 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 1279 in the name of Neil Findlay on retained tax jobs in Bathgate. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Those members who wish to speak in the debate, please press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Neil Findlay to open the debate. Mr Findlay, seven minutes please. Thanks to members who have signed my motion. Can I declare an interest as I am the current chair of the PCS parliamentary group, PCS, being the trade union that represents Her Majesty's revenue and customs staff. The motion, as is the nature of members' business, reflects local issues in my region, but I want to make this short debate about issues much wider than that, because the UK Government's policy of tax office closures will, and indeed already is, impact on communities and workers across the UK. Jobs will go in Aberdeen, Cumbernauld, Dindes, Kilbride, Glasgow, Inverness, Irvine and Glenrothes, but also in Bradford, Middlesbrough, Colchester, Brighton, Derby, Nuri, Taunton, Wrexham and Wolverhampton, and a whole host of other places in between, and some redundancies have already occurred. I want to express my solidarity with those communities and the workers affected, because their struggle just now is our struggle too. On 12 November 2015, HMRC published its plans for the future of HMRC. It was a complete misnomer entitled, Building the Future. That plan seeks to close over 160 tax offices across the UK with a move to just 13 or so regional hubs specialising in four areas of work. You do not build the future by taking a wrecking ball to one of our most important and key public services, the administration and collection of taxes, the very taxes that pay for our NHS, the education system and for our emergency services and all the rest of the services that civilise our society. In my own region, there are planned closures at Livingston, at Barbara Ritchie House, at the Pyramids Bathgate and in Edinburgh, at Elgin House, Graffield House and Meldrum House. Around 2,000 or so jobs are to be centralised to an unidentified location in Edinburgh. That will have a devastating impact on the areas affected and in particular in West Lothian. In 1985, as far back as that, unemployment in that area, after the closure of British Lailand and Pocemic Pit was sky-high, sitting at up to 26 per cent in some areas. The development of Silicon Glen and production facilities such as NAC, Burr Brown Seagate and others provided jobs and hope for many. Just a stone throw from the giant BL site, Motorola came in with 3,000 people producing mobile phones, my brother, one of them. It closed in 2001 and the tax credit centre then took over the building, but now those jobs are under threat too. For some people, that could be the third redundancy in that location. The issues that I am going to raise in relation to West Lothian can no doubt be applied to many of the other places that will be affected by that plan. That will be a huge cost to the local economy. Around 1,000 jobs will be taken out of West Lothian and centralised. It is estimated that each worker spends £1,000 per year on the local economy, shops and petrol stations, snack bars and so on, but over £5 million cumulatively will be taken out of the economy. The staff affected will be expected to travel much further, up to an hour to an hour and a half each way, and that is what is deemed reasonable by HMRC. Forty per cent of the staff have caring responsibilities for children, elderly relatives or family members with a disability. For many of them, moving to a big city location is simply not an option. Any closure would, in many cases, cost them their job when we must be clear about that. A number of staff have raised issues relating to a disability, making a move to Edinburgh extremely difficult for them. With the shambles that are currently ScotRail, is it any wonder that they are worried about their future? The cost of travel is another area of concern. A simple calculation, if we look at going by public transport from train, from Bathgate to Edinburgh, is £9.10 per day, a bit less from Livingston. From workers who currently work at that location who live in North Lanarkshire, Fife, Falkirk and Glasgow, the costs will be much higher, maybe slightly less if you go by car. That will fall upon workers whose average earnings is £21,000 a year. Some of them are significantly below that. The additional travel costs would be a very significant hit on their pay. That is imposed on a group of staff who have been subjected to pay cuts, pensions cuts and a general all-out attack on their terms and conditions. PCS branches up and down the country have been working with local authorities, local businesses and trade councils to campaign against those closures. They are demanding local equalities impact assessments that are carried out, but we should go further. We need social, economic and environmental impact assessments of those plans, too. Such assessments would expose the policy as unworkable, damaging and a costly mess. Government jobs should not be centralised. They should be decentralised to provide jobs opportunities and spread the economic gain across the country. Scotland is gaining many more tax and benefit powers. We need skilled staff with the knowledge of systems and processes who know about the information and know how to administer those taxes and benefits. At the time of things such as the Panama papers, tax avoidance on an industrial scale and changes to the benefits system, the call of HMRC could not be more badly timed. If we roll all those