TransBus International (Jobs)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1145, in the name of Dennis Canavan, on threats to jobs at TransBus International Ltd. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is gravely concerned about the fact that the Mayflower Corporation has entered administration with a resultant threat to 1,000 jobs at TransBus International in Falkirk and Larbert and believes that the Scottish Executive should contact the employees' trade union representatives, the administrator and any prospective buyers to offer assistance and advice so that everything possible is done to try to save the jobs of the TransBus workers who make a very important contribution to the Scottish economy.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the crisis at TransBus International, which is the biggest manufacturing industry in my constituency. TransBus International is also the biggest bus builder in the United Kingdom, with a 70 per cent share of the UK market in double-deckers. The company employed around 1,000 workers at Falkirk and Larbert until recently and has a record of exporting to places as far afield as China and the United States of America.
At the end of last month, administrators were called in after a £20 million black hole was discovered in the accounts of TransBus International's parent company, the Mayflower Corporation plc, which has debts of around £200 million. There has been no satisfactory explanation of how such a financial shambles arose. I understand that the Financial Services Authority has launched a preliminary investigation, but there are undoubtedly grounds for a wide-ranging inquiry into the scandal.
Four of the company directors of the Mayflower Corporation were apparently on the way out just before the company went into administration. However, there are reports that those directors, including John Simpson, who is the former chief executive, are sharing a £10 million ring-fenced pension fund, although there is a deficit of more than £17 million in the workers' pension scheme. Fortunately, the workers at Falkirk and Larbert are in a different pension scheme, which is not affected. The 400 or so workers who have already been made redundant, including 132 in my constituency, have still not received a penny of redundancy payment, but there are reports that John Simpson could receive a severance package of more than £1 million and a pension of £300,000 per year.
The same John Simpson was responsible for persuading a certain John Major, formerly of 10 Downing Street, to become a non-executive director of the Mayflower Corporation. John Major pocketed more than £100,000 per year for the onerous duties of attending four meetings per year, but he must have seen the writing on the wall because he quit last year. Nevertheless, I trust that the FSA will want to grill John Major about his membership of the company's audit committee, which must have had some responsibility for the company's financial shambles.
The shambles was certainly not the responsibility of the work force. The Mayflower Corporation employed more than 3,000 people throughout the UK, including about 1,000 in my constituency. On 6 April, the administrator announced 132 redundancies at Falkirk and Larbert. There was understandable anger among the work force because the administrator did not adhere to a previous agreement between the company and the trade unions on dealing with redundancies. The redundant workers were given no notice and security guards were called in to ensure, I presume, the removal of the workers from the premises. Those workers are still waiting for the bare statutory minimum redundancy payments. That was a disgraceful way to treat employees, many of whom had given many years of loyal service to the company.
Administration is not the end of the road and there remains a fair degree of optimism that the administrator will soon be able to hand over the company to new ownership. I urge the Scottish Executive to do everything possible to ensure that any new owner will retain the existing work force and continue bus-building operations at Falkirk and Larbert, so that TransBus International is not handed over to someone who is merely intent on getting the order book and then closing the company down.
When I raised the matter at First Minister's question time four weeks ago, the First Minister pledged his "absolute support". I trust that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will tell us what is being done to fulfil that commitment. In particular, will he tell us what contact the Scottish Executive has made with the administrator, potential purchasers and trade union representatives of the work force, some of whom are in the public gallery listening to the debate? Will he also tell us what the Executive is doing to help the 50 or so companies that are suppliers to TransBus International? Most important, what efforts is the Executive making to ensure the continuation of bus building at Falkirk and Larbert?
As the minister knows, Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley and Falkirk Council were very helpful in assisting TransBus International with plans to move to a new state-of-the-art location at Glenbervie near Larbert, leaving the existing site at Camelon available for retail purposes. I trust that the Scottish Executive will use its influence and assistance to ensure that a new owner is able to pursue that proposal and to increase employment opportunities in future.
