, but to the wider community and local economies.
An independent assessment of the impact of the proposals has been conducted by EKOS for Scottish Enterprise and East Ayrshire Council. It will be published shortly. It has been estimated that the closure of the Kilmarnock plant will take £15.5 million annually out of the local economy, based on the loss of income from employees and losses from local suppliers, investment expenditure and eliminating support to local charities. EKOS has estimated that the cost to the public sector for every job loss is initially £10,000 to £20,000 per annum. Those are telling figures that demonstrate the scale of Diageo's contribution to those communities and the devastating effects that its actions would have on them.
The scale of those impacts made the announcement one that demanded an immediate response. East Ayrshire and Glasgow already have unemployment levels that are above the Scottish average. Further job losses, particularly on such a scale, will be devastating to the whole community as well as to those individuals who are directly affected.
The Scottish Government was therefore quick to act. The First Minister had a very early discussion with Diageo's senior management. He expressed our concern at the proposals and our dissatisfaction with the way in which the announcement had been made. We believe that the scale of the announcements demanded early engagement with the Government to allow legitimate community concerns to be raised and alternative proposals to be considered.
In his meeting with Diageo on 2 July, the First Minister asked the company to reconsider the options available to it regarding the Kilmarnock site and to share information in its business plan with the Scottish Government to allow us to consider and work to develop realistic alternatives. In the immediate wake of the announcement, I also took the opportunity to meet Diageo and visit the key sites in Kilmarnock. Following that meeting, I met East Ayrshire Council representatives, Willie Coffey MSP and Des Browne MP to identify immediate action and address the concerns. I also visited the Port Dundas site in Glasgow and met representatives of the plant's management and of the relevant trade unions.
The First Minister and other ministerial colleagues, along with colleagues across the political spectrum, have given active support to the East Ayrshire save Johnnie Walker campaign, which has generated significant support from around the world. The website has attracted hits from 68 countries so far, and the save Johnnie Walker march that took place on 26 July attracted more than 20,000 marchers. That is a telling example of how the campaign has attracted widespread support in Scotland and beyond. It has also attracted cross-party support among politicians in Scotland and Westminster.
The early discussions between Paul Walsh, the Diageo chief executive, and the First Minister identified a willingness by Diageo to consider an alternative proposal, which we have worked quickly to develop. Kilmarnock is not the only location to be affected—local impacts would be felt in the city of Glasgow at the Port Dundas facility—so it was essential for us to ensure that a united front against the Diageo proposals was established and to develop alternative but practical proposals.
To manage that process, I have brought together a task force that I chair, which is made up of local authorities in East Ayrshire and Glasgow, trade unions, our enterprise agencies and local elected representatives, to develop a single response that is in the best interests of Scotland. That approach has helped us to marshal our efforts to deliver a coherent and concerted campaign. I acknowledge the effectiveness of East Ayrshire Council in creating a remarkable international campaign that aims to highlight the contribution that Kilmarnock and Scotland have made historically, and still make today, to the Johnnie Walker brand image. The campaign has been extremely well supported. I am informed by the council that it expects to obtain 100,000 signatures for its petition.
As part of the work of the task force, we have commissioned an external analysis of the Diageo business case and potential alternative proposals. A draft report was submitted to the task force on 19 August and is currently being revised in the light of the task force's comments. A number of areas were identified in which further consideration and clarification were required, particularly around the size of potential gaps between Diageo's original proposals and the alternatives that we have been developing.
At its meeting on 25 August, the task force identified a set of proposals that include the development of a new bottling facility on a greenfield site in Kilmarnock and the continuation of production activity at Port Dundas. The First Minister has outlined the proposals to Paul Walsh, and I will meet Diageo tomorrow to consider how we take them forward. Our intention is to produce a solution that not only suits Diageo's business needs but is in Scotland's best interest.
In our work since 1 July, we have recognised that Diageo's proposals would have a positive effect in Fife. I have ensured that Fife Council has been kept fully informed about the development of our work throughout the process, and that none of our actions jeopardise existing jobs in Fife.
In that context, it is worth stressing that our work to reverse Diageo's decisions has nothing to do with trying to tell a successful global company how to run its business. The issue has been, and will continue to be, safeguarding those economically fragile communities that are at risk in the west of Scotland. The 900 existing jobs in the west of Scotland matter not only to the individuals concerned and their families but to the wider community.
I fully recognise the value that 400 prospective jobs would have in Fife. For me, the issue is not to play one part of the country off against another. I believe that Diageo has a responsibility to those communities that have contributed so much to the company and its profits over generations, and which have fully supported the success of the world-renowned Johnnie Walker brand.
