 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 6672 in the name of Linda Fabiani on fighting for tax jobs, fighting for tax justice. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Will those members who wish to speak in the debate please press their question to speak buttons now? I call on Linda Fabiani to open the debate, Ms Fabiani. Seven minutes are thereabouts, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. My motion begins with the standard Parliament welcomes in relation to the Public and Commercial Services Union report Fighting for Tax Jobs, Fighting for Tax Justice. Yes, I welcome the information and clarity that the report brings in relation to the UK Government's rash and poorly consulted proposals. I welcome the opportunity to air again this Parliament's disquiet and serious concern. I welcome the cross-party commitment to question the UK Government proposals. I do not, though, welcome the fact that this debate is necessary about the slashing of taxation expertise and the effects that this will have on our country, particularly in some of our communities such as East Kilbride, the town that I am privileged to represent. The PCS report has been published following the business case that was put forward by the UK Government. A modernisation plan intended to move to new online services, data analytics, new techniques, new skills and new ways of working. Of course, the main plan is to save money by closing local offices and replacing them with regional centres. Here in Scotland, the current HMRC sites will be reduced to three. East Kilbride is being dumped. There has been an HMRC presence in the UK since 1969, commonly known as Centre 1. The workforce has an expertise that has been built up over all of these many years. I am sure that other members here will say the same of the HMRC offices in their respective communities. It is all very well for HMRC centrally to make assumptions about staff relocating to the regional centres. For example, East Kilbride workers to relocate to Glasgow. However, as PCS makes clear, there has been no consultation with staff. PCS has held extensive workshops across Scotland and, collectively, they have put forward solutions to the crisis in HMRC and tax delivery. However, there has been no real attempt by HMRC or the UK Government to question the logistics of the moves that they are talking about. No recognition of the expertise that will be lost, the depth of experience that will result, and all of that in a time of uncertainty and change facing Scotland and the rest of the UK through Brexit. Within the past week, the head of the UK tax authority has, for example, warned that border and tax checks post-Brexit could require an extra 5,000 staff, and that it could take between five and seven years to get a new streamlined system to deal with imports and exports properly in place. In January this year, the national audit office concluded that costs for the original plans have risen by more than £500 million, more than half of which is the expense of funding new buildings. That is all to a backdrop of UK Government pledges to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. A Tory manifesto pledge to keep jobs in local communities and a recognition across the board that aspirations to digitisation are unrealistic and potentially damaging to many people. Recent research by a number of universities predicts that up to 35 per cent of people will not be able to use digital for a number of reasons. As far as East Kilbride is concerned, there has been no Government impact assessment. It is not just the jobs that will be removed from the town, it is the further impact, the effect on the local economy, an economy that has already suffered from losing major employers such as Motorola and Rolls Royce. One in 10 jobs in East Kilbride are based in the tax office, and research indicates that one in four jobs in the town will be affected if those plans go ahead. As Scott Clark, a PCS branch organiser in East Kilbride, says, 2,700 people no longer contributing to the East Kilbride economy is a big hit to local businesses. As East Kilbride task force representative, former councillor Chris Thompson, makes clear, East Kilbride stands to lose between £16.3 million and £30.7 million from its economy. It is not just local representatives who are making the case that HMRC's business case for relocation is fundamentally flawed. The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, its report earlier this year is very critical about the lack of robust business planning and goes as far as calling for a complete rethink of the business case. It has no faith in the savings projected by HMRC and it has scepticism about basing regional hubs in expensive cities, as it calls it. It has concerns that HMRC's plan carries a high risk of disruption to its core business of collecting tax and serving customers. East Kilbride is a vibrant community with an established tax expertise, yet it is clear from the correspondence that I have received via the UK Government that to stay in the UK has not even been considered as an option. I know that the main building is leased and I know that it is an offshore company, but surely the UK Government is capable of getting proper information to test the viability of maintaining that expertise in East Kilbride. The plans are wrong-headed, they are disrespectful to our town and to its workers and their families. Surely it would make sense for HMRC, as noted by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, to