Bus building has been part of Falkirk's proud industrial history since the earlier part of the 20th century. However, we are not simply talking about or living in the past. Instead, we are talking about an industry that must be very much a part of Scotland's future. There is still a need for modern buses to provide efficient and reliable public transport in this country and in other countries throughout the world. The workers at Falkirk and Larbert are capable of building the best buses in the world. All that they are asking for is the opportunity to continue to do that, not just for their own livelihood, but because of the important contribution that they make to the local economy and to the Scottish economy as a whole.
I thank Dennis Canavan for securing this important debate.
Last October, Mayflower looked like a viable, successful company. Today, its corporate governance failure has raised concerns not only about the company itself, but about corporate governance in the UK. As Dennis Canavan has said, Falkirk has long had a proud tradition of coach-building. That tradition and the jobs of 1,000 workers in the Falkirk area are now under threat. Indeed, 132 workers have already been made redundant and, in spite of many years giving their skills to the company, they were out the door within an hour without a decent redundancy payment. As Dennis pointed out, they have not even received the statutory redundancy payment.
What sort of way is that to treat stakeholders in a company? We should be in no doubt that the stakeholders in a company include the workers. After all, they are just as important as the shareholders, because they create the wealth and bring about the profits. It is a shameful situation. As we know, 800 jobs are still at risk and workers in the plant have complained that they have been left in the dark. It is really not good enough and I ask the minister to do all he can to ensure that the workers who face being made redundant receive all the support that they require. At this point, I should commend the local partnership action for continuing employment—or PACE—team for its quick action in introducing certain measures.
Many local companies in the supply chain will now be facing problems. Forth valley companies annually make £5.9 million-worth of sales to TransBus. A local joinery firm in my constituency is facing real cash-flow problems due to lack of payment for goods and services. The receiver has asked the firm to continue its work, but its workers are frustrated that the work they have already done and the goods they have already supplied are lying in the depot not paid for. That is a very difficult situation for a small company that employs a small number of people. As a result, I ask the minister to do what he can about the supply chain and the local companies who employ local people to work alongside TransBus. I also ask him to ensure that TransBus or some other company stays in Falkirk and continues the Falkirk area's proud tradition of building coaches.
I congratulate Dennis Canavan on bringing this debate to the chamber and endorse the comments that he and Cathy Peattie have made.
Alexanders Buses, TransBus's predecessor, has been synonymous with the Falkirk area for many years. As far as production and jobs are concerned, it has always been an important part of the manufacturing base, not just in that part of Scotland but in Scotland as a whole. Indeed, the export effort of that manufacturing facility has been very important to the Scottish economy. As a result, the onus is on us all to do everything we possibly can to ensure that the facility is kept open, that jobs are maintained and that the successor company is allowed to prosper in the Falkirk area.
What is particularly annoying about what is happening—which has been caused by an Enron-type difficulty of the parent company in America—is that we are not talking about a failing enterprise. It is a very successful enterprise with high levels of productivity, high levels of exports and high levels of excellence. The people who are being penalised—the people who are losing their jobs—are people who do not deserve under any circumstances to have to make that sacrifice as a result of what has happened in the finances of the parent company.
This issue does not affect the economy of just Falkirk. About half the people who have already been made redundant are from the Falkirk area, but the other half are from Stirlingshire, Clackmannanshire and other parts of central Scotland. Everybody is affected. As Cathy Peattie said, the impact on the company and the local economy is substantial. Cathy mentioned the £5.9 million-worth of business for the 52 Falkirk-based businesses that benefit from the TransBus enterprise. In addition, another £20 million is spent every year on materials and supplies in other parts of the Scottish economy. Already there are indications of difficulties for local companies, where unpaid invoices are putting jobs and enterprises at risk. That is in addition to the TransBus jobs and enterprise. This Parliament must speak with a united voice and tell the Executive to do everything in its power to save what is a viable and profitable business in the Falkirk area.