The current economic climate is difficult for all sectors of the economy. Since 1 July, further job losses in the whisky sector have been announced at Whyte and Mackay, which plans to lose 83 jobs across Scotland. That is very different to the situation at Diageo, as the proposed job losses are spread across the country and are not focused on a relatively small geographic area with a narrow industrial base.
On 26 June, the Scottish Government set out its national food and drink policy, "Recipe for Success", which identified a range of actions that would be taken to promote the food and drink sector in Scotland, a country that is renowned for its reputation as a land of distinctive, high-quality food and drink.
In the wake of the Whyte and Mackay announcement, the GMB union made a helpful suggestion to the Government that we should host a whisky industry summit. We are working with a range of interested parties to consider how that suggestion can most successfully and usefully be taken forward. The whisky industry is a successful industry employing many across Scotland and creating sizeable wealth. We want to work with the industry and others to maximise opportunities for its long-term future and profitability.
I would like to reiterate my recognition of the contribution that many people have made in our united campaign to reverse Diageo's proposed restructuring and to obtain a solution that is in Scotland's best interests.
We have set out a framework of proposals that we believe are deliverable in our collective interest and are about to start negotiations with Diageo. I welcome the united cross-party support for this campaign and the recognition that Diageo's proposals require to be changed to ensure that they are in this country's best interests.
I look forward to meeting Diageo tomorrow and working with it to achieve a solution that is in the best interests of the workforce, the company and Scotland as a whole. [Applause.]
I point out to those in the public gallery that, however tempting it is to do so, they should not applaud or otherwise contribute to the business before Parliament.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on his statement.
I thank the cabinet secretary for letting me have an advance copy of his statement.
I would also like to put on record my admiration of the work that has been undertaken by the shop stewards, conveners and full-time trade union officials—many of whom are in the public gallery today—who have been involved in the campaign to save jobs in Diageo across Scotland. The support of politicians from all parties and of the wider Scottish public has sent a positive message to workers in this company.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that this has been an avoidable summer of uncertainty for workers at all Diageo's Scottish plants.
Diageo has been held up in the recent past as an example of best practice in industrial relations. The previous constructive approach that was taken by the management and trade unions has helped the company to compete in the global marketplace, has secured employment and has made the company extremely profitable. However, in its handling of the decision that was taken at the beginning of the summer, it has damaged that reputation and its relationship with the trade unions. I firmly believe that much of the uncertainty would have been avoided if Diageo had involved the trade unions at the beginning of the decision-making process as opposed to the end of it.
With that in mind, and given the Scottish Government's direct involvement in this campaign, will the Government now, as part of its wider economic approach, be actively encouraging all businesses to engage with trade unions and other workplace representatives before making decisions of the nature and scale of the one that we are discussing?
The main concern of parliamentarians will always be for the workers and their families. Their views have been articulated in a responsible way by the GMB union and Unite every step of the way.
Will the cabinet secretary ensure that, whatever steps the Scottish Government takes following its meeting with Diageo in the next 24 hours, it is recognised that this is a trade union-led campaign that is seeking to maximise employment across Scotland, and will the Government support 100 per cent whatever approach the trade unions decide to take?
I agree that this has been an avoidable summer of uncertainty for the workforce.
Throughout this process, and in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, I spoke to a range of figures in the trade union movement, including the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and representatives of Unite and the GMB union. We have had excellent co-operation from the trade unions in our efforts. As he always does, Mr Park made a strong case for the need for active dialogue between business and trade unions.
In my discussions with trade unionists on the issue, I have encountered no unwillingness to contemplate changes to working practices or operational approaches at the plants. In fact, the trade unions have, during our dialogue, been able to marshal many examples of how they have—as Mr Park suggests—contributed constructively to improving the performance of the company through changes in working practices. I have no doubt that the trade unions would be similarly prepared to undertake such commitment in any future endeavours.
I will, of course, continue to work with the trade unions, as I believe the Government has demonstrated that it has been doing during the past few months.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I am sure that members on all sides of the chamber, whichever area they represent, recognise the significant impact that the Diageo proposals could have on the economy of the west of Scotland.
The cabinet secretary's statement was somewhat lacking in detail, which may well be because of the looming meeting with Diageo; I would be grateful if he could indicate whether that is the case.
Is the Government considering using public funds to support employment in the west of Scotland? If so, what criteria will it use to assess any proposals made on that basis?
