Met Office (Aberdeen)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3073, in the name of Brian Adam, on the Met Office in Aberdeen. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses grave concern at proposals by the Met Office to close its office in Aberdeen and transfer the work to Exeter; notes that the Aberdeen office is commercially profitable and that its integrated approach to forecasting and commercial activities is key to that success; further notes its important role in adding value to raw data by providing significant interpretation through local knowledge and by successfully engaging face to face with many of its customers, and considers that the Scottish Executive should engage in the consultation recently announced by the Met Office with the intention of retaining all its activities in Aberdeen and seeking consideration of the devolution of the civil and commercial activities.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and for the level of support from across the parties and throughout the country that my motion has received. This debate is not about potential job losses, important as those jobs are, but about the quality of weather forecasting services.
The nature and complexity of Scottish landscapes make it difficult to predict the weather, even using the latest computer models. The accuracy of forecasts for Scotland is therefore heavily reliant on the experience and knowledge of local effects provided by the dedicated forecasting teams based in Aberdeen.
As well as Scottish forecasts and a range of services for the oil and gas industry, the Aberdeen centre provides information for a number of specialist services, such as information on road conditions and for aviation charts, Marinecall, Mountaincall, winter fishing forecasts, Network Rail and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency flood warning system. The availability and accuracy of those products and services is important to those who live, work or spend leisure time in Scotland.
The Met Office does not always get its forecasting right. I am sure that members will recall the rather famous mistake made by Ian McCaskill—he had to accept the responsibility, although it was the Met Office that produced the wholly inaccurate report of the weather as it affected the south-east of England. Not so widely known are the other misjudgments that are still being made. It is inevitable that, in weather forecasting, not everything is always right. Concern was expressed in the media at the turn of the year when we had our own major storm, which affected the Western Isles in particular with significant loss of life. Even in the past few days, severe weather warnings have been issued from Exeter suggesting that we were going to have significant storms in many parts of Scotland, but they did not come to fruition. Embarrassingly for the Met Office, it issued one for land over 700m in the northern isles, although, as the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, who is sitting in the chamber, will be more than aware, there is no land over 700m in the northern isles. I think that the warning referred to Orkney, which is even worse. I suggest that a little local knowledge might have helped in such circumstances.
Local input is important, as is accuracy. Automation is helpful, but for the people of the Western Isles and the northern isles and for those elsewhere in Scotland and beyond, local knowledge is key to providing accurate forecasts. The evidence shows that the Met Office has had recent failings and that further centralisation of the service is likely to make the situation worse rather than better.
Weather forecasting services are important to people in some of Scotland's key industries, such as those who work offshore, whether in oil and gas or fishing, and those who work onshore, whether in clearing the roads or providing safe outdoor activities. Centralisation of the services in Exeter will put at risk the Met Office's good reputation and could put at risk the lives of our citizens.
The Met Office is consulting on its proposals. I assure members that the consultation will definitely finish on 20 October, in spite of the misinformation that was put out earlier suggesting that it would finish on 20 September. I urge members, organisations and individuals to lodge their concerns with the Met Office before 20 October.
Our island communities and their representatives have taken a strong stance on the proposals—I commend them for their robust responses. Other public and voluntary bodies have given strongly negative views of the Met Office's plans, including organisations such as the Scottish mountain safety forum and a number of councils. Further, well in excess of 1,000—perhaps close to 2,000—people have signed an e-petition.
A wide range of concerns have been raised during the consultation on, for example, the apparent lack of the user perspective in the quality and efficiency measures and on the quality of forecasts and information services that we can expect from a remote and centralised service that has fewer experienced staff and increased automation. It has been suggested that there has been a lack of user and customer consultation and questions have been raised about how the Met Office, which admits to being put on the back foot by the reaction in Scotland, can truly have anticipated our future and current needs. That is just a small sample of the many comments that appear in the e-petition.