issues into one, then we have one almighty dog's breakfast and it is the UK Tory Government who is taking us into that. I hope that all parliamentarians, no matter their party allegiance, see this for what it is—a policy that is bad for workers, bad for communities and bad for the economy. The UK Government should scrap those ridiculous plans now. Thank you very much, Mr Findlay. I call me to be followed by Miles Briggs. I am grateful to Neil Findlay for raising this in Parliament this evening. He, along with many other local elected representatives, is clearly concerned about the effect that the job cuts will have on HMRC workers, currently employed in Bascate, and on Bascate as a community. I share his concern, but unfortunately the motion barely scratches the surface of the issue. Bascate, as you said, is just one of the 17 HMRC offices across Scotland that is set to close, thanks to the so-called consolidation of the network of offices. HMRC are set to cut over 2,000 of its staff here in Scotland from those 17 offices that are currently situated in communities all over Scotland and which currently provide vital skilled jobs to areas that depend on them. It is a move that will be deeply damaging to those communities, from Dundee to Cumbernauld, Bascate and to Inverness in my constituency. It is local communities up and down Scotland that are set to lose out in jobs that their local economies rely on. It is a decision that Scotland had no say over, a decision that was made hundreds of miles away in London, and one that will have serious impact on the lives of those families and communities that will be affected here in Scotland. To make matters worse, this is just the latest in a string of broken vows from the independence referendum, made hand-in-hand by Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour alike. Those communities that were told just two years ago that the only way to protect HMRC jobs in Scotland was to vote against independence are now facing up to the reality of losing over 2,000 of those jobs. A Scottish Labour tweet from their anti-independence campaign read that 1,400 jobs at HMRC in Cumbernauld are dependent on us staying in the UK. Well, we stayed in the UK, so why is it that HMRC offices in Cumbernauld are set to close by 2020? Of course, it is not just the community in Cumbernauld that has been deceived by the Labour campaigners. Inverness is set to be one of the first offices to close under those cuts. Mr Findlay? Surely workers out there deserve more than the rerunning of the independence campaign, and we need positive action from people across the Parliament to try and retain people's jobs. It might soothe the member's conscience to say this, but let's get on with trying to protect jobs and let's not start rerunning old debates. Ms Todd? I would ask Mr Findlay to have a think about his own conscience and his own role in the promises that were made, the false promises that were made to the people of Scotland during that independence referendum debate. The Inverness office is set to close by 2018 with 50 jobs at stake to the detriment of the local economy and the families who now face uncertain futures due to those job losses. That is not the first of promises made to Scotland that has been broken, and I fear that it will not be the last. Of course, we in this Parliament are led to understand that those 2,000 job losses are absolutely necessary. Providing jobs in Scotland is simply too expensive. That is why HMRC has decided to open a tax supercentre that will provide 2,800 new jobs to people in Croydon. HMRC can provide extra jobs in the south-east of England, but Scotland has to accept job losses. That is reflective of a wider attitude towards Scotland from powers in London. In the words of Boris Johnson, who is now a UK Government minister, his exact words, my argument to the Treasury is that a pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country from a straight, utilitarian calculus than a pound spent in Strathclyde. I would ask my Conservative members in this debate to reflect on that. I hope that all members of all parties will join me in calling on HMRC and the UK Government to protect Scottish jobs and to stop the consolidation of tax offices that will damage communities all over Scotland. I commend Neil Findlay for bringing this debate to Parliament this evening. I would also like to put on record the legitimate concerns that exist over the proposed changes, and I have met representatives of the Pyramid's Business Park, along with West Lothian Council, MPs and MSPs from across parties. I agreed to support the joint appeal to HMRC that called on them to look again at the real concerns and reconsider their proposals. In addition to the joint letter, I have also written twice directly to John Thomson, the chief executive of HMRC, and I will be following that up with a further letter to the financial secretary to the Treasury Jane Ellison, who will be the minister responsible. HMRC says that its plans are part of a wider Government strategy to develop hubs in key locations that maximise flexibility in customer services. Like all public sector organisations, it is under pressure to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of providing those services. I have to say to Mary Todd that I was disappointed by the tone of her contribution to the debate. MSPs from across the parties, including both cabinet secretaries here this evening, have been working together on the issue. Scotland is home to 12 per cent of the HMRC workforce. The UK Government has given a commitment that