reconsider whether moving to major city centres is the optimal way to deliver its objectives and achieve value for money. It should compare the costs and benefits of its chosen approach and the selected locations with alternative sites. I know that that has already been done, in reference to other locations in the UK. That same respect should be shown to Scotland and to East Kilbride. I will then note that the stay in the UK campaign was launched by our local paper The East Kilbride News last week. I have no doubt that that campaign will be supported by everyone in our town. A petition is under way. I would ask the Scottish Government to continue to press the UK Government to consider the excellent report by the PCS union and HMRC local staff and to listen to the many voices that genuinely believe that the HMRC plans are wrong-headed. I would ask the Scottish Government to urge the UK Government not to carry on regardless or even shorten the closure timescales, as I have heard rumoured. I would ask the Scottish Government to support our call to stay in the UK campaign. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move to the open debate speeches of four minutes. Claire Cawke, we follow by Graham Simpson. Ms Cawke, please. I would like to congratulate Linda Fabiani on bringing forward this important motion for debate. Under reorganisation plans announced back in November 2015, 17 HMRC tax offices in Scotland will be closed by 2026, including Plaza Tower and Centre 1 in East Kilbride. The intention is to replace those 17 offices with just two centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which will see staff numbers fall from just under 8,000 to somewhere between 5,700 and 6,300. Therefore, under those proposals in the region, over 2,000 jobs will be lost, including hundreds of jobs in East Kilbride, which will affect a significant number of people throughout my constituency of Rutherglen who are employed there. Apart from the effect on those who would lose their jobs and on the working lives of those retained, who will be working in a pressured environment with a quarter less staff, the closures will have a significant effect on both tax collection capability and the service to the public. Tax collection and the administration of the tax system are a core responsibility of Government that generates the income that is required to provide the public services that we rely on, including the health service education, infrastructure and economic stimulation, as well as the responsibilities that are currently reserved to the UK Government. The current understaffing of HMRC is a major contributing factor in tax evasion and avoidance. The ability of large corporations and some individuals to play the complex tax system to avoid paying the level of taxation that they should be expected to do is deplorable. While tax avoidance is legal, it is morally indefensible. According to the House of Commons Library's recent analysis, it cost at least £12.8 billion between 2010 and 2015. Tax evasion is another area where billions of pounds are lost to the UK Government each year. Evasion is, of course, illegal, and one of the core responsibilities of HMRC is to investigate and recover those missing monies from the public purse. Between aggressive tax avoidance, evasion and other reasons that tax may go uncollected, it is estimated that the public purse loses out by approximately £34 billion every year. At a time when the UK Government is focused on continuing austerity, which has seen a decline in living standards and rising levels of poverty, that is a stark statistic, those missing billions, if collected, would solve many of the issues currently facing our society, including health inequality, a fair and dignified social security system throughout the UK, as well as justice for the waspy women who have been unfairly robbed of their rightful pensions. That is exactly why we need to retain trained and skilled tax collectors who have the specialist knowledge to investigate fraud and help to increase the tax take. While enhanced computer and online systems have their place in making the service more efficient, you also need people to exercise judgment. As the PCS union has pointed out in its report Fighting for Tax Jobs, Fighting for Tax Justice, those HMRC plans have been drawn up with little or no consultation with the Scottish Government, and that is unacceptable, particularly given the transfer of some income tax powers to this Parliament. The PCS has also highlighted the risks that those plans might have on the collection of the Scottish rate of income tax and the potential consequences on Scottish Government tax take. The centralisation of the two new Scottish mega centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh will disadvantage communities and taxpayers in other areas of Scotland, making the service more remote and inaccessible for many customers, whilst at the same time depriving tax collectors of vital local knowledge. Prior to the independence referendum three years ago, the security of HMRC jobs was held up as a reason for Scots to vote against independence, like so many other vows given by better together during the campaign. That is another promise that lies in Tatters. Those proposals have been decried by the Scottish Government, unions and the national audit office, which have said that the HMRC plans are unrealistic and show no understanding of the impact on services. Those plans will have a disproportionate impact on many communities with