New Petitions

Convener, members of the Scottish Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for listening.The petition I am speaking to today is, in effect, a vote of no confidence in West of Scotland Water's stewardship of water and sewerage services in Dumfries and Galloway. In 1996, responsibility for those services passed from the regional council to West of Scotland Water. Since then, many management and administrative functions have been withdrawn from the local office and centralised in the Glasgow headquarters.Inevitably, there has been a measurable deterioration in local customer service. At the same time, water and sewerage charges have risen steadily.One of the stated aims of the Scottish Parliament is the decentralisation of public sector jobs. The need for local responsiveness has been highlighted by the water industry commissioner and Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. Those aims, along with the announcement that the three water authorities are to be merged into a single water authority in April 2002, led us to believe that the steady trend of local job losses and centralisation would be halted or even reversed.However, before the new water authority takes over, West of Scotland Water has closed another three professional sections at Dumfries and is acting in direct contradiction of Parliamentary aims. The loss of the laboratory there is a potential threat to public health in the region. The closures mean that, since 1996, there has been a permanent loss of more than 60 skilled jobs for people living in the region and contributing to the local economy.Further evidence of the havoc that West of Scotland Water has wreaked in Dumfries and Galloway has recently come to the fore. The letting of work to local firms has all but stopped. That work now goes to larger firms from outside the region. Large and small planning applications from local and national builders are being refused on the ground that sewerage works are functioning at maximum capacity. That represents a development embargo. Investment levels are set to drop dramatically—the list goes on.Our campaign is an attempt to retain local jobs and to make West of Scotland Water more accountable for its actions in south-west Scotland. The campaign, which was initiated by the staff, has full cross-party support from every Dumfries and Galloway councillor, MP and MSP. The campaign is backed by professional associations and community groups and more than 2,000 members of the public have signed the petition.I will summarise. At the beginning of 1996, Dumfries and Galloway had its own regional office that was committed to providing water services in the area by utilising local contractors and by liaising with the council's local plans. The water and sewerage department was able to benefit the local economy and its development. Now we have a diminished satellite office that has no laboratory. There are 70 per cent fewer staff and there is remote management that has no interest in supporting the local economy or in planning development. We have a public authority that is operating in direct opposition to rural regeneration, which is a stated aim of the Parliament.I urge the committee to read our document and to give its contents your fullest consideration.

West of Scotland Water flung figures at us about the lab. Initially, it was claimed that £250,000 would be saved. However, the fact that the lab is quite efficient and brought in work from outside made those savings negligible. The authority has since come up with a new figure of £320,000, but we managed to demonstrate that savings from closure of the lab would still be negligible. The figure was not broken down in any way—management has never provided us with the detail of efficiency savings.

Ten people are employed in the local lab. I reiterate that the samples are currently getting shipped up the road, but last week's gales blew the roof off the Glasgow lab. After a U-turn, the samples were sent back down to Dumfries. That night, the staff in Dumfries worked until 10 pm or 11 pm to get the samples processed. That shows what can happen.The samples get picked up in Dumfries at 3.30. A tank was getting cleaned the other week—I do not know what day it was—and the inspector brought a sample in at a quarter past 3; however, the guy who picks up the samples had left at 3 o'clock. That shows the sort of processes that West of Scotland Water has put in place.We had only 10 staff. They could have specialised in certain subjects, and could have backed up the work in the Glasgow and Edinburgh labs.

The terms and conditions for staff include a £10,000 removal package, but that would mean people upping and leaving with their whole families. Many of the people from the lab are family people, some of whom moved from the central belt because they liked the rural area. The package of £10,000 is peanuts when we consider the cost of housing in Glasgow compared with Dumfries and Galloway. People would have to contemplate dramatically lowering their lifestyle if they moved to Glasgow.There is also the cost of parking and so on. A while back, I read in the newspaper that the cost of parking and office accommodation in the central belt is extortionate compared to Dumfries and Galloway. We own the office in Dumfries, where there are no overheads. There are now more consultants from English companies in that office than there are staff. That is the way that things seem to be going.