those jobs will remain in Scotland. As it proposes those changes, I believe that it is crucial that HMRC fully addresses the concerns of workers currently based in West Lothian who will be affected and ensure that any changes really offer the best possible deal to the taxpayer once all factors have been taken into account. As Neil Findlay has said, research undertaken by the business park owners and West Lothian council indicate that 85 per cent of staff earn less than £21,000 per annum, so the key issue of additional travel costs for West Lothian-based employees to Edinburgh or Glasgow must be considered. In addition, 40 per cent of employees have caring responsibilities, which could be compromised by the extra commuting time, and 20 per cent of the workforce have a disability. The latter statistic should be welcomed and is testament to the positive working conditions to date that HMRC has provided. I saw today that the Scottish leader of his party was the warm-up act for the Prime Minister. Now that she seems to be of the Prime Minister's ear, will he urge the leader of the Scottish Tory party to tell Mrs May to scrap those plans? Mr Briggs. As I have said at the beginning of my contribution, I have written to the Treasury Secretary already, Jane Ellison, who will be taking this decision and who will have specifically raised these issues. I have been assured that one-to-one meetings will take place between staff and managers at least a year in advance of any move, and caring responsibilities, travel times, costs and other personal circumstances will be discussed, as well as a special daily travel allowance being made available if the decision goes forward. Those additional costs, whether through train fares or additional mileage, will clearly be significant, and I would hope that HMRC could begin assessing those now so that we have the facts in front of us. MSPs from across the chamber will be very much aware that the proposed reforms of services in the past have been taken forward in the name of delivering better value for money to the taxpayer when, in fact, beyond that, we see that the taxpayer has to spend more on those services. I hope that HMRC understands and outlines those costs ahead of any relocation. I will be asking, as I have mentioned, the financial secretary to urge HMRC to undertake this work so that we have those additional costs and that they can be tested and factored into overall decision making. Not least, as the pyramid site will continue to offer, I believe, a very competitive rental and business rate change compared to any of Edinburgh's city centre locations. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I again welcome today's debate. It has allowed MSPs from across the chamber to voice genuine concerns. I urge HMRC to fully engage with West Lothian Council, the local workforce and its representatives to demonstrate that its proposals will provide value for money to the taxpayer and will not disadvantage local employees to the extent that they cannot work for HMRC in the future. I call Jackie Baillie, if you are followed by Linda Fabiani. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. Let me also start by congratulating Neil Findlay on securing this debate and bringing the concerns of workers employed at the HMRC office, not just in Bathgate but in many other locations to the chamber. People will cover the challenges that I am sure are faced by the staff in Bathgate in a comprehensive way. I do not want to add to that. I do want to focus on the context in which we find ourselves. It is right to look back at what HMRC did when they announced their so-called consolidation plans in November 2015. What that means, as we have heard, is the closure of 17 offices across Scotland to be replaced by two super centres in Edinburgh and Glasgow. It does not only affect Bathgate. As we have heard from Neil Findlay, centres in Aberdeen, in Dundee, in Cumbanol, in East Kilbride, Glasgow and in Venice will close. I understand that Irvine and Glenrothes are already in the process of closing, and it is equally right to acknowledge the closures across the UK. The current level of employment across the sites in Scotland is about 8,300. It is expected to be 6,300 when the programme of consolidation is completed by 2021. Consolidation is clearly the new name for cuts, because I fail to understand how a cut of 2,000 staff can be justified, and I will come on to explore that in a minute. However, the impact to individuals with increased travel time or at worst losing their jobs has been outlined by others and will, I am sure, with other speakers too. Equally, so is the impact on the local economy. However, it is to the question of the job losses that I want to return, because the Scottish Parliament has significant new devolved powers nowhere more so than in taxation. We have seen responsibilities for some of those new taxes passed over two years ago with stamp duty and then more last year with the Scottish rate of income tax, and the Scottish Government has found it challenging. I do not blame them for that, I think that that is taxation. We have been good at spending the money that we have been given. It is a whole other bowl game when you are responsible for the other side of that equation, when you are raising taxes. To lose capacity, to lose expertise at such a delicate time seems completely ridiculous and not thought through. Last year, the Scottish Government decided not to vary the Scottish rate of income tax, but the volume of work in making sure that the systems worked effectively was not in any way