To be frank, the consultation period has been a shambles and it is in danger of becoming a total sham, because the Met Office does not have an open mind about the outcome. I hope that Westminster ministers have an open mind. On 25 May, a Met Office committee decided that it would produce a business case founded on the presumption that peripheral offices would close and that the service would largely rely on automation. I sought in writing a copy of the business case, but the Met Office refused to publish it, ostensibly for commercial reasons. I suspect that the cynical among us—who may be the majority—will conclude that the business case is weak and open to challenge and that the Met Office is afraid to publish it for fear of such a challenge.
What does the Ministry of Defence and, hence, the Met Office say about the Aberdeen service? Some of us will have seen a letter that was sent by the relevant minister to Jim Sheridan MP in February this year, which states:
"Aberdeen hosts the main forecasting office for Scotland, including support for Public Met Services, and the Met Office's Marine Forecasting Centre of Excellence. As well as providing forecasts that are vital to the safety of life at sea, this centre also supports the marine industry both at home and around the globe."
Page 16 of the Met Office's annual report for 2004-05 states:
"In Summer 2004, we created a marine centre of excellence at our regional office in Aberdeen from where we provide all of our maritime services, which include the Shipping Forecast and Gale Warning services."
At that point and until recently, the Met Office said that the service was excellent. Why is it now briefing against its own staff and organisation? Why is it going against the fundamental rights of people in a consultation period by telling customers that the centre will close?
The Met Office is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, so final decisions are in the gift of the ministers. The matter may appear to be reserved, but meteorology is clearly covered in the concordat that exists between the Scottish Executive and the MOD. Therefore, the issue is also for the Parliament and for the Scottish ministers. I hope that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will give a commitment to use all his power and influence to prevent the closure of the Aberdeen office. His relevance to the issue relates not only to the concordat, but to the £1.3 million that he spends on our behalf on severe-weather warning services from the Met Office. I hope that he will publish details of his correspondence with the Met Office and the MOD on the issue.
Because we have had a series of closures, many of the staff who work in the Aberdeen office do not actually live there, but instead commute to Aberdeen for their shifts. Some members will undoubtedly be aware that there are proposals to close the weather station at Eskdalemuir—it is also under threat. The Aberdeen office is the only part of the Met Office that is commercially viable. The Met Office could not get the budget right for its new offices down in Exeter, although I suppose that it is terrible for us to point that out. The offices came in £8 million over budget. The Met Office cannot balance its books, so it is cutting peripheral offices, even if they are profitable.
The BBC may have got the weather map wrong, but it has got this situation right. The BBC says that it wishes to continue to give weather forecasts for Scotland from Scotland. I hope that the minister will give a similar commitment today.
Eight members have asked to speak, so I must insist on speeches of no more than four minutes.
I congratulate Brian Adam on securing the debate. I support his motion, which expresses grave concern about the Met Office proposal to close its Aberdeen office. I met staff at that office soon after the proposals were announced. I visited the office along with Aberdeen's two Labour MPs, Frank Doran and Anne Begg. The staff made a compelling case to us. Members have heard some of those arguments from Brian Adam.
The Aberdeen office is already a centre of excellence in the Met Office. The fact that the shipping forecast service has improved since it moved to Aberdeen shows how well it is working and the expertise that has been built up among the staff in Aberdeen. The commercial case for retaining the centre is also compelling, because it provides invaluable services for the offshore industry. There is no doubt that many contracts are with the Met Office because it has an office in Aberdeen. The business case for retaining that office is clear.
This is not only about the commercial case, though. The Aberdeen office plays a crucial part in the Met Office's role of providing public service forecasting. Aberdeen produces forecast services to provide security for the public, business, infrastructure and emergency services in Scotland. It also provides weather warnings and services to local authorities and others. It is vital that that information benefits from the local expertise in Aberdeen. That expertise will be lost—if not immediately, then certainly in the long run—if operations are centralised in Exeter. Local geographical knowledge, for example, can be crucial in determining a forecast's accuracy. If the only office that provides civil forecasting services in Scotland closed, that would have a worrying impact on the crucial services that it currently provides to the whole of Scotland.