However, I must sound one note of dissension. I was very disappointed when the trade union movement refused to allow Michael Matheson to attend meetings. That kind of narrow view, when we should be mobilising every sector of opinion in Scotland, is quite reprehensible. I say to the trade union movement, "Do not wear a Labour hat; wear a Scottish hat. Represent every section of the community and let us have no more refusing to allow SNP or other representatives to attend meetings."
On a point of information, the leader of Falkirk Council, who is a member of the Scottish National Party, was present at a meeting with the trade unions. I was there too and I am not a member of the Labour Party.
That was the council, Dennis. Michael Matheson wanted to attend a meeting and was refused by the trade union movement. That kind of action in this situation is not acceptable. Everybody who represents that area, whether they are Tory, Liberal, SNP or any other kind of MSP, should be invited to participate in meetings. We know what these kinds of company do: they divide and rule. We should not allow that to happen. We must speak with a united voice. Every party in this chamber should say to the Executive, "Save these jobs." We should say to the trade union movement, "We all want to work with you to save these jobs and make sure that the bus industry remains a key part of the Falkirk and the Scottish economy."
One of my first duties as a councillor in Edinburgh more than 30 years ago was to visit what was then the Alexanders bus works, which provided the buses for the council. At the time, Alexanders was, I think, quite famous for providing buses to Cuba. That was a bit unpopular in certain quarters, but it showed excellent taste on the part of Mr Castro.
The subject has been well covered by other speakers, so I will not simply repeat what they have said. I agree that it is essential that Parliament speak with a united voice to support the workers who are involved. I would like to make two basic points. When the policy of Parliament and the Executive is to improve public transport—one way of doing that would be to build and use more buses—it is particularly daft that we should risk losing the only supplier of buses in Scotland. If we were to be at the mercy of some continental company, it would be able to hold us to ransom, which would be extremely unfortunate. The national interest demands that we keep the facility going in Scotland.
My other point is about the people who are employed by the company and the suppliers. We must get a grip on the way in which our capitalist system operates. I know that that is more a matter for Westminster than for the Scottish Parliament, but it is a major political issue. We have a market system whether we like it or not, but the way in which we operate it is entirely unacceptable. The system is antisocial in that it pays no attention to the people who work in a facility, the people who supply it or the community around the facility.
The theory is that directors are responsible only to their shareholders but, as other members have said, the system does not have a proper grip on directors. Management that is guilty of corruption, dishonesty or mere incompetence seems to be able to get away with murder, even though it can create a total disaster for a community and a country. Politicians must tackle that collectively, whether nationally, at European level or internationally.
We should certainly support the workers at, and the people who supply, TransBus in Falkirk and we should do our best to keep that excellent company going.
The absolutely disgraceful treatment of the TransBus work force is among the more horrific examples of the inequality and injustice of the society in which we live.
I received a letter from one of the 132 employees who were made redundant. Incidentally, the fact that three of the people who were made redundant were the local trade union representatives has meant that there was a 100 per cent hit on any resistance to the redundancies. I do not believe that to have been a coincidence. Those who were to be made redundant were closed in a room to be told about it by Deloitte & Touche—they were not told by TransBus. The point of the redundancies was to make the company a wee bit more attractive to buyers and to allow the remaining work force to be ever more exploited.
William Clinton worked for TransBus for 33 years. He had terms and conditions that would have entitled him to a proper redundancy settlement, which would have provided a bit of a cushion in unacceptable circumstances, but he has been told that he is entitled only to statutory redundancy. That adds up to £6,000 for 33 years' service. The pension fund of the four directors is ring fenced and we believe that the former chief executive is getting severance payment of £1 million and an annual pension of £300,000. What a demonstration of the utter inequality of our society that is.
The truth is that our laws allow such things to happen. Tony Blair has stated that we have the most stringent anti-union laws in the western world; he is proud of that. However, if we had proper trade union legislation that protected the TransBus work force, the present situation would not have been allowed to arise. The profits that Mayflower and TransBus have secured for their directors should be taken from them and given back to the community, because they have stolen those profits from the work force. I see that Murdo Fraser is smirking. He would—he is a Tory. If there was ever in recent times a case for a company being taken into public ownership, it is surely the TransBus case, which involves a viable and successful company that, in producing the buses that we all need, fits in with our idea of increasing the use of public transport.