no tangible benefit. They will deprive Scotland of a vast wealth of skills and experience of tax administration. It will pile additional pressure on staff and lead to a potentially disastrous decline in customer service. On all those counts and on more, the HMRC should be sent home to think again. I thank Linda Fabiani for bringing this debate to Parliament. Linda and I have quite different political views, but we are evidence that it is possible, quite regularly, for people in different parties to work together. Linda is the constituency MSP for East Kilbride. Can you please use the full name of the member? No, you are saying Linda. You are not using the full name. It is one of the protocols. It is for the OR. Linda Fabiani is the constituency MSP for East Kilbride and I live there. I was a councillor there for 10 years and was instrumental in setting up the East Kilbride task force. That was formed when Rolls Royce announced that they were pulling out of the town. East Kilbride Scotland's first new town, built 70 years ago, has, like many other places, suffered its share of job losses, but I still believe that it is a vibrant town with a great future. HMRC has announced that it wants to close down its huge operation there, part of the fabric of East Kilbride. Right from the start, I said that I would back any campaign to keep those jobs in East Kilbride, but I made it plain that if there were to be any banner-waving protests, I would be an observer only. I have had private discussions with the Government Minister before the general election and HMRC officials and will revive that contact. My view is that HMRC, like any organisation, is perfectly entitled to review its operations from time to time and perfectly entitled to conclude that they need to change the way they work. That is normal in private businesses and it needs to be no different in the public sector. However, I think that their solution to closing East Kilbride operation by 2025 and their Cumbernauld site to move jobs to Glasgow City Centre is misguided. MPs on the Committee of Public Accounts produced a pretty damning report in April. It is summary read and I quote, HMRC is one year into a 10-year plan to transform the way it collects tax. As part of this, it plans to reduce its 170 offices nationwide to 13 large regional hubs in city centres. We do not believe that it will save as much money as HMRC has predicted and we are concerned that it has not thought through all the negative costs to the wider economy of its approach and the impact of local employment. Its conclusion is highly relevant. It said, HMRC has yet to demonstrate that it has a realistic and affordable plan to deliver such a radical change to its estate and we do not believe that it needs to be based in expensive cities across the UK. I agree with that. Glasgow City Centre is expensive. It also said, the Government property unit should set out the rationale for having regional hubs and mini hubs and for determining their locations. It should also explain how it is taking into account the impacts on local economies when deciding how the Government estate should be configured. I am afraid that I am out of time now. It is that local impact that most concerns me and I have not seen any evidence so far that it will be mitigated. However, a letter to the committee of June 16 from HMRC chief executive John Thomson makes it very clear that it is intent on proceeding. The same Mr Thomson told me in December that, whilst East Kilbride might offer very competitive rent costs, it would not be right for HMRC to simply opt for the location that offers the cheapest property if an alternative site with slightly higher property costs offers a better overall net return for the exchequer. I find that staggering. He also said that, as the local higher education facilities offer training in the skills that HMRC needs, Glasgow would provide his words better access to a pipeline of talent that HMRC can attract and retain in future. That will be news to South Lanarkshire College and the University of West of Scotland. I will continue to do all that I can to assist with the stay in the UK campaign and I will work with all parties in doing so. I thank Linda Fabiani for bringing the motion before Parliament today. With your indulgence, I have to leave quickly after my speech for another appointment. I would also like to declare an interest as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, PCS being the trade union that represents staff at HMRC. I also want to thank PCS for all the work that they do in so many areas. The report that they have produced is evidence of that good work. The UK Government's policy attacks on office closures has impacted communities from Wick to Brighton. So many communities will or have been affected by these ill-thought-out and damaging proposals set out in the building of the future document. 