It is also crucial that we do not just seek to criticise and attack proposals during this process. We must not only publicise our opposition to the proposal to close the Aberdeen office but engage in the consultation process constructively. The trade union Prospect is doing that and making a strong case to the Met Office management. I am sure that it will make progress through that.
We can also be confident that Don Touhig, the Westminster minister responsible for the Met Office, understands the strong case for the Aberdeen office. His decision to reopen the consultation process shows that he wants to take a fresh look at the whole process. It is vital that we work with our Westminster colleagues on the issue, because that is where the final decisions will be taken. Frank Doran has had a number of meetings with Don Touhig, the most recent of which was only last week. I believe that we should be optimistic that the minister will make the right decision.
I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister responded to my previous questions on the issue by stating his determination that a clear message would go from the Executive to Westminster that we want the Aberdeen office to remain open. I hope that we will hear that message again during the debate. The message is coming out loud and clear from the Parliament.
The staff at the Aberdeen office do a fantastic job. The only right decision is one that ensures that they carry on providing such a vital service for Scotland.
I congratulate Brian Adam on bringing this debate to Parliament and I commend the way in which he has effectively led the cross-party campaign in north-east Scotland. As well as the support of the Aberdeen office's staff, the campaign has enormous public support in Grampian. I also thank the Deputy First Minister, who will close the debate, for his letter to me of a few days ago, in which he vigorously defended the Aberdeen office and promised to fight for its future.
This morning, some of us attended a Scottish Enterprise annual breakfast meeting at which we were told of the importance of maintaining high-value jobs in Scotland and attracting new ones. This debate is about protecting 35 high-value, skilled jobs that already exist in the Aberdeen office. As the minister said, rightly, in his letter to me, we are talking about a centre of excellence for weather forecasts for the fishing and offshore energy industries. I will dwell on that issue for the next couple of minutes.
Members should be aware that this small country of 5 million people accounts for one quarter of the European Union's waters and 12 per cent of the EU's coastline. We should remember that in the context of the other 25 member states of the EU. We face the prospect of our only weather forecasting centre that specialises in offshore forecasts for the fishing industry, for the offshore oil industry and, increasingly, for the renewables industry closing. That is ludicrous and it highlights how important it is that we save the office.
We must also consider the effect on the renewables industry. One of the important facts that several members, particularly Brian Adam, mentioned is that those who work in the Aberdeen office are on first-name terms with people in the offshore industries and they have regular face-to-face meetings. When I visited the office with Brian Adam we spoke to one individual who now specialises in offshore renewables. People from throughout the UK call him to ask for his advice. As we all know, renewables are the future; so we must retain that local expertise and knowledge.
Another fact that shows the importance of local knowledge is illustrated in a letter from Phil Taylor of Blanefield in Stirlingshire to The Herald on 24 June 2005, shortly after the announcement of a potential closure. Mr Taylor says:
"I have direct professional experience of the work of the Met Office, and was privy to a difference of opinion between the Scottish forecasters and their counterparts in Exeter about the track of the 120mph gale in January, the storm that claimed five lives in the Western Isles. Before the event, the Met Office in Exeter believed the storm would track through the central belt; its colleagues in Aberdeen did their best to warn that it would cross Scotland further north. Aberdeen made the more accurate forecast. The difference in opinion was to do with ‘local' knowledge. Lose that—and we are all losers."
That sums up the importance of maintaining local knowledge in Aberdeen.
Safety at sea is an issue that should be at the forefront of our minds. This evening, some of us are attending the annual dinner of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Edinburgh. If any of us asked the representatives of fishing communities throughout Scotland about safety at sea, they would all agree that it will be jeopardised if the local expertise that the Met Office has built up over so many years is lost.
My closing remarks to the Deputy First Minister are that when he was Minister for Transport and Telecommunications he managed to win some power from Westminster over the railways. We all welcome that. Perhaps now that he has responsibility for the issues that we are discussing this evening he will use his influence to save the Aberdeen office. Perhaps he can bring responsibility for weather forecasts to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can save the jobs at the Met Office. Closure would be an act of vandalism that would put lives at risk at sea.