The situation is an absolute disgrace. The company, the buses that it produces, the workers' pensions and decent redundancy payments have been stolen by the company, by Deloitte & Touche and by the laws in our country that allow such brazen theft to take place under our noses.
I give my best regards to the existing work force and I hope that they fight and resist further redundancies. I say to the politicians that pleading will not be enough: we need to change the laws that allow such situations to happen. I hope—maybe vainly—that the Executive will understand that. We can have the debate, but the problem is the legislative framework, the political climate and the political system in which we operate.
I have a briefing paper from Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley that refers to counselling that is being offered to the work force. I am sure that they would rather have their jobs than a bit of counselling, which will not make up for getting a £6,000 so-called redundancy payment for 33 years' service.
Deloitte & Touche is not even required to let Scottish Development International know what is happening prior to announcing where the company will end up, who will own it, who will be able to exploit further profits and what will happen to the rest of the work force. The Executive will not get prior knowledge before Deloitte & Touche decides on the future of the work force and the future of the community that the work force and the production of the buses support.
To offer counselling is an insult. I hope that the Executive will make some promises to the existing work force—I hope that it will move to ensure that those who have been made redundant at least get decent redundancy payments. I would go further and say that they should get their jobs back, that the company should be brought into public ownership and that the directors should go and sing for their pensions.
I congratulate Dennis Canavan on securing this debate on an important subject that is of interest to his constituents.
I say to Carolyn Leckie that I was smiling at her proposal that the company be taken into public ownership. I admire her idealism. Her solutions, however, are quite unrealistic. Carolyn Leckie's way has been tried in this country and in other countries, and in every case it has failed.
I remind Murdo Fraser that Ted Heath took Rolls-Royce into public ownership in the space of 24 hours in order to save it.
I am sure that I do not need to give Mr Neil a list of the nationalised industries that went under or that survived only because they were subsidised with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money. I do not think that he or his colleagues behind him would wish us to go down that road.
Let us return to TransBus International, because it is an important subject. Dennis Canavan was right to highlight the history of decline and the serious concern over the circumstances that led to the TransBus situation. There was a share warning at the end of February and the value of Mayflower on the stock exchange plummeted by 80 per cent. It announced an accountancy error on 29 March, which saw its share price fall by another third, and shortly thereafter it went into administration. I echo Dennis Canavan's call for a proper inquiry into what has happened. He is absolutely right. It is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate, not the Scottish Executive.
The slightly more encouraging news is that the administrators are looking for a buyer. As Alex Neil said, the prospects might be encouraging, because TransBus was a successful company. We keep our fingers crossed that there is good news for the remaining 800 employees.
I will make two points, the first of which is on the wider context of the Scottish economy. We have seen a serious decline in manufacturing in recent years. Since 1997 we have had 71,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector in Scotland. The latest growth figures, which came out yesterday, show that although the Scottish economy is growing—only just, but it is growing—manufacturing continues to suffer. The sector has serious problems. The Executive is fond of talking about growing the Scottish economy, but we need a turnaround in manufacturing if there is to be a reversal of the trend of recent announcements about the manufacturing sector. As Alex Neil pointed out, it is particularly galling that even though there is a background of difficulties in the manufacturing sector, TransBus was successful and had a good future until it was brought down by corporate governance failures. We should do what we can to save the remaining manufacturing companies in Scotland.
The events at TransBus do not affect only the employees; they have a knock-on effect on suppliers and other companies and individuals throughout Scotland. I received a letter from a constituent in Fife, from which I will quote. She writes:
"my main point is the state I find myself in today, on the verge of petitioning to become bankrupt through no fault of my own … I became one of the innocent victims of that collapse as my cleaning company was left with a debt of £138,000 with no hope of seeing one penny of this … As a sole trader, who has worked honestly and hard, it is a very bitter pill to know that exceptional circumstances are not recognised in the eyes of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise … I will carry the stigma of insolvency, aware that at the ripe old age of 56 years, it will be extremely difficult to climb the credit ratings once again. Is it right? I say NOT!"