160 office closures across the UK leave in 13 regional hubs. They do not build the future by destroying a vital public service that collects the taxes that it pays for our services such as schools, hospitals, police and fire services and all the rest of the services that civilise our communities. In my own region there are planned closures at Livingston at Barbara Ritchie House and at the Pyramid's Business Park at Bathgate in Edinburgh. Elginhouse, Graffield House and Meldrum House are well over 1,000 jobs—probably nearer 2,000 jobs. 1,000 of them, West Lothian alone, centralised to a new-build office in the most expensive part of central Edinburgh. How on earth does that make any financial or operational sense? The consequences for West Lothian will be grim. Each of those workers contributes £1,000 a year to local shops, bars and petrol stations and the rest. All that money is gone. With yet more workers and more traffic directed on to the already brutal journey into central Edinburgh along the AMA each morning, or, of course, the displaced staff could take the train at £9.30 a day for a return ticket £46.50 a week. No account taken of caring duties or the environmental impact or a whole series of knock-on effects. I want to commend the PCS branches up and down the country who have been working with councils and businesses and communities fighting this madness. Public sector jobs are being decimated across the board. Tens of thousands of jobs have gone in local government because of the austerity policies of the Tories, compounded by the policies of the Scottish Government. The fire service, the police, our colleges and councils have seen jobs shed across the board, yet no debates about any of that from Government backbenchers to defend those jobs. I have worked cross-party with Fiona Hyslop, Angela Constance and the Green Party and any of the politicians. We have been working together for a long time since the announcement was made. I will continue to do that, but I have to say that within the PCS parliamentary group, we do not see any SNP members attending our meetings or getting involved in our campaigns. We have put the boot into the Tories on issues like this when it is the responsibility of the UK Government, and I am happy—more than happy—to join them. On issues where it is its own Government who is responsible for holding down Scottish civil service pay or imposing cuts in pensions or cuts to posts that are nowhere to be seen, I hope— I cannot—excuse me—cann I ask the member—I appreciate some points that you are making, but you are drifting more and more off the topic of the debate. Yes, you are Mr Finlaynes. It is not a debate between you and me. I hope that that changes. The PCS is quite right to demand a full equality and economic impact assessment of the appalling and damaging proposals. Jobs in the public sector should be located in areas to spread the economic benefit and support jobs and services, not centralised to further erode the stability of the local economies that have served our country's tax system well over the years. I thank Linda Fabiani for supporting PCS members in this campaign, and I hope that she will do so again when the employer is her own Government. I thank Linda Fabiani for bringing this debate to the chamber this evening and allowing us to once again raise our concerns about HMRC proposals to close tax offices and centralise them. Proposals are optimistically entitled to building our future. I think that perhaps dismantling our future might be more appropriate. I think that Linda Fabiani eloquently expressed the devastating impact that those proposals will have on communities across Scotland. Given the importance of tax collection and its administration to society as a whole, the lack of consultation is quite frankly breathtaking. The lack of appropriate public and parliamentary scrutiny is deeply worrying. What about the health and wellbeing of the staff who have been placed in this precarious position? It has been entirely disregarded. Those proposals are determined that efficiency lies in replacing people with technology, yet international evidence suggests that digital technology has aided tax collection when accompanied with increases rather than decreases in staff numbers, a point forcefully made in the excellent PCS report. More can't be done with less money and less people. How can we possibly close the tax gap? The tax were failing to collect if we lose expertise—expertise that has been collected over decades of work—expertise that raises much-needed revenue in this country. That comprehensive and well-researched report, fighting for tax jobs and fighting for tax justice that we debate this evening, rightly states that digitalisation is no alternative to human oversight and knowledge gained over decades and it never will be. We have previously debated the proposal to close HMRC offices in West Lothian in a member's business debate that was brought by Neil Findlay and moving them to Edinburgh. We debated that in this chamber. The points that I and others made in that debate are worthy of repetition, not least because those with responsibility for the decision do not appear to be listening. I will, I should say, willingly join colleagues, cross-party colleagues, happily carrying a banner if we need to protest this further, because this decision cannot go unnoticed. Jobs should be shared across the country, not centralised further in the central belt. I represent Lothian from west, west Lothian to Musselborough in the east. We need jobs across Lothian. Why suck more into the centre? I simply cannot see that the centralisation that will take place here, just five minutes from here at New Waverly, makes sense. The notion that offices off the royal mile, minutes from Princess Street, minutes from Edinburgh Castle are cost saving and less expensive than the current offices in Bathgate and Livingston, we really need to see the numbers because taxpayers are paying for this. The Keep Work in West Lothian campaign has done much to defend those based in Bathgate and Livingston and has made the case many times that increased travel times, childcare requirements would mean