As has been said before, Don Touhig, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, is the owner of this policy area. During Malcolm Bruce's debate in Westminster in July, the minister gave a hint that he was open to suggestions and to more consultation. However, I turn back to 31 July 2001 when Alan Motion, the strategic sales manager of the Met Office, said in a press release about the office's new facility in Aberdeen:
"The extreme conditions experienced out there means our clients need accurate and reliable information, so they demand very high standards from their suppliers. Clients like these stretch our expertise to the limit and we will continue to rise to the challenge."
How can they do that if they close the office?
I find it insulting that the announcement was made before the end of a consultation. Westminster is sending out a mixed message. For once, some of our ministers down there need to look very carefully at what Westminster is trying to do.
It is true that scientists will say that the service can be run from anywhere, but that is not the issue for the Met Office. What is so special, as has been said before—and I congratulate Brian Adam on initiating this debate—is the local knowledge the Aberdeen office has.
The oil and gas industry, the renewables industry, fishing—my family depended heavily on Met Office reports when at sea—and shipping all depend on the Met Office's reports. Scotland's agriculture and food industry also depend on localised details of weather patterns, as planting and rotations must be planned well ahead.
I do not doubt that Fergus Ewing will mention mountain rescue. The list of activities that depend on reliable forecasts—tourism; sailing clubs such as Stonehaven near me; climbing and walking—goes on and on. We need dependable Met Office reports in case of flooding, for example.
What matters, though, is the direct interface with the client base. The minister says that the military situation is different. The Met Office has facilities in each and every military base and pilots such as those who fly out of RAF Lossiemouth get a face-to-face briefing particular to a flight and its time. The requirement is no different in the commercial market. Face-to-face briefings and the ability to check the level of understanding and the data are important there, too. People will not be able to get that from what would effectively be a call-centre delivery exercise from Exeter.
Many of the staff are very highly skilled. Some of them have already moved from other places. As has been said, some of them commute to do their duties. They will leave the organisation. No doubt they will go to private sector competitors, should they wish to stay in the area. It is, after all, a competitive business.
I do not understand why, if the proposed closure goes ahead and the minister thinks the facility must be moved and the service must be condensed, there was no opportunity for the staff, who are working as part of an excellent resource, to initiate a management buyout. That might not have been the purpose, but it would at least have retained the speciality unit and kept it together. People will probably drift off to join other organisations, and much of the confidence that the office has established will be lost. There is little doubt that the consultation has been badly handled.
It may well be too late, but I hope that the minister will confirm tonight that he will use his good offices to fight on behalf of the Parliament to get across the message that the Aberdeen office is a vital facility for many lives as well as for the economy of the north-east of Scotland, the north of Scotland and indeed most of Scotland. I do not feel that we can allow the proposed closure to proceed. I congratulate Brian Adam on his role in a campaign that has been joined by many members. I believe that almost 50 MSPs have signed Brian's motion.
I add my thanks to Brian Adam for securing the debate. Many of the arguments that have emerged tonight are the same as those that were expressed at Westminster during Malcolm Bruce's debate on the same topic in July.
I pass on Jim Wallace's apologies. He would have liked to be here but he had an earlier commitment to deal with the not unrelated topic of air ambulance cover, which is one service that might be jeopardised by the loss of the Aberdeen office.
The main points are covered in Brian Adam's motion. The Aberdeen office is commercially successful. The integration of forecasting and commercial activities provides a valuable synergy. There is considerable added value in the interpretation of raw data when local knowledge is added. That is incontrovertibly demonstrated by the fact that, when the shipping forecast operation moved to Aberdeen, there was a 35 per cent increase in accuracy. That is a huge increase and it demonstrates the value of local knowledge added to technical data.