I thank Mr Brownlee for his question, and record my appreciation—and, I am sure, East Ayrshire Council's appreciation—of Annabel Goldie's presence at the event in Kilmarnock at the end of July.
Mr Brownlee makes a point about the detail in my statement. I hope that Parliament will understand that I wish to engage in a dialogue and discussion with Diageo about the detail of the alternative proposals. I have given the headline summary to Parliament today; underpinning that is a great deal more detail that will be discussed in full with Diageo.
The question about public money is rather material to the discussions that I will have with Diageo. I understand members' concerns about the appropriate use of public money, but in any circumstance in which public money is used for such an investment, clear rules on contributions must be followed to comply with the European Commission's state aid rules and a variety of other matters.
If the original Diageo proposals take their course and lead to an economic impact of the scale that I set out in my statement, as is likely to be the case in parts of Glasgow and in the Ayrshire area around Kilmarnock, public funds will have to be used to pick up the pieces. In this instance, I am trying to encourage a private company to work with the Government to avoid a situation in which public funds will have to be extensively used to pick up the pieces as a consequence of an industrial change that is, in the words of Mr Park, entirely avoidable.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of his statement, and I welcome the campaign and his work in support of it.
There are two strands to this totemic issue. The first is the location of the bottling facilities and how that pans out; and the second relates to the closure of the long-standing Port Dundas distillery in Glasgow. I appreciate the limitations in this matter, but will the cabinet secretary assure me that when he meets Diageo, the Scottish Government's efforts will take equal account of the implications for Shieldhall and Port Dundas along with Kilmarnock? Can he shed any light on the detail of the case that is being made for Port Dundas distillery against Diageo's view that there is substantial overcapacity in Scotland in grain whisky distilling?
We are all aware of the job losses and the effect that they will have on the local and regional economies. Is there yet not just a polite willingness on Diageo's part to talk, but an actual basis that it has accepted for discussion of alternative plans? Can the cabinet secretary shed some further light on what the Scottish Government can bring to the table in that regard?
Mr Brown raises two distinct points. On the bottling plant, we can bring to the discussion an extensive amount of work, which has principally been undertaken by East Ayrshire Council, and which has fed into the preparation of the alternative business proposals that we put to Diageo. Those proposals essentially examine specific sites in the Kilmarnock area and set out a basis for making the capital investment that would be required to ensure that such a bottling plant could be established. That detail will be set out in the business case.
The Port Dundas issues are slightly more complicated because the size of the market for grain-distilled product is clearly a point of debate, discussion and analysis. As I understand it, Diageo has opted to withdraw from supplying third parties with grain-distilled product. That is clearly a market decision, which fuels the company's sense of and estimates of the capacity of the operation. We think that there are significant uncertainties around the estimates that Diageo has made of the capacity for grain-distilled product. That is evidenced by market analysis that is clearly and freely available in the marketplace. On that basis, we think that there is an opportunity for continued production to be undertaken at Port Dundas. That will form the core of the proposition that we put to Diageo.
Does the cabinet secretary share the horror that was felt by the workers in Kilmarnock and Hurlford on 1 July when Diageo announced its closure plans, putting 700 people in my constituency out of work? Can he reassure the workers that the Scottish Government is taking every possible step, and quickly, to persuade Diageo, in the light of its £2.5 billion profit announcement, that there is no justification for its proposal, which will have devastating social and economic consequences?
I certainly hope that the people of Kilmarnock and Ayrshire are aware of the contribution that the Government and its partners have made to try to take an alternative course. There has certainly been extensive engagement on the issue by the First Minister, by me, and by our representatives, both among Government officials and within Scottish Enterprise. As I acknowledged in my statement, there have also been willing contributions from the trade unions and the relevant local authorities. I assure Mr Coffey and his constituents that their concerns have been uppermost in ministers' minds as we have tackled a situation of which we had no prior notice and that we have used our time over the summer to try to remedy it. We will continue with our efforts to try to ensure that Diageo takes a different course to the one that it plans.
The cabinet secretary is aware of—indeed, he rehearsed today—the impact that the loss of the 200 jobs at Port Dundas would have in my constituency. I know that he is also aware that it would bring to an end almost 200 years of distilling on the site. I have two brief questions. First, will the Scottish Government bring forward a debate in parliamentary time on the Diageo proposals so that the Parliament can demonstrate its support for the workforce by means of a vote? Secondly, does the cabinet secretary believe that Diageo has made the case for the closure of the Port Dundas operation? If not, will he make it clear in his discussions with Diageo tomorrow that pre-empting the continuing consultation by advising workers as recently as last Friday that Port Dundas will definitely close is neither helpful nor appropriate?