My constituent's company is going under as a knock-on effect of the events at TransBus.
If a company goes into receivership, the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise are preferred creditors, which means that they get first call on the company's assets. However, the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise still chase suppliers for the money that they owe, despite the fact that the suppliers lose their income because the Government bodies have first call on any assets of the company that is in receivership. That seems to be grossly unfair. I appreciate that that is a matter for Westminster, but the concern needs to be highlighted for the benefit of our constituents. What has happened at Mayflower affects not only people in Falkirk and Larbert, but people throughout Scotland. I am grateful to Dennis Canavan for giving us the opportunity to raise these important issues.
I thank Dennis Canavan for raising this important topic, although I am appalled that it is being discussed after 5 o'clock. The issue should be the number 1 priority for the Executive. We should have a debate in which we can make decisions that will solve the problems that are faced by the people in the former Alexanders factory, which was bought by an American company. In my working lifetime, I have seen an erosion of 80 per cent of the manufacturing base in engineering in Scotland. I have worked in various organisations for a number of years and seen them crumble and disappear.
At the age of 73, I now find myself as an MSP in a Parliament that has no bite, no teeth and no heart to fight for the workers of this country. It is appalling that we stand by and talk about this and that but do not talk about what is a life-and-death issue for 1,000 people in the Falkirk area. Their future has been torn away by an American organisation. I say to the Labour members that we simply have to reinstate the old clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, which talked about nationalising the means of distribution, production and exchange. We do not need to do as much as that, but we certainly need to nationalise the means of production in Falkirk. The Parliament could nationalise the company—we could buy it cheaply from the administrators, who would be glad to get it off their backs, and then reinstate the jobs for people in Falkirk. If we do not do that, the company will disappear and never return.
As Donald Gorrie rightly said, we need transportation in Scotland. Disabled people can get off and on only 22 per cent of the buses in Scotland because the other buses are not modern enough. This company could produce those much needed buses and other forms of transport, but we are going to stand back and say, "No, just let it go to the wall," and pay one director £10 million for being a bad employer and another director so much for being a bad employer. It is time that the Parliament took action and it is time that the Executive got a grip and did something positive for Scotland. We could do that without going to Westminster as we have the powers here, but do we have the will? We must let the people of Scotland see that we do.
I thank Dennis Canavan for securing the debate. I am sorry for being so angry, but I have been there and so have a feeling of déjà vu. It is about the experience of getting thrown out the door with a minimum redundancy payment while the bosses walk away with plenty in their pocket. That is totally unacceptable. We have the power to take action, but do we have the will to do it? Let us do it.
I feel compelled to stay in the chamber and add words of support to Dennis Canavan's motion.
The comments that have been made by John Swinburne and by my comrade Carolyn Leckie should be taken seriously.
John Swinburne mentioned déjà vu. Some members of the Parliament—and I am sure some of the workers at TransBus—will recall a similar process taking place at the Volvo truck and bus plant in Irvine, when 550 of the most skilled jobs in the Scottish economy were lost. At that time, Volvo said that the workers made the best buses and trucks in the world. Of course, that was until Volvo was able to secure a work force in Poland that could make those buses and trucks cheaper, at which point Volvo upped sticks and sacked 550 workers and the area was devastated.
Reports from various enterprise bodies will talk about workers getting new jobs; often they will get new jobs because they have to and so will adapt. However, the evidence shows that whenever factories of such stature fall, the workers' new jobs never reach the standards of pay or the skills base of those that have been stolen from them. That is why the Parliament must say, "If we can take over a failing private hospital in Clydebank, surely we can take over a successful bus company in Falkirk." That must be on the Executive's agenda. We cannot stand idly by any longer and allow such devastation and havoc to be wreaked throughout the Scottish economy. The minister may talk about task forces, meetings, options and retraining, but the evidence shows that that does not deliver the same value added to the economy in terms of wages and skills. When such a factory is closed—if this is the endgame for those workers—we lose not only the factory but the skills and an employment opportunity for thousands of young people in the Falkirk area.