The local interface has a bearing on commercial success, as is indicated by the fact that, since the threat of closure of the Aberdeen office emerged, the Met Office lost a £1 million contract with Shell. I do not think that those things are unrelated.
Brian Adam mentioned that the new headquarters in Exeter had a budget overrun of £7.9 million. There is an interesting sequence of events there. There are new headquarters, a big budget overrun and, suddenly, everything is going to get rationalised and transferred to Exeter to make cost savings. Extrapolating from the minimal impact of earlier rationalisation, which was very different from the Met Office putting all its eggs in one basket in Exeter, has been a big mistake.
Issues around risk, resilience and a lack of backup are raised. We need to ask to what extent the supercomputer technology in Exeter, on which we will be depending now, has been tested. Are we confident about it before we close all the regional centres that would provide backup if needed? We are assured that it is ready, but it is perhaps telling that the Ministry of Defence intends to retain Met Office operations on all its bases in Scotland. That is because
"Military pilots require direct, immediate and face-to-face briefings on the likely impact that the weather will have"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 12 July 2005; Vol 436, c 815.]
on military operations. That justifies the maintenance of military aviation weather centres in Scotland. Why, if the potential impact of the weather on military operations merits the on-the-ground presence of Met Office staff, does the impact of severe weather on public safety or the interests of highly valued Met Office customers not merit it?
Only last year, the Met Office's outgoing chief executive, Dr David Rogers, said:
"I want the Met Office to work with Government to help to mitigate the impacts of severe weather. This goal can only be achieved if we maintain a significant regional presence".
I will summarise what my colleague Malcolm Bruce said in the House of Commons: these are short-term plans with long-term risks and they must be reconsidered.
I thank Brian Adam for introducing the debate, whose subject is causing much concern not only in Aberdeen, but throughout Scotland. I agree with Nora Radcliffe that the motion says it all most effectively.
Serious concern is felt that the reasons behind the decision to close the facility, which is valuable and commercially profitable, are based on no understandable logic. The economic case does not stand up to serious scrutiny. On purely financial terms, on paper, a case might be made in the short term, but if the many ramifications and knock-on effects of closure were taken into account—as they should be—there would be no case to answer. The closure appears to be a blatant exercise in cost cutting that will have particularly negative repercussions in north-east Scotland.
The Met Office's proposal to close the Aberdeen office appears to be purely finance driven and pays no regard to the added value of local knowledge in providing weather services to the Scottish public, Scottish businesses and the emergency services. I have no doubt that, as well as delivering a jobs blow to the north-east, closure of the Aberdeen centre would unacceptably threaten the safety of those who work offshore and in the fishing industry, not to mention hillwalkers and other outdoor enthusiasts. Such people need to have confidence in the weather forecasts. That confidence would be severely dented if local expertise were lost and the vital services were switched to Exeter.
The oil industry in Aberdeen is experiencing something of a resurgence, but we all know that oil is a finite resource that contributes to our climate-damaging carbon emissions. Aberdeen aims to capitalise on the emerging marine renewables and has considerable offshore expertise and manufacturing skills to make that a reality in the near future. To lose a vital part of supporting expertise at such a critical time is beyond belief.
As climate change becomes a reality and more severe weather events are predicted, it is short-sighted in the extreme to relocate the centre of excellence in Aberdeen to the most south-westerly tip of the UK—another peripheral region. Scotland must retain the facility to ensure that we have the capacity accurately to predict, monitor and inform as events unfold. The Scottish Executive needs to exert its influence and take a firm stand in defending Scotland's interests.
I congratulate Brian Adam on leading the campaign with others and commend him for his pugnaciously persuasive address this evening, which put the case comprehensively.
The Aberdeen office is not the first to face closure. A pattern has been established of closing Scottish Met Office branches—not all had as many as 37 employees, but they were nonetheless important to many rural parts of Scotland. The Aviemore office was closed back in 2002. That closure was opposed and, at the time, we argued that the consultation was not a real one, because the outcome was pre-determined. Job losses have also occurred in many other parts of Scotland, of which Tiree, Kirkwall and Stornoway are but three.
