| Allan Wilson:
I am grateful
for the opportunity to wind up the debate and I thank all members for their
contributions.
It is a bit
unfortunate, to say the least, that the motion is based on such a fundamental
misunderstanding of the reasons behind the decision to close the Scottish
Executive environment and rural affairs department's offices in Stirling,
Dundee and Forfar. We are not closing them simply to reduce annual running
costs, as has been suggested; we need a new office because the leases on
two of the existing offices—those in Perth and Dundee—will come to an end
by this time next year and, for various reasons, we cannot extend those
leases. In the case of Perth, that is because part of the building is being
demolished to make way for a new development. We have no alternative but
to move to a new site.
Bruce Crawford:
Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
I wish to develop my point, but I will be
happy to take Bruce Crawford's intervention afterwards.
It is as well
that Brian Monteith prefaced his remarks by accepting the need for efficiency
changes—a move that might well have been adopted by his colleague, who
described the closures as deplorable. In fact, I did some research before
the debate, as I am wont to do. I noticed that, in April 1988, the Dingwall
office was closed and its was work taken over by the office in Inverness.
In October 1989, the Cupar office was closed and its work was taken over
by the Dundee office. In September 1993, the Aberdeen office was closed
and moved to Inverurie. Also in 1993, the Keith office was closed and its
work was taken over by the Inverurie and Elgin offices. In 1994, the Glasgow
office was closed and moved to Hamilton. In 1994, the office at Saughton
House in Edinburgh was closed and moved to Galashiels. More astute members
will have noticed that all those closures took place under the previous
Tory Administration.
Mr Monteith:
Does the minister accept that there are not
many farmers in Glasgow or Edinburgh, but that farmers are to be found
in the areas around Hamilton and Galashiels? Many people believe that the
moves to which the minister refers brought the service closer to them,
rather than taking it further away.
Allan Wilson:
I was making a point in response to my friend
Keith Raffan's comments about the need for a consistent policy of civil
service decentralisation to deliver a more effective and efficient service
to the farmers to whom Brian Monteith refers. That policy was pursued actively
by my predecessors.
Mr Raffan: Perhaps
the minister can explain his logic to me, because I am lost. How is the
Executive providing farmers with a more efficient service by forcing them
to make a round trip of an extra 70 to 90 miles, which will add to their
costs? They do not have an under spend but SEERAD has a huge under spend.
Allan Wilson:
I will come to what Mr Raffan describes as an under spend in a minute.
As members know,
the emphasis is on more effective and efficient service delivery. I am
sure that Mr Raffan would agree that that does not necessitate the customer's
coming to the office in every instance. In fact, a better and more efficient
service can often be delivered, particularly in the instances to which
Mr Raffan referred, either by post or by electronic communication.
I do not believe
that any reasonable person—and I know that all of us in the chamber are
reasonable persons—would agree that, when a major investment such as a
new building is planned, it makes sense automatically to provide an exact
replacement for what existed before. That is why we considered the four
options for local offices in the part of Scotland to which Mr Monteith
referred.
We could have
opted for minimum change. That would have meant no new building and finding
alternative accommodation in Perth and Dundee, as others have advocated.
However, if we had taken such an approach, we would have failed to take
account of experience elsewhere in the area office network, which has shown
that a more effective operation can be delivered from a single site. Operating
from a single site eliminates the risk of inconsistency between offices
and unnecessary duplication of effort.
Sylvia Jackson
asked what was meant by the phrase "more effective control". Although staff
provide guidance, their main role is to process efficiently European Union
grants and subsidies, in order to avoid disallowance. It is essential that
that work is done consistently. It is much easier to ensure that it is
if staff are located on one site.
We considered
to what degree we should rationalise the structure in that part of Scotland.
As well as considering the option of combining the staff from the Stirling
and Dundee offices and the work that they do with the staff and work of
the Perth office in a new building, we considered the option of leaving
either the Stirling or the Dundee office open. When we compared those two
options, cost was one consideration.
Bruce Crawford:
There was a long lead-in time to the expiry
of the lease on the Perth office. What discussions were held with the owners
of the building about extending that lease? What discussions were held
with people next door in the brand new building that houses Perth and Kinross
Council about relocating the Perth office to that building?
Allan Wilson:
We would not be in this position if we had been able simply to extend the
existing leases. As I made clear, we are in this position because that
was not possible.
Cost was a consideration.
To answer a direct question that was put during the debate, figures from
three years ago suggest that, over 20 years, the overall effect of our
decision on accommodation, staff and running costs will be a net saving
of about £700,000.
Murdo Fraser:
Can the minister tell us whether the accounting takes into consideration
the additional cost to the farming community of travelling to and from
the office in Perth? Can he detail the consultation that took place with
the farming community when the Executive made its decision?
Allan Wilson:
I will deal with the secondary consultation exercise in a moment. My immediate
response to Murdo Fraser's first question is that the accounting would
not take into consideration additional costs imposed on the customer.
The Executive
could have been criticised—no doubt it would have been—by members if we
had left one or other of the offices open at additional cost. If we had,
members would perfectly properly have criticised us for wasting public
money. However, we are being criticised for saving public money—[Interruption.]
Mr Raffan seems to disagree.
Mr Raffan: Is
the minister really telling us that he could not find another office in
Dundee, with its high unemployment rate and low number of civil service
jobs, which he is desirous of increasing? Is he saying that he could not
find another lease on another building in Perth? He refers to the lease
and then he tells us how much the savings will be. Where is the logic?
Who wrote his speech?
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: Please begin to wind up, minister.
Allan Wilson:
The number of interventions has taken up time, Presiding Officer.
Of the four
options that we explored, keeping the Dundee office would have added considerably
to the Executive's costs.
On the under spend,
there is a distinct lack of understanding—not for the first time in the
chamber—about the difference between slippage in capital programmes and
on-going revenue expenditure. I am not surprised by Brian Monteith's failure
to grasp that, but I am surprised by Keith Raffan's. Only £24 million
of the £66 million SEERAD under spend in 2000-01 was related to rural
development, as opposed to the environment. By far the largest element
in the rural development under spend was attributable to the late approval
by the European Commission of Scotland's agenda 2000 rural development
plan. That under spend will be reallocated for expenditure over the remainder
of the seven-year plan period.
Dr Jackson:
Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
I see the Presiding Officer indicating that I should not take an intervention.
I realise that
some farmers may have to make a longer journey to visit their local office—that
point was well made by colleagues. However, that is already the case elsewhere,
where distances are greater. We must put that point in its proper context
if we are to provide a better service for customers when they reach the
office. The National Farmers Union of Scotland confirmed that it did not
expect to be consulted on the Executive's decision. However, I am happy
to discuss the detailed implementation of the decision with the NFUS and
other representatives of affected farmers and to revise proposals, as required,
to accommodate local preferences where possible.
As I said, the
motion displays a lack of understanding—I could say that it displays breathtaking
hypocrisy, but I will not—of how the department's area office network operates
and of the reasons for a move to a new office in Perth. Accepting the logic
of the motion would mean that we should not change our existing structure,
despite the benefits of doing so. In response to a question that was asked
earlier, we have no plans for further rationalisation, as no other leases
are coming to an end. The Executive is committed to change and innovation
and to making use of new technology to provide a better service. I am sure
that we all support the objective of making progress towards better service
delivery. but the motion would preclude that.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