that workers take a pay cut of 8 per cent or an average of £1300 out of a salary of £21,000. Concerns have been raised with me that those who are eligible for cash for excess fares might then lose out on tax credits. The people of West Lothian have the education, the skill and the expertise as proven and as is their commitment to this work. The costs to the local economy will be damaging. Many small local businesses will lose out. Folk pop in to buy a sandwich, to buy petrol, to pop in to a local pub at the end of the day and the impact of increased travel on our roads. Glasgow Road is one of the most congested in the UK, I believe, second out of London. I would like David Mundell to try to commute any day this week. It takes an incredibly long time and as Neil Findlay has pointed out, the train is an expensive option. The term regional hub is a misnomer and a strange description for city centre centralisation. The case for this package of cuts hasn't been made, far from it. Let's stop it and let's have a rigorous and independent review now. Thank you to Linda Fabiani for bringing such an important issue to the chamber this evening. The motion highlights the devastating impact that those job losses will have on communities such as East Kilbride. I hope that all of us in the chamber this evening can express support for PCS and wish them all the best in their negotiations with HMRC and thank them for their excellent report fighting for tax jobs and tax justice. Unfortunately, for folks in the Highlands, it's too late to save their jobs. Every member of staff in the Inverness HMRC office has accepted redundancy. Some have already left and the office will close in the next few months. Over 60 highly skilled jobs have gone. I hope that you will indulge me as I focus on the experience of my own constituents in this Tory Government centralisation scheme. To prepare for this debate, I spoke to a PCS union rep about the closure of the Inverness office. I heard about people who are facing real uncertainty in their lives at the moment. Their situation is seemingly worsened by the way that it has been handled. Since 2015, the staff of the Inverness HMRC office have been facing the reality of being made redundant as a result of the building our future programme. The nearest regional centres to us will be in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Belfast, which means that most Inverness staff are unable to take up posts. Staff have been promised support from HMRC, but in reality, the level of support that has been provided has fallen far short of what employees needed and wanted. Some employees in Inverness have accepted that their futures aren't with HMRC, and since 2016, since late 2016, they have sought to upskill themselves with little or no support from HMRC. At that time, the employees would advise that they would be leaving HMRC in the spring of 2017, and yet they have only just received their voluntary redundancy offers. Having come to terms with the changes that lay ahead, many had started to move forward and even started to submit CVs and even applied for jobs, but because of the changes to the timeline that employees were given, lots of them have had to turn down offers of future employment because HMRC has changed when their employment will end. For over two years, they have faced uncertainty about their jobs, their financial security and the impact that that would have on themselves and their families, years of excellent public service ending like this, not being informed, not being supported, HMRC moving the goalposts and it is making employees feel undervalued and stressed. The process of redundancy is inevitably stressful, but when the process is not run properly, then it can have a serious impact on the mental as well as financial wellbeing of employees. I find one of the most baffling aspects of this whole episode, just how the events of the last few years have unfolded, and I know—I have mentioned that in this chamber before—that I know personally of folk who were promised that if they voted no in the independence referendum three years ago this week, their jobs would be safe. They have not forgotten those promises and it is yet another aspect of this whole episode, which is tough for them to take. Let me finish again by thanking Linda Fabiani and PCS for their tireless work on the issue. I hope that the folk of East Kilbride can be spared the human cost of this centralisation, and if so, that will prove some comfort to their colleagues in the north. Bill Bowman, the last speaker in the open date for the minister, closes. Mr Bowman. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me also thank Linda Fabiani for bringing this debate forward. Representing the north-east, I am all too familiar with the effect of job losses on local communities. The last thing that my constituents want is to see further job losses. Both Aberdeen and Dundee are amazing cities in which to live and do business, and both have had more than their fair share of job losses already. While the announcement of the location of the new social security office in Dundee is most welcome, recent months have not been good for Dundee, where HMRC employs over 500 people due to a number of recent job losses, more than 250 from Lloyd's, and just a few weeks ago, almost 100 from Scottish electrical group. Unfortunately, HMRC plans to close one office in Dundee, although another is transferred to the Department of Work and Pensions, although, thankfully, it seems that most of those jobs will