I understand that, in 2000, the Met Office had about 2,200 employees, a small proportion of whom were in Scotland. The Scottish National Party does not argue that every body that currently operates on a United Kingdom basis should provide a pro rata share of jobs in Scotland and we would not necessarily negotiate for such an outcome after independence—I am simply proving how reasonable SNP members are. However, there is a trend towards there being not much of a commitment by the Met Office to Scotland. The relocation from Bracknell to Exeter was in train back in 2000-01, when I was heavily involved in trying to prevent the closure at Aviemore. The Met Office must try to demonstrate its commitment to Scotland.
I was delighted with the letter that Nicol Stephen sent Mr Touhig on 12 July 2005 pointing out the importance of retaining the office in Aberdeen. I commend the Executive for sending that letter and for the arguments that Nicol Stephen put in it. I wish that the Executive was always up front about its representations to Westminster and I do not see why those representations should be made in secret. However, the acid test will come when we see the extent to which the Met Office has listened to the Scottish Executive and the extent of the Executive's influence in the UK.
From my perusal of its annual report, I think that the Met Office might want to have a good look at its accounts. I wonder whether there might be audits on some of the joint venture arrangements that it has made, some of which, it has been suggested, appear to have gone awry. I also wonder whether the £25 million loss that it made in 2003-04 and the £4 million loss that it made on exceptional items with its move represent prudence in action or botched jobs. Moreover, I would be worried if I were a member of the Met Office's pension scheme, given what the accounts say. The annual report states:
"The Met Office is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities."
That is not exactly a statement of confidence.
I will leave my wife the task of being an advocate for the mountain rescue service, which is one of the many services for which local knowledge is necessary. The avalanche information service that is operated from Glenmore Lodge is another such service. Unmanned stations cannot do the job as well as it can be done.
I confess that before I visited the Met Office premises in Aberdeen, I had little idea how it operated or how the radio and television weather forecasts that we take for granted are produced and brought to us. It came as no surprise that a great deal of scientific and communications expertise is involved, but I did not realise until my visit that there was such an important commercial aspect to the Met Office's work. I was also not aware of the close personal liaison between the staff and the companies—such as companies in the oil industry and marine sectors—for which they provide forecasts.
Now that I have been to the office, I fully understand the dismay in it that followed the Met Office board's recommendation early this summer to close the Aberdeen weather centre and to centralise the forecast production programme in Exeter. Met Office management contends that the forecasting process is becoming less dependent on human input and that it can therefore be centralised appropriately, with forecasters becoming more involved in service provision and helping users and customers to make the best use of the information that is provided. However, there is legitimate concern among staff that the closure of the Aberdeen weather centre will result in the removal from Scotland of the necessary skills and competence that are required to provide high-quality weather intelligence in this country for customers and stakeholders such as public utilities, local authorities, SEPA and BBC Scotland, not to mention the loss of the benefit to the public of severe weather warnings and accurate local weather predictions, which are important for the marine interests in the seas around Aberdeen.
The shipping forecasts, gale warnings and services for the fishing fleet that are currently performed in Aberdeen benefit from the significant marine expertise that has been built up by the forecast team in Aberdeen. It is hard to understand why there has been a proposal to close the Aberdeen centre only a year after those services were transferred from the Met Office's headquarters and were successfully absorbed by the Aberdeen team without staff increases. As we have heard, that also resulted in increased accuracy in the gale warning service.
Of course, the Met Office has to keep its production costs under control, but many of those costs appear to be the result of central overheads, and the staff do not believe that closing the Aberdeen centre will reduce them. Indeed, they feel that a vibrant office such as that in Aberdeen can help to secure the future of the Met Office and its corporate aspirations. It is already profiting from commercial contracts with both offshore and Scottish businesses, which is helping to offset the cost to the taxpayer of weather services. The staff are convinced that direct investment in the Met Office's forecasting capability in Scotland would ensure the highest level of service and give the organisation the best financial returns.