diminished by that. Indeed, considerable effort was made to ensure that the process was as smooth as possible as we transitioned. The Parliament may decide in the future to vary the Scottish rate of income tax. If they do so, delivery of that may well be challenging and will require expertise and capacity, but equally ensuring compliance with tax collection is an issue for HMRC as a whole. Closing offices on this scale may pose a threat to the operation of HMRC, and indeed last year, the UK Parliament's Public Accounts Committee said that the customer service was so bad that it could be affecting tax collection. You do not add to that pressure by reducing staff numbers. I am coming to a close. When the issue was first raised, the First Minister said that she would be seeking urgent talks with the UK Government. I would be grateful if the minister, in his contribution, could tell us whether that happened and what was the result. Finally, as gently as I can, to Mary Todd. There are many occasions to debate the constitutional future of the UK and Scotland. Some might argue that having £15 billion black hole in our public finances each year would lead to many more job losses. However, what I can say to her is that staff in HMRC will be utterly bemused that we choose instead to scrap with each other instead of focusing on their interests. This Parliament should unite in their interests. Thank you. I call Linda Fabiani to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Ms Fabiani, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I just want to make a small contribution, because when I read Neil Findlay's motion and listened to him speak tonight about the situation in Bathgate, it struck me very much that it is a very similar situation to that faced in East Kilbride. In East Kilbride, of course, we have Centre 1, as the main centre for HMRC, and Centre 1, Queensway House, is its technical name, has always been known as a centre of expertise in East Kilbride. We are now talking about 2,500 jobs moving from East Kilbride, if those plans go ahead. That is a huge imposition, not just on the workers themselves, but with all the problems that Neil Findlay raised in terms of travel costs and time, caring responsibilities. It also has a big impact on the local economy. 2,500 people moving out of a town is a huge impact. One of the things that really bothers me is that there has been no economic impact assessment carried out by the UK Government. Neil Findlay is quite right. It is about more than that. It should be a socioeconomic impact study that is there. Not only that, as far as I can see and as far as I have learned from my colleagues who are in the Westminster Government, there has been no real parliamentary scrutiny about that either. That gives me great concern. Indeed, when I looked back at the written questions that I had asked of our own Government here in Scotland, there was not even any proper formal discussion with the Government of Scotland when that was announced. Centre 1, as I said, is the main place, although there is also the Plaza Tower, and there is another premise on Hobank Road, which has been run down, as we speak. However, there is great expertise in Centre 1 that has been built up over the years. As the PCS Union says, tax experts will tell you that a local tax office is essential to ensuring that taxpayers comply with their obligations. That expertise should be kept. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have to uproot really experienced workers from the likes of East Kilbride and Bathgate and move them elsewhere. One of the issues in Centre 1, Queensway House, is that although it is being said that it will be 2026 before all those jobs are moved, the lease of those premises comes up some time before that. Actually, Queensway House was sold off by Gordon Brown to an offshore company, so could I perhaps ask the minister if he could find out for us, please, when the lease for Queensway House is up, because we are finding it very difficult to get that information. I would just like to conclude by mentioning PCS Union and its state in East Kilbride campaign. It quite clearly was not consulted on the plans to remove staff from East Kilbride, despite being the recognised trade union for most of the staff. I suspect that that is the same in Bathgate and other locations. The state in UK campaign has called on the closure to be at least paused—they would like it to be stopped, of course they would—and the proposals are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation. I thank Neil Findlay for allowing us to talk about that today, but to say that, of course, tax jobs should be retained in Bathgate and, of course, tax jobs should stay in East Kilbride. Thank you, Colle Gordon. Llyntus, we are all by Lane Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by thanking Neil Findlay for bringing that debate to Parliament. I also thank my colleague Miles Briggs for all of his efforts in this matter. Clearly, that is an important issue within our region, which has arisen following the announcement by HMRC in November of last year that it intended to streamline its services. The intention, of course, was to meet modern trends where customers expect to be able to engage at the touch of a button. That is within a climate of an increasing need to do more with less to enable Scotland and the UK to live within our means. As has already been pointed out, the plans are not just for Scotland but, indeed, the wider UK, leading to the consolidation of, I understand, 170 offices into 13. Those new offices are to be