be kept. I recognise that HMRC must adapt to changing circumstances, and it is perfectly reasonable for HMRC, like any other organisation, to examine the way that it operates and to try to improve. That is fair enough. I hear that you have echoed your colleague Graham Simpson's words about how it is perfectly reasonable for HMRC to review its business model. However, having heard what you have heard this evening from Elinda Fabiani and Marie Todd about how HMRC has been treating its staff and the trade union involved, would you still accept that it is acting in a perfectly reasonable manner? Mr Bowman. Thank you for that intervention. Let me continue to say that it is equally fair, though, to examine that process and to raise questions about areas that we have concerns over. For example, about how the effects of closures on local employment and economies will be properly addressed. So, too, there are questions over the potential loss of specialised local knowledge and the impact that might have on excise and tax avoidance work. Local impacts will be felt most keenly, and we must engage with one another if we are to find solutions for the communities affected. Sadly, though, neither the motion nor the report that it is based on lend themselves to inspiring an environment of co-operation in this chamber. The language is extreme, the tone, hostile and the motivation of the organisation behind this report is political. The report is not a considered response, it is a cynical response. Management is only seen as being bad. Edinburgh, it is inferred, is undeserving of new jobs and the reason is a relatively high average disposable income in the city. Sorry, yes. Just briefly, does the member not acknowledge that there has been a woeful lack of consultation and such lack of consultation and disregard for the views of those working in this service that are bound to be met with a degree of frustration, though I do not share the member's interpretation of the report? I think that, to a certain extent, your language there is quite extreme. If we are trying to find a way to work forward, we need to use language that we can all adopt. I hope that you have read the report as well. As I say, it says that Edinburgh is undeserving of new jobs because of the relatively high average disposable income in the city. Does that mean that everyone in Edinburgh is rich? There is also what I would call a bizarre reference to private schools thrown in for good measure from the report writers. None of this helps to raise support for the jobs that Linda Fabiani is concerned about and the people who will be affected I think deserve better. Do I have extra time? Sorry, you did take two interventions. The fundamental principle here should be how best to protect local jobs, address valid concerns amongst the workforce and support our communities. Those things are not achieved by pushing political politics on the issue, suggesting that some are less deserving of jobs than others or promoting a trade union's radical political objectives. They are accomplished by co-operation and consensus, by reasoned rational debate and by standing up for the people that matter most to our constituents. Like my colleague Graham Simpson in East Kilbride, I stand ready to work alongside any other parties to keep jobs in the north-east and other local communities. I hope that others do too. Thank you very much, Mr Bowman. I now call Jamie Hepburn to close with the Government. Minister, seven minutes are thereabouts, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I begin by joining others in thanking Linda Fabiani for bringing this debate to the chamber. Just as she said at the outset, I do not welcome the fact that this debate is necessary. I very much regret that we are here as well, but this debate is necessary, so it is right that we have had the chance to discuss this issue this evening. Can I welcome the contributions that have been made almost universally? I will come to Mr Bowman's contribution in a few moments time, but the tender of the debate today has very much reflected the debate that this Parliament held in October 2016, when there was cross-party consensus concern about the impact of those changes. Let me pick up on the language that was deployed by both Mr Bowman and Mr Simpson. I should caveat that. I think that the general thrust of Mr Simpson's contribution today is one that I very much welcome, and I will return to that in a few moments. However, it was both appropriate for HMRC to review its business model. In some senses, I would not disagree with that general sense, but I am sure that, taking on board the points that Alison Johnstone has made at a time when we rightly see great public concerns about the fact that too many taxes go uncollectively, we see significant tax avoidance, we must question the sense of a business model that is going to see further reductions in the numbers of HMRC employees, as will be the case with this programme. We see that, through the creation of the two, what is euphemistically referred to as regional centre, I think that the terminology that was deployed by Claire Hawke is a mega centre where, rather more apt, Alison Johnstone was quite correct to say that the term regional hub is somewhat strange. They are anticipated to accommodate between 5,700 to 6,300 staff. When we know right now that more than 8,000 HMRC staff are employed in Scotland, there will be a reduction in headcount, and that continues the trajectory of reduced number of employees in HMRC over a