The staff were also unhappy with the timing of the centralisation proposals; therefore, it is good that proper consultation was finally agreed and is on-going. However, although the Met Office is revising its business case, its centralisation of services agenda seems unchanged.
I spoke to a Met Office representative at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool, from which I have just returned. I was heartened to be told by him that Don Touhig has, at this moment, a completely open mind and wants to hear the views of as many people as possible. My contact stressed the importance of receiving submissions from all interested parties by 20 October. I reiterate what Brian Adam said and urge anyone who has relevant input and has not yet responded to the consultation to do so as soon as possible.
I am glad that this debate is taking place, and I thank Brian Adam for securing it. I hope that we get the response that we want from the minister when he concludes the debate. I also hope that, in due course, the consultation will result in a positive and profitable future for the Met Office in Aberdeen.
I join other members in congratulating Brian Adam on bringing the debate to the chamber and commend him for his excellent exposition of the case in his opening speech. A time limit is always placed on speeches, but many of us were riveted by what Brian Adam was saying and I know that he could have spoken for longer. I also thank other members who have participated in the debate. The minister will be left in no doubt about the unanimity that exists across all the parties. The representations that should be made in the remaining 15 days of the consultation should include the submission of a copy of the Official Report of the debate as part of a Scottish demand for the issue to be addressed.
I am deeply concerned about what is happening to the meteorological service in general. Fifteen years ago, we had 14 weather centres in Scotland; we are now down to six, and it looks as though that number is going to decrease. We may end up with zero over the next few years—who knows? Instead of embracing and retaining the skills of the people who work in those centres, we are losing those intelligent and highly skilled people. At the same time, the Executive is talking about the fresh talent initiative. Surely, in conjunction with that initiative, we should work hard to retain the skills that are already established in our own country.
Reference has been made to the weather map on BBC TV, on which Scotland seemed to have been reduced to a third of its geographic size. I congratulate Angus Brendan MacNeil MP, the Scottish National Party member for the Western Isles, on the work that he did to correct that. Still, we need the back-up of the specific information that comes from Aberdeen. We need an active meteorological office in Scotland because Atlantic and North sea forecasts are vital. For the fishing and offshore industries, safety in adverse weather must be paramount, and I would like the direct contacts between those industries and the people who work at the centre in Aberdeen to be maintained.
Weather reports are also important for our air and sea rescue services. As the Ministry of Defence is also involved in the matter, I mention the co-ordination centre at RAF Kinloss, which uses much of the information from Aberdeen and co-ordinates all air and sea rescue operations throughout the United Kingdom. The centre is in danger of being closed as part of the running down of RAF Kinloss. A decision has not yet been reached, but that is a possibility.
As for the mountain rescue services, I will spare the blushes of my husband by refraining from telling stories about what it is like to kick him out of bed at 4 o'clock in the morning and ensure that he has his compass with him. The mountain rescue services are vital to all those who want to participate in outdoor sports and it is vital that those services have the correct information.
We have spoken about rail and road users. In a constituency such as mine, where we know that it is winter when the Cockbridge to Tomintoul road is closed, forecasts are very important.
Underpinning the debate is the fact that public confidence will be undermined if we lose the Met Office service in Aberdeen; business and our skills base will also lose. From a constituency point of view, I know how important the Met Office's work has been when there has been flooding and coastal erosion. I cannot go into detail of that, but I say to the minister that before the closing date for the consultation on 20 October, which is only 15 days away, we should send the Official Report of the debate as part of the very strong case that has been advocated this evening.
I, too, thank Brian Adam for lodging the motion for debate. He and I have been in contact on this matter from the very earliest stage, when the closure proposals became known. I, too, have attended meetings and visited the staff at the Met Office in Aberdeen. I share the concerns about the potential closure of the Aberdeen office and strongly support keeping it open.