cited primarily within cities on the premise that those places offer not only the infrastructure required of regional centres but also the technical expertise working alongside colleges and universities in bigger cities. The requirement to streamline an update is often an unenviable one with difficult decisions having to be made, whether that is by public governmental bodies or private businesses or institutions. In particular, I would say that the impact on those already working in locations, which are set to close, as well as the local economies of the areas that host those facilities, should be fully considered and any negative impacts mitigated as much as possible. Some might think that, on the plan resighting in Edinburgh, workers in Bathgate and Livingston would not face unreasonable changes to their daily travel plans compared to some relocations across larger regions of the UK. However, let us be very careful about such assumptions, as there are many implications that are of concern about this matter. Research has already been referred to, undertaken by the PCS Union and West Lothian Council. In economic terms, the changes will result in workers having to spend, I understand, an extra £1,300 getting to and from work. That is a substantial amount for 85 per cent of the staff who are earning less than £21,000 per annum. The changes to work-life balance are also matters that should be taken on board. Reference has already been made to the 40 per cent of employees estimated to have caring responsibilities. From personal experience, I think that Neil Findlay's estimate of one-to-one-half hours travel time in each direction is, in my view, a fairly conservative estimate with a small c, because depending on where one is coming from and where one is going in Edinburgh, that could easily be two hours travel time each direction. I am pleased that HMRC has committed to one-to-one management engagement with employees on issues, including the physical and financial consequences of moving to Edinburgh. I hope that that represents a firm commitment to providing sufficient help to those who need it. Beyond all of that, another consideration that should be looked at is the impact on the local economy. I think that that has been referred to already. The research that I have referred to estimates an annual spend loss in the local area of around £1 million and an estimated £7.5 million loss of local income. In those circumstances, a lack of replacement employment could hamper those businesses that have relied upon being closely located to hundreds of potential customers. Therefore, I urge HMRC to rethink the proposal carefully, considering how the proposed move will affect employees, the local economy, whether there are real savings to be gained and whether it is the right decision to take in this case. Thank you very much. I call Elaine Smith to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Alison Johnstone will be the last speaker in the open debate, Ms Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and congratulations to Neil Findlay for raising this issue. One of the most disturbing things about those plans by HMRC to move jobs from Bathgate to Edinburgh and the other job moves has been the lack of engagement with staff and, specifically, the PCS union over the proposals. That point was also made by Linda Fabiani about the situation in East Kilbride. Even if there are no compulsory redundancies that are called forward by the union, it still means a loss to the local economy. The Bathgate move would have a major effect on workers with travel to work times and costs greatly increased, as well as the detrimental effect that it can have on family life, including with childcare and other caring responsibilities. As other members have pointed out, many of the staff are low-paid workers who can ill afford the extra costs, which basically translates into a pay cut then, and others with disabilities could lose their jobs because it may not be feasible for them to commute. Constituents in my area, Central Region, who work in West Lothian, are going to be affected by this move if it goes ahead, and others have been directly affected by changes in Central Region itself, such as the example given by Linda Fabiani from our constituency, the workers at Centre 1 in East Kilbride, who were made aware that their jobs are going to be lost over the next 10 years to Glasgow and Edinburgh, but there is considerable concern that the timeline for closing down East Kilbride's biggest employer is likely to come sooner than expected. As Neil Findlay cites, the potential knock-on effects economically of such centres being lost is considerable, and it also entails a significant psychological stress for people. The knowledge that your own job is going is bad enough, but knowing that good jobs are disappearing in your area breeds a sense of insecurity, not to mention the knock-on effects on things like school places and losses of small businesses in the area. We must do more to save jobs in these towns and promote areas such as sites of industry and innovation. We all know that the central belt has got a never-growing number of people who are having to commute to work from one side to the other, but it seems that that fact has been used to somehow justify draining away jobs from places such as Bathgate, Cumbernauld and East Kilbride to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Many people across Scotland concerned that their towns are being gradually run down, so fighting to keep important jobs such as the ones in Bathgate that we are discussing