We have asked the Dumfries office to be built up; that is what David Mundell and other MSPs have been trying to promote. There is nothing to stop our engineers working and being based in the Dumfries office, rather than working from Glasgow. They might have to travel to Glasgow and then return to Dumfries to work on a project there. That is just not feasible. The people who are based in Glasgow have probably been passing each other on the road, while the people from Dumfries have been looking for jobs elsewhere in Scotland. That does not make sense to us, and was one of the points that we tried to put across strongly. We now have a university in Dumfries, from which graduates come looking for employment. However, there is no employment. We used always to have students visiting the offices and the labs in the summer for work experience, which they need and which helps them get jobs when they finish university. All that has gone since West of Scotland Water took over.

We got a copy of the investment programme for the next four years, and investment in Dumfries and Galloway will drop considerably. I do not know what the situation is like in other rural areas, but in Dumfries and Galloway investment will drop from about £12 million to £5 million in four years. As David Mundell said, we basically have a development embargo in Dumfries and Galloway. If you speak to members of the Federation of Master Builders who are on our action group they will tell you that local builders cannot even build one or two houses in small rural areas. The development embargo is hitting major towns in Dumfries and Galloway, such as Castle Douglas and Dalbeattie. There is a knock-on effect and we will lose jobs throughout Dumfries and Galloway. We are not talking only about West of Scotland Water staff, but about local builders and builders' suppliers. From looking at West of Scotland's programme for the coming four years, I do not think that it will be investing in Dumfries and Galloway.

I had the chance last week to speak to Jon Hargreaves, the new chief executive designate of Scottish Water. He obviously sees the difference between rural and urban areas, which is of benefit, because he will be in charge. He also does not see the point in centralising everything, given the new technology—such as e-mail, computers and videoconferencing—that we have in Dumfries. I hope that there is a wee bit of light at the end of the tunnel, because there certainly was not with West of Scotland Water; it was just centralise, centralise, centralise to save their jobs in Glasgow.

It is, but as I said, we have not seen the figures to back that up. The figures that we have seen are negligible and we have countered them. West of Scotland Water gave the five design engineers 90 days' notice to move to Glasgow. West of Scotland Water was willing to pay relocation packages of £16,000 per person per year for four years, so you cannot tell me that that would result in efficiency savings. In addition, the lab brought work to Dumfries and Galloway. It did not go out looking for work; rather, people came to it with work. If the lab had looked for work, I am sure that it could have got more. In addition, the lab is a back-up for a rural area. I do not think that much of the efficiency savings that West of Scotland Water says it is making are coming from Dumfries and Galloway.

We all know that it is reckoned that 1,000 jobs will go already, but another 1,000 might go. Many people will go from our office in 2003. If not for outside contractors and consultants giving free accommodation, telephones, printers and free this and that, I do not think that our office would be viable. The convener is right that further job cuts will come. However, I hope that in future—with Jon Hargreaves's understanding of the needs of rural areas—it will not be possible to provide services that take more jobs away from Dumfries and Galloway, which is at its limit at the moment.

Yes.

I think that the figure that was quoted for savings in office accommodation and car parking fees in Glasgow was in the billions. It will be hard to sell the office in Dumfries and Galloway because of the situation there. There are virtually no overheads in that office. The consultants should be charged. Is the public aware that they have free accommodation?

Various consultants are taking over the office. We cannot get a car parking space at the back of the office because of their vans.

West of Scotland Water brought them in to do certain aspects of the job. They are not preparing for Scottish Water.

The maintenance lot that have just moved in are from Morrison Construction, which has taken over the maintenance and the mechanical and electrical work. Those jobs used to be done by local firms, but Morrison Construction won the contract. I do not understand why central belt companies are brought in; they are not cheaper. Local companies have proved that they can do the job much more cheaply, but West of Scotland Water continues to use central belt companies.The contracts' wording put local contractors out of work because they had to complete strict pre-qualification documents. I do not agree with that because local firms know the job and the area and get on with the people.

Thanks for listening.