It is because of my concerns that I have taken up the matter with Don Touhig MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and the minister responsible for the Met Office. The Met Office in Aberdeen is justifiably recognised as a centre of excellence for weather forecasts to the offshore energy and marine industries and I know that oil and gas workers, as well as fishermen, rely heavily on a high-quality local weather service.
Businesses in the north-east of Scotland believe that a service based on local knowledge is vital, given the conditions in the North sea. I know that those businesses would strongly oppose any potential move to centralise forecast production in the south-west of England.
I emphasise that the proposal for the total centralisation of forecast production is not a done deal. I am reassured by the personal intervention of Don Touhig to put on hold the closure scheme and to extend the consultation, and by his promise that he will not act on any recommendation from the Met Office board until everyone involved has had their say.
I believe that I speak for everyone in the Scottish Parliament when I say that we wish to see the future of the Met Office in Aberdeen secured. The one thing that cannot be compromised is the safety of workers in the fishing and oil and gas industries.
In fairness, I should briefly state the Met Office position. It has said that if forecasting is centralised and the Exeter operations centre becomes the hub of all future forecasting, that will not mean the end of a Scottish presence. The MOD and the Met Office board have said that they will maintain experienced staff in the area to act as consultants offering meteorological advice to Government, local government, the media and customers. They also say that the proposed changes would not reduce the quality of Met Office products and that there would be no issues related to safety of individuals or property. However it is clear that the level of staffing and the presence in Scotland would be significantly reduced.
Will the minister join me in deploring the behaviour of Met Office staff in discussing with customers the consequences of the consultation and assuring them that the plans will go ahead? That is happening, and I understand that the Met Office even offered one of its customers—a public sector organisation—a discount if it would sign up now to the arrangements that would move the work from Aberdeen to another office.
The Met Office is not in a position to make any such statements, if they have been made, because the final decision does not rest with it. The final decision rests with UK ministers and Don Touhig in particular.
It is only fair that those with knowledge and expertise have the opportunity through the consultation to test and to challenge these assertions and to comment on the issues that Brian Adam has just raised.
It is frustrating that the fact that the Aberdeen office is successful and profitable does not immediately preclude it from potential closure; but its success and profitability provide a solid foundation for the campaign to keep the office open. Of course we recognise that the Met Office, as a trading fund, has a responsibility to provide an efficient, value-for-money service to the UK and that the final decision rests with the UK Government, but that does not prevent the Scottish Executive from making representations to UK ministers. We have done so forcefully. In taking up the issue with Don Touhig, I have emphasised the expertise, success and profitability of the Aberdeen office and I have asked that account be taken of the issues that have been mentioned in tonight's debate. I have also requested that I be kept informed of any significant developments before any final decision is taken.
The closure of the Aberdeen office is not a foregone conclusion and Don Touhig's intervention reinforces that.
Will the minister give way once more?
Surely.
I know that the Aberdeen office staff are, like me, grateful to the minister for all that he has done. Has the minister had any correspondence with the UK minister other than the letter of 12 July, which he previously shared with me? If so, will he share that correspondence with other interested parties by publishing it?
In responding to tonight's debate, I rule out nothing in considering opportunities for a solid way forward for the Met Office. There have been discussions at official level, but I have had no other formal discussions or exchange of correspondence with Don Touhig. I am very willing to have such discussions at the appropriate time if it will make the difference.
I know that MPs and MSPs across the parties share the view that is shared by me and Brian Adam. Clearly, the representations that are being made at Westminster are also vital, given that the decision is reserved. We have an assurance that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will carefully consider all responses to the consultation, which ends on 20 October, before making his final decision on the proposed changes.
Finally, it is important that we do not forget those who will be directly affected if the Met Office proposals are taken forward. The main reason that the Met Office in Aberdeen enjoys such a high reputation is the quality and dedication of its 37 members of staff. For their sake, it is vital that everyone respond to the consultation before 20 October. The more individuals and organisations that resist the proposals, the more powerful the case will be.
The view of Scottish ministers is clear: we wish to see the Met Office in Aberdeen remain open.
Meeting closed at 17:54.