tonight is a key step towards trying to prevent that from happening. Year-on-year, the average commute for Scottish workers is increasing, and, as we know, the costs of that are doing so as well. That is time spent away from families, it reduces leisure time and increases stress. Particularly when public transport, as Neil Findlay mentioned, is like a privatised railways, does not seem to be working for commuters as it should. The option of driving is unattractive, even for those with cars, due to the congestion on our main motorway connecting Glasgow and Edinburgh, and it is bad anyway for the environment. I very much support the efforts of the PCS to raise this issue, and I hope that we can further raise awareness of the movement of jobs around Scotland. It is not just those who leave Scotland altogether, and in many cases, as I have said, the effects on small towns can be disastrous. The Bathgate and Edinburgh sites should both continue, but just as East Kilbride and Glasgow should also continue and all the other smaller sites. I think that that would be part of a sustainable strategy for urban regeneration, rather than concentrating prosperity in distinct city pockets. To come to a conclusion, we are told that there is no alternative to the austerity agenda, but there is a failure to close a tax gap that loses the UK economy about £120 billion a year. At the same time, jobs in pay are being cut, benefits are being slashed and public services are being closed. We know that small businesses are struggling to survive on their high streets, and they will be affected by the closures of local tax offices, while, of course, the multinationals seem to get away with paying little or no tax. Paying tax, Presiding Officer, is a good thing for society, and those who collect it should be valued. It pays for their public services, so delivering a fair tax system not only means closing the tax gap and making those most able to pay their fair share of taxes pay, but it also means that more staff in HMRC, not less, closing local offices will do nothing for tax justice. Once again, I congratulate Neil Findlay on bringing this issue to the chamber. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank Neil Findlay for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue in the chamber this evening. I realise that this will have an impact on people across Scotland, but in the minutes that I have, I am going to focus on the impact of those proposals on my constituents in Lothian. I, too, would like to thank the PCS Union, the council in West Lothian and those employees who have contacted me and all those who are working hard to ensure that those jobs remain in Bathgate. If staff have to move to Edinburgh, there will be many negative impacts, including increased travel costs. If we are looking at an average of £1,300 a year on travel costs out of a salary of £21,000 a year, that is a cut of effectively 8 per cent. Those are not the kind of cuts that we could possibly support on a salary that is not exactly huge in the first instance. This is incredibly important work, as colleagues have stated. If we are not collecting tax efficiently, then public services are hit even more than they currently are. I was looking earlier at the travel implications, and you might be interested to know that earlier this year, the journey between the west of Edinburgh and Maybellry Road to Princess Street was considered to be the most congested road in the UK outside London. Apparently, if you travel on a regular basis, you will spend 43 hours a year in gridlock. That is not a journey that anyone would choose to undertake lightly. It is really important to understand that there is a community of people in Bathgate. They live together, they work together, their children are at school together, they use the local shops and local businesses, and many of those will be impacted massively if they do not have colleagues who are in regular, meaningful, properly paid, well-recognised employment. It is essential that we get away from an idea that we have to centralise business in Edinburgh and Glasgow. In my opinion, far too many people are having to travel from where they live to come into this very city to work. You only have to try and get about the roads in Edinburgh in the morning. I have had the privilege of living here for 50 years, but, increasingly, gridlock is becoming an issue. We already have several air pollution hotspots that are breaking EU limits. It is time that we address this and asking people to travel from West Lothian into the city centre simply makes no sense whatsoever. The euphemism of consolidation is unnecessary centralisation, and it is just disguising cuts. I was really pleased to sign with colleagues the statement urging HMRC and the UK Government to look again at those proposals. I really have a feeling that they have been designed by someone who just does not understand the impact, the losses that this will have, the stress that this is putting on people at the moment is immense. I am pleased to support calls to pause this procurement process now, and I also support calls for proper public and parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that there is cross-party support for this agenda means that we should carry on working together to do all that we can and be interested to hear what the minister has to say regarding any discussions that are on-going with HMRC and with the UK Government. I think that we have to look at the business case for this. It seems to me that flawed would be one way to look at it. It