I hope that today we can unite behind the trade unions' campaign. I hope that the trade unions at the local level will get backed up by the trade unions at a national level. Trade unions at the local level often have the guts for a fight but, unfortunately, far too often the unions at a national level tell them not to rock the boat. It is time to rock the boat; if we need to rock the boat to save the jobs, that has to be done.
I hope that the minister will tell us today not only that he will support every attempt to find a new buyer—one that will not come in and slash and burn—but that he will consider whether there is a viable option for a workers co-operative to run the factory and maintain the wages, the skills and the job opportunities for the people of Scotland and for the Scottish economy. Let us not rule out that option.
Enron had corrupt auditing practices. Shell's misrepresentation of its oil reserves amounted to a corrupt practice. Pensions, asset management products and all sorts of other items have been mis-sold. From the top—not the bottom or the middle—of management in Britain and in particular in the United States, there is a cancer of greed. If it went out of control, it could destroy faith in the business community of Britain and the United States. We are dangerously close to that.
In Norway, a chief executive officer receives a salary that is about three times the average wage of middle and lower management. In Britain and the United States, CEOs receive up to 30 times that average wage. That is greed run riot and part of the problem that faces Falkirk and the bus company.
The Executive should do everything that it can to encourage an ethos of corporate social responsibility in Scotland. Conferences are held on that. The Executive should do everything that it can to encourage its further development.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what Tommy Sheridan and Carolyn Leckie said. We must have sympathy with the proposition that the Executive could, in such exceptional circumstances, step in to buy a company. I am not saying that that should be done in every case and I certainly do not subscribe to wholesale nationalisation of the private sector, but those members have made their case in this instance.
I also have a great deal of sympathy with what Murdo Fraser said about the problems that face suppliers. I have known suppliers that have gone bust through no fault of their own. One of the cruellest experiences for anybody is to have a small firm that goes bust because somebody else was corrupt or went bust and did not pay their debts before they went bust. Something must be done in law to address that. If the Scottish Parliament cannot deal with that, we must ensure that our members of the Westminster Parliament do. That has been an undermining situation for years and nothing has been done about it. Something must be done about it.
I congratulate Dennis Canavan on lodging the motion.
I, too, congratulate Dennis Canavan on lodging the motion. I acknowledge the efforts that elected representatives in the Falkirk area have made to work with the Government to secure the future of manufacturing jobs at the TransBus plant and elsewhere.
The motion talks about the important contribution that TransBus workers make to the local economy and to the wider Scottish economy, which several members mentioned. That is true in three respects, the first of which concerns manufacture and export. Dennis Canavan said that TransBus is the leading provider of buses in the United Kingdom. That is correct. It is also one of the leading providers in Europe, so it is a significant contributor to the Scottish manufacturing sector, which remains of core importance to our economy.
The orders that the company places are important. Alex Neil and Cathy Peattie talked about the company's expenditure locally and more widely. The income in the pockets of the work force and the local spend that that produces are also important. We echo the points that have been made in that regard.
Because we recognise the significance of those three matters, immediately after the announcement of administration was made on 31 March, we sought clarification of the implications for TransBus operations in Scotland. That was to help us to find ways to sustain activity and jobs. My colleague Jim Wallace, the Deputy First Minister, engaged in some of the meetings. Officials from Scottish Development International—which is the body that is responsible for dealing with the company in its international aspect—and Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley have regularly been in touch with the company, the work force through its trade unions, and other interested parties. We have stressed our commitment to work with any potential buyer and to explore whatever avenues might be available for support and assistance to a potential buyer.
