Finance Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 4, 2004

Official Report 289KB pdf

---

Public Sector Jobs Relocation Inquiry

Good morning. I welcome members, the press and the public to the 14th meeting of the Finance Committee in 2004. I remind members to switch off all pagers and mobile phones. Wendy Alexander is away for a while, but will be joining us later.

The first item on our agenda is our inquiry into the relocation of public sector jobs. We have with us Tavish Scott, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services. With him are Scottish Executive officials Paul Rhodes, who is head