is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and I am really concerned that if we lose the skilled expert employees, we will face even greater cuts than we have at the moment. I thank Neil Findlay for raising today's motion. It has been a high quality of debate that we have had today, and it is clearly a strong example of cross-party consensus in this chamber, which I think is very welcome. I appreciate and acknowledge that members have raised genuine and heartfelt concerns around HMRC and the impact of the building our future transformation programme, as it is thus dubbed. Indeed, I met yesterday with Angela Constance and PCS representatives from the Bathgate site, and I know that Fiona Hyslop-McCawley has been very active on the case as well. I take on board the point that Linda Fabiani, Elaine Smith and others have made points about previous campaigns. I welcome Miles Briggs by partisan action in writing to UK minister, HMRC, on the issue. We clearly have a consensus around the chamber, but this 10-year HMRC programme, as it stands, will see the creation of two regional centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh, as members have said. The gradual closure of many smaller HMRC offices across Scotland and, indeed, as was made by Neil Findlay across the rest of the UK. Mr Findlay said that he met PCS members yesterday. Can I ask if he has met the senior officials of PCS Scotland on the issue recently, and what was the outcome of that? I have not yet. I have met other requests of Angela Constance and local representatives from Bathgate, and I am sure that that is an area that Mr Findlay has an interest in to understand. I will look to see whether I can engage with UK ministers. I will refer to how other ministers in the Government have tried to engage on the issue, which might help Mr Findlay. With the impending closure of HMRC offices in West Lothian, concerns have been raised again today about the impact of office closures on our communities, on jobs, on the local economy and businesses of West Lothian and, indeed, further afield across Scotland. Most importantly, on the lives of those workers who are having to relocate, and that came across very strongly in the meeting that I had yesterday with PCS on the impact on individuals. We have heard from a number of members about 40 per cent of employees at Bathgate alone who have caring responsibilities. It is clearly not tenable to suggest that changes of this magnitude in terms of the work-life pattern will have no impact on their ability to care for those they have responsibility for. That is a very important point. However, today's debate demonstrates that this Parliament cares about people, and it is appropriate that, as a Parliament, we take notice and respond to those issues when they arise. Therefore, I am grateful to Neil Findlay for bringing this to the attention of the Scottish Parliament to all who have taken part in the debate this afternoon, and to those who have written to me who are not able to take part in today's debate. I will come back to specific points more thoroughly, but I will pick up a few just at the moment, if I may. Certainly, Neil Findlay made a very powerful contribution early on around the issues that are covered here. Certainly, the point that some individuals have faced of third redundancy potentially is not an insignificant one from people's mental health. The stress of that would be enormous on those individuals. The impact on the local economy is £1 million directly on the spending power in the local shops, but clearly having a multiplier effect to the wider economy. We have a concern about that clearly. As Alison Johnston said and Linda Fabiani and others, the communities in places such as Bathgate, where people are all working together, will have a contagious effect throughout the community potential, with several large groups of people being affected simultaneously. The cost of travel is clearly that a number of members have raised that point, but the cost of travel to Edinburgh and, of course, further a fuel for other sites that are being closed down is an enormous issue to take on board. Even if compensation was given, that compensation might be taxed, so it is not necessarily going to have the full effect. We heard that from PCS yesterday that, even if it is an allowance given to staff to cover the cost of transport from Bathgate to Edinburgh, that might be subject to income tax, so it might not get a full compensation for the costs that it faces. In fact, the vast majority—Miles Briggs referred to 85 per cent of staff having under £21,000 annually salary—is clearly a not inconsiderable factor. I will come back to other members later, but I just want to make some progress. However, as we have acknowledged together in this debate, the decision taken by the UK Government will affect many in local communities, not least staff employed in those offices. People who often, for many years, have provided a valuable and valued accessible service and, indeed, it is that knowledge, that tacit knowledge, that it potentially will lose if people, maybe not through compulsory redundancies per se, but maybe forced, as a number of members, as Elaine Smith has said, to give up their job because, simply, it is not a feasible option for them to transfer to Edinburgh or Glasgow. However, it is clearly a concern that we have, but setting out the clear vision of this Scottish Government to drive sustainable economic growth and support investment is one of the priorities within our programme for government, and we want to support jobs and grow in Scotland's future. Of