On Patricia Ferguson's first question, she will realise from her extensive parliamentary experience that I cannot pre-empt a Parliamentary Bureau decision on a debate, but I assure her that the Government will bring to the bureau a proposal for a debate on the Diageo proposals in Government time.
On her second point, I made it clear in my statement that the Government would have preferred it if Diageo had taken an entirely different approach to handling the matter, starting with consultation before any announcements were made, whatever their content. Again, from Patricia Ferguson's experience as a minister, she will know that the Government regularly receives representations from companies that are looking to reorganise. I assure her that such approaches are taken very seriously by the current Administration, as they were by our predecessors. They are dealt with carefully, with sensitivity, and certainly in private.
Such an approach would have helped to resolve some of these questions long before any public announcements were made and long before we reached the point at which members of the workforce have been advised that a final decision has been taken even as we are in the process of actively looking at alternatives. I hope that we can make progress on the consideration of those alternatives, and my efforts are focused on achieving that.
Companies such as Diageo must strike a balance between, on the one hand, reducing their cost base and maximising their profits and, on the other, treating workforces and communities with the same respect that the Port Dundas workforce have already shown by exercising wage restraint in the belief that such a move would safeguard their jobs. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in order to secure a future for Port Dundas, Diageo must strike that balance and that, if the plant receives even a short-term reprieve, ways of reducing cost bases such as the £1 million a year that it pays in charges to Scottish Water should be considered constructively?
Over the past 12 months, we have seen plenty of examples of the corporate world having to strike an appropriate balance between the necessity of making returns and managing costs, and the necessity of properly looking after employees' interests and the general public interest. The Government is acting in this way on this issue because I do not believe that the proposals are properly in balance.
As for the specific cost issues at Port Dundas that Mr Doris has highlighted, the company must be able to operate these plants and make appropriate cost decisions. Equally, however, public utilities have to charge for their business. That said, I hope that in my discussions with Diageo we can explore the relevant issues to ensure that we can take a different course on this question.
The cabinet secretary is well aware that Diageo is the world's biggest drinks company and that £2.5 billion has been made on the back of Scottish workers, including many of my constituents. At lunch time, I joined fellow Unite members and MSPs in signing a pledge to support the Johnnie Walker workers. I know that the cabinet secretary is due to meet Diageo and I genuinely hope that the meeting goes well but, on the basis of evidence so far and despite all the protestations and campaigning against this decision, the company seems set on pressing ahead with its plans to slash 900 jobs. Given that, is the cabinet secretary able to give us some more detail about the specific actions that the Scottish Government can take if tomorrow's discussions with Diageo do not reach any conclusion?
I acknowledge that many of Cathy Jamieson's constituents will be affected by this decision, but I have to say that the Government can take companies only at face value. Senior members of the Diageo management team have assured me and the First Minister that they will seriously consider our alternative proposals. We will concentrate on that and, as I have said, my efforts have been focused on that work.
I have to say that I have not given any particular consideration to what might happen if Diageo says that it is not going to take that approach. As a result, my answer to Cathy Jamieson's question has to be the rather general one that if these proposals were to take their course, the Government would make available the type of support that we put in place in all cases of economic change. For example, we would support the workforce through partnership action for continuing employment, with Scottish Enterprise providing wider support.
I certainly do not need to tell Cathy Jamieson or, indeed, Willie Coffey that this decision will be a huge blow to Kilmarnock. As a consequence, the Government has to look outwith the general range of activities to find out how we might be able to support and stimulate the Ayrshire economy. That is why we are putting such an effort into the steps that we are taking with Diageo.
I am conscious that the cabinet secretary has a meeting with Diageo tomorrow, but I am keen to find out whether there is anything in the finalised task force plan that is genuinely new and that Diageo has not previously examined and rejected. If there is something genuinely new, there might be a prospect of success but, if not, the situation will be difficult. Without giving away too many details, is the cabinet secretary confident that there is something genuinely new in the finalised plan?