number of years. I would concede that the current UK Government administration has not begun by the previous Labour administration, of course. I thank Jamie Hepburn for taking the intervention. Would he accept that what I said in my speech was that it is perfectly right for any organisation, Governments included, to review the way they operate, but I also said that I disagreed with the conclusions of this review, which I am entitled to do as a local elected politician. I think that the conclusions of this review are wrong. I would concede that. I suppose that that is why I was drawing a distinction between your contribution, Mr Simpson, and your esteemed colleague, Mr Bowman's contribution this evening. In that regard, I should say that when we talk about reviewing business models, I think that there is a clear, compelling case. We have heard it this evening that it should cause the UK Government to pause for thought. I am, of course, responding this evening on behalf of the Scottish Government. I have a clear ministerial interest in my responsibility for employability. There is going to be a direct impact and employment across Scotland through those changes. I should also say that I speak as a constituency representative in the case of HMC, because the second largest single site that will be affected by those changes is located after centre 1. In Ms Fabiani's constituency, it is located in my own city. That is a very real issue of concern 1. I know that that is causing considerable concern to the workforce. In that regard, I want to thank the PCS for its work for the report that they have laid before us, which they have submitted for the consideration of the UK Government and, indeed, for this Government to consider as well. I will try to come to that in a few moments' time. In that regard, this is where I thought Bill Bowman's contribution this evening was extraordinary—rather peculiar—for him to suggest that what has been laid out by the PCS is extreme and is a radical political agenda. It is one of the most extraordinary things that I have heard and set out by any member in my time in this chamber. What the public and commercial services union is doing here is representing the interests of its members. They are acting in the fashion that they would expect a trade union to act. That is not a radical political agenda. It is representing those of their members, as they would expect. I think that we should put in the record—I am sure that the PCS would, and I see some of the representatives in the public gallery this evening. They may well be writing to you, Mr Bowman, but I thought that it was very strange for you to set out that they have said that Edinburgh is undeserving of additional jobs. I have read it, but I have got the page here, nowhere can I see it. I have read it quickly, so I remain to be corrected if I have got it wrong. Nowhere in this page do I see the word undeserving. What I think they are doing is reflecting the concern that there are a number of existing communities that benefit by Bathgate Livingston or the primary examples that benefit by having jobs located there just now. Why would those communities have to suffer the risk benefit by relocating those jobs to another location, which might not be as economically disadvantaged already as those other communities? In that regard, I should pay tribute to those of my colleagues Fiona Hyslop, who is sitting right next to me right now in terms of the campaigning that they have undertaken for their communities in West Lothian. Let me turn to the report that has been laid out, because I concede that the Scottish Government will undertake certain things to interact with the UK Government to call a halt in this process. We have done that. The First Minister spoke personally to the second parent secretary at HMRC. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work has written to the financial secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury to seek a meeting to discuss those matters in some detail. I have to say that the response was rather negative. It was very interesting to hear that Mr Simpson has been able to secure a meeting to discuss that with the relevant minister in the UK Government, and I, in private indeed, look forward to his assistance in ensuring that the Scottish Government—the elected Scottish Government—can set out its position to the UK Government as well. The report also talks about whether the HMRC in Scotland should continue to be under control of the UK Parliament or whether its powers should be transferred to Holyrood. The Scottish Government supports that aim. I am very clear that powers to collect and manage all taxation rates in Scotland should become the preserve of the Scottish Government and the legislative responsibility of the part. The report calls for the abandonment of costly PFI programmes for office buildings. That is again something that the Scottish Government supports and has, of course, put in place through our own programme of construction. I very much welcome the report that has been put in place. The report from the PCS that has been put in place is unfortunate that it has had to do so because I very much regret the approach that the UK Government has taken here. Let me close by reassuring Linda Fabiani. She has called upon the Scottish Government to continue to press the UK Government on this matter. I can certainly assure her that that is something that we will continue to do. I thank you that concludes the debate. I close this meeting of Parliament.