course, HMRC is a Whitehall department and decision making on those matters is reserved to the UK Government. We understand that. It is clear, however, that this programme will close most HMRC offices and make substantial staffing reductions across the UK as a whole. I fully understand that this must be a worrying time for 8,000 HMRC employees based in Scotland and for the communities where those services have been based. I believe that it is crucial that we continue to have an open and robust dialogue with Whitehall on the issue, and we will continue to challenge and propose workable alternatives to help safeguard jobs, local services and alleviate the likely economic impact of this programme here in Scotland. Indeed, the First Minister has publicly stated her concerns. Those office closures appear to be putting significant numbers of jobs in Scotland at risk to address the point that was made by Jackie Baillie. If I may just further expand the point, because I want to address the point that Jackie Baillie made, when HMRC announced the next stage of their building our future transformation programme, the First Minister personally spoke to the second permanent secretary of HMRC to relay her grave concerns of her job losses. Chris Stevens, the SNP member of the Parliament for Glasgow South West, led a House of Commons debate on 28 April on the HMRC programme. The outcome of that debate concluded that plans should have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. A number of members have made this point already on a cross-party basis and have called on the UK Government to ensure that our building our future was suspended until a comprehensive consultation review was undertaken. I will bring in Mr Findlay in a minute, but Keith Brown, Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, wrote to David Gawke MP, financial secretary to HM Treasury on 5 July this year, to relay the Scottish Government's concerns over the HMRC office closures and to request a meeting to discuss the plan in detail. I regret to say that, as far as I am aware at this point, we have not had a reply to that letter from Mr Brown. Since the initial announcement, we have remained in constant contact with HMRC itself to remain on top of the situation and to help to ensure that our concerns regarding the impact of the programme in Scotland continue to be heard. The wider economic implications of the withdrawal of HMRC from Bathgate have been raised by a number of members today, not least Mr Findlay. Our policy in Scotland is to enhance sustainable economic growth, as I have said, and to support investment in our future. However, let me underline some of the targeted support that is being provided to West Lothian by this Government. Scottish Enterprise supports an investment in West Lothian's growth companies and helps companies in West Lothian to maximise global opportunities. I take on board the point about the Pyramid's Business Park. If there is work that we can look at specifically to help to support alternative employment there, I will look very sympathetically at how we do that. However, our work complements the work of Business Gateway in West Lothian and the wider work of local authority in supporting local economic development. We support the delivery of the West Lothian economic growth plan, with £12 million in additional resources alongside existing budgets, which represent an overall package of financial support of £26 million. However, as I stated earlier, in response to requests from Angela Constance's local member, I have met with PCS yesterday, I have heard their concerns first hand and I have agreed to continue the dialogue with them, which I think will be very important. I am happy to involve other members in that dialogue, if that would be helpful. I cannot really take an intervention at this stage in overtime, but I think that if you deal with it— I will happily discuss with Mr Findlay after the meeting. My colleagues also meet regularly with the trade unions in it, and Scottish Government officials hold regular meetings on national employment relations issues throughout the strategic forum. We will certainly keep presiding officer in very close contact with the unions and those who are affected. We will continue to work with the UK Government and try to lobby the UK Government to take an alternative path. I very much welcome the cross-party support for that. I share members' concerns expressed today about the potential negative impact of the decisions on communities across Scotland. In my ministerial role, I have the opportunity to meet regularly with representatives from our communities and the trade unions, and we will continue to do so. I want to leave no room for doubt that we remain fully committed to working with all interested parties at local, national and UK level, including the trade unions, to mitigate the impact of the office closures and job losses in Scotland. HMRC, last but not least, is a very valued member of the PACE team that we deploy in response to job losses around Scotland. I hope that they will work with us to demonstrate good practice on how they tackle job losses at a local level. I am sure that we can have a good dialogue with them on that. However, I want to thank all members here today for taking part in this important debate. Be assured that we will continue to work on this issue, and I look forward to hearing from members in due course. Thank you. It was a very important subject, so I have let members run slightly over time. That concludes the debate, and I will close this meeting of Parliament.