There has also been close contact with Deloitte & Touche, which is the administrator. Jim Wallace met Deloitte & Touche representatives on 8 April to discuss prospects for the way ahead. Naturally, those discussions focused on potential support for any prospective buyer who comes forward with sustainable plans for the operations. Dennis Canavan referred to the long-standing commitment to support TransBus plans to create a new, modern manufacturing facility at Glenbervie. We believe that that is the right way for the company to go and to continue to make a contribution to the economy. In dealing with the administrator, we have therefore made it clear that we will continue to support those plans and to offer support to any prospective new purchaser who comes forward.
From the discussions that we have had with the administrators, there appear to be good prospects that operations will continue under new ownership—one or two members have reflected that. There has been significant interest in the company and in the facility at Falkirk in particular, and the administrators said to us on 22 April that they hope to dispose of the company as a going concern in a matter of weeks. This week, they confirmed that they remain hopeful that the process will be completed in May.
Does the minister share my concern that the administrators seem to have accepted that the company will be broken up into smaller parts, which might have consequences in respect of further redundancies? What is the minister's view on that? Will he do what he can to avoid any redundancies?
I share the focus on seeking to reduce redundancies wherever possible. Carolyn Leckie will appreciate that our focus, and that of Scottish agencies, is on Falkirk and Larbert and that core of manufacturing jobs in Scotland, which nobody disputes is a profitable and productive part of the company. From our perspective and that of the work force, the key priority is to ensure that that unit remains in being and retains as much employment as possible. Whatever links it might have with other parts of the existing company is an issue of secondary importance compared with that larger issue.
The subject of how we have reached where we are was raised. A number of members have referred to the possibility of an inquiry. I can confirm that responsibility for that lies with the DTI and that the DTI has powers under the Companies Act 1985 to consider whether companies legislation has been properly followed in this case. I understand that the DTI is currently considering that matter.
It is clear that the first concern is to maintain economic activity, employment and the company and to allow the company's growth. It is clear that the second concern is for people who have already lost their jobs, of whom there are more than 130, as has been mentioned. That has been an enormous blow for those people, as has been reflected in a number of comments. Our top priority in that regard has been to do everything possible to help those who have been affected to find other jobs as quickly as possible. As Cathy Peattie said, support services have been put in place through the PACE initiative. A future fair was held in Falkirk on 14 April, which was attended by around 80 people who were affected. Careers Scotland, Jobcentre Plus, the local authority, the local college and others were involved to support those individuals. As a direct result of the event, PACE partners are supporting a number of people with respect to retraining opportunities and they will continue to do so.
Concern was raised about a prospective buyer taking the assets and leaving the jobs in the lurch. Although it is certainly the case that under existing legislation responsibility for the matter lies with the administrators, the Enterprise Act 2002 makes it clear that the purpose of promoting company rescue should be given priority. Therefore, although safeguarding the legitimate interests of creditors is important, the 2003 act will encourage the administrators to make a viable sale to buyers who will maintain the firm in being.
The question of creditors is important. The question of local suppliers has been raised and the provisions of the law are clear as far as creditors of all kinds are concerned. I suggest, however, that any firm that is adversely affected, such as those to which Cathy Peattie referred, should seek advice and guidance from the local enterprise company, which I will alert to the fact that there might be one or two firms that are looking for support.
I return to the point about redundancies. The question was raised about the process that was followed. It is for the trade union to make a judgment on whether it feels that the administrators have acted properly in calling out those redundancies. Should the trade union feel that the administrators have not done so, it might wish to take the matter to an employment tribunal on behalf of its members. The employment tribunal will base its judgment on the question whether any steps taken were necessary for the survival of the company. It is not a straightforward judgment to make, but it is principally a judgment for the trade union.
TransBus matters because it is a manufacturing centre of excellence. We want to support that. I have described how we are doing that and we will continue to work with all concerned to try to secure the best possible outcome.
I do not believe that it is the endgame for bus building in Falkirk—quite the contrary. We can build on existing excellence and we will continue to work towards that end and to support the work force. The next few weeks will be critical and I hope, as a number of members have said, that we can be of one mind in seeking to support the best possible outcome for the work force and the local economy.
Meeting closed at 17:58.