The Government is confident that we have an alternative proposition to put to Diageo, which I hope in good faith will be considered and examined. As Mr Brown will know, in such circumstances, companies have an opportunity to take a different course from the one that they originally planned to take. The spirit in which the Government enters the discussion will be to try to secure a different approach. The alternative will be established on the basis of trying to achieve that objective.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary acknowledged the wider impact on fragile economies. Is he aware that some of the Diageo workforce who are in the public gallery have, regrettably, witnessed at first hand the fragility of the manufacturing industry in Ayrshire through the closure of the Ayrshire Metal Products, Volvo, Simclar and NACCO sites? Does the cabinet secretary agree that action is necessary to address the wider economic problems, which are exacerbated by closures and the present uncertainties? Will the task force that he has set up address some of those issues and, if not, what further steps can he take to assure the people whom I represent that Ayrshire has a sustainable economy?
Irene Oldfather makes a substantive point. In the past 40 years, there has been enormous change in the composition of Scotland's industrial economy. Some manufacturing processes will become impossible to sustain in certain circumstances, because markets change or the cost factors become too great. My point about the proposal that we are discussing is that the company is significantly profitable. The action is not proposed as a result of a difficulty in making profits or in having a sustainable operation; it is about further maximising the gains. I do not criticise that aspiration; I simply say that other conditions must be borne in mind.
Irene Oldfather cited companies that no longer employ as many people or no longer employ any people at all. During the summer, I had the privilege of visiting a company in her constituency, Booth Welsh Automation, which is a fantastic example of a growing manufacturing company that is employing more people than it was before and which is making a contribution towards Scotland's manufacturing efforts. The Government believes that manufacturing has a future in Scotland. That is why, after discussing the suggestions that many members, including Mr Park, made about the Government's economic recovery programme, we have doubled the size of the Scottish manufacturing advisory service to help companies to adapt to changes in the manufacturing economy. That is part of our progress on the Government's economic strategy, which is focused on ensuring that we have increased sustainable economic growth and—crucially for the Ayrshire economy—that we tackle some of the regional differentials in economic performance. That will ensure that people in Ayrshire have the economic opportunities that they deserve.
I ask the cabinet secretary for an assurance that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which I convene, will be kept fully informed of any proposals in relation to Diageo. Given that the cabinet secretary intends to achieve a solution that is in the best interests of the workforce, the company and Scotland as a whole, will he ensure that the impacts of any proposals are assessed fully, including the potential impact on possible new jobs in Fife, as well as the existing jobs in Leven and Cameron Bridge? Will he give an assurance that the Government gives equal importance to jobs in Fife and jobs in Kilmarnock?
I cannot quite remember whether I have signed the letter to Mr Smith telling him that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will get all the information that we have available on the issue or whether it is waiting to be sent to him, but it is certainly in the post or close to being in the post.
Although I appreciate the concerns that members from Fife have expressed about the potential impact of the proposals, as I said in my statement, the fundamental difference is that the proposals in Kilmarnock and Glasgow will remove jobs that are already in place in the economy and have a severe and difficult economic effect in those localities. I understand Fife's aspiration to attract new employment. Mr Smith will know of all the Government's commitments to a range of different projects, not least of which was the announcement by Mr Mather just a few weeks ago of further commitment to Fife Energy Park in Methil. He will know that the Government is doing everything that it can to expand employment in every part of the country. I am sure that he will understand our concern about the severe economic impact of the Diageo proposals that will be felt in parts of Glasgow and Kilmarnock and that the Government is acting to protect employment where communities will face severe economic and social challenges as a consequence.
I recognise the work that has been carried out by the task force in such a short time to put together proposals to save the threatened jobs in Kilmarnock and Glasgow. However, does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is genuine concern among the workforce and people in my constituency that the reported task force proposals could affect the long-term future of the Leven plant?
I have heard that point made, but I do not accept or agree with it. Diageo has made enormous commitments to Cameron Bridge and Leven and it has significant long-standing investments in the Fife economy. It strikes me that Diageo's roots in Fife are strong and well embedded, which can give certainty and confidence about the long-term future of employment for its employees in Fife.
It is clear that the proposals of the Government and the task force are focused on ensuring that we avoid economic and social damage in other communities in Scotland. As Tricia Marwick will know well—I recall her welcome to Mr Mather's announcement of new investment in the Fife Energy Park—the Government is making an enormous commitment to Fife in a variety of ways. However, we have a duty to try to avoid serious economic and social consequences elsewhere in Scotland at this time.
We congratulate the cabinet secretary on his efforts for the workforce in Kilmarnock and Glasgow. In his statement, he rightly referred to fragile communities. As he is aware, Levenmouth is one such community. It is recognised across parties as being in need of both social and economic regeneration. In light of Diageo's importance to Levenmouth and Fife, there is some concern about the proposals. We would like the cabinet secretary to give firm assurances that, in discussions of the proposals, he will ensure that there will be no negative impact on the future sustainability of investment in the Fife plant and that continued investment is vital to secure a future for the plant and, importantly, its workforce.
I recognise Marilyn Livingstone's point, which is similar to those made by Iain Smith and Tricia Marwick. As I said to Tricia Marwick a moment ago, the investments made by Diageo and the scale of its operations in Fife are such that the roots of the company and the strength of employment there are very robust. I ask Parliament to understand that we have a choice whether to act to try to avoid serious economic consequences in Kilmarnock and Glasgow. The Government is exploring with its partners and on a cross-party basis how best we can undertake that activity to protect employment in Kilmarnock.
As Marilyn Livingstone will know, there are different experiences in different parts of the country in relation to employment gain and loss. Before the summer recess, she raised with ministers some of the difficulties in her constituency. I spoke to the company involved at the end of last week and there is much brighter news about employment levels in the company.
We have to ensure that in all circumstances we use whatever interventions we can to boost employment in the country, which is what the Government will aim to do.
The cabinet secretary will undoubtedly be aware of the decision by InBev to sell another of Scotland's iconic brands—Tennent's lager—to C&C Group. Does he agree that the assurances that I have received from that company that it is fully committed to the continuation and development of the Wellpark brewery in Glasgow, which are in stark contrast to the way in which Diageo has acted, are to be welcomed and that Diageo would do well to have the same faith in and commitment to the workers in Scotland that have been shown by the new owners of the Tennent's lager brewery?
I spoke to the management of C&C Group, which is now the owner of the Tennent's Caledonian brewery in Glasgow, last week and they gave me great encouragement about their commitment to develop the facility and showed an enthusiasm and willingness to ensure that this new part of their business activity would contribute significantly to the wider work of the group. I assured the management of C&C Group of the Government's willingness to engage with them in the fashion that I have set out in my statement, on the basis of supporting and sustaining investment, and to undertake that dialogue in a private and confidential fashion.
As the cabinet secretary will be aware, a number of those who are employed at Port Dundas live in my constituency. As the report that the Government commissioned makes clear, the closure of the distillery will lead to everyone at Port Dundas being made redundant with no option to transfer to Cameron Bridge. The third distillery in this is the distillery in Edinburgh, where Diageo has a joint venture with its rivals Edrington Group. In his discussions with the management tomorrow, will the cabinet secretary impress on them that they should reconsider the option of the joint venture and come out of that, which would give longer life to the workers at Port Dundas, who have served the group so well?
Mr Whitton makes a point that has been made clearly in the task force discussions about the investments that Diageo has made. I will be setting out to Diageo a range of different observations about the marketplace, as I set out in my answer to Mr Brown a moment ago, and about the assessment of the capacity that there is for grain distilling in Scotland. There are many ways in which the viability of Port Dundas can be assured, if there is a commitment from Diageo to continue with production at the plant and to take the necessary steps to support it into the future.
We all know the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to Scotland and the important place of Diageo in that industry. That is why Unite's campaign to keep Diageo jobs in Scotland is so well supported throughout the parties. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Diageo's announcement potentially undervalues the heritage and provenance of whisky? We all must take very seriously the possible damage to whisky as a premium brand internationally.
The point that Linda Fabiani makes is central to this discussion. The importance of the roots and origins of Scotch whisky is not something that we can in any way jeopardise. Any assessment of the brand value of Johnnie Walker or of the significance of the brand connection of any individual brand of whisky with Scotland shows that that connection is part of its unique selling strength. I would certainly want to see that issue reflected in the consideration that we take forward with trade unions and other stakeholders in the whisky summit to which I referred in my statement, to ensure that we have a clear and agreed sense of the direction in which the industry is developing and how we can support its development in the best interests of the Scottish economy.
The cabinet secretary said in his statement that Fife Council was kept fully informed. Has the Government met Fife Council officials to discuss the ways in which alternative proposals might impact negatively on sustainability and investment in the Leven plant? In taking a lead on this, the Government must ensure the involvement of all interested parties, including Fife MSPs. I ask the cabinet secretary to prioritise a meeting with Fife members.
I am always happy to meet members of Parliament. I do so constantly on a variety of issues. Indeed, I will meet one of my Liberal Democrat friends later this afternoon, which is always something to look forward to.
As I said in my statement, I have personally kept Fife Council advised of the steps that the Government has been taking. However, if Fife members would like to come and see me about these questions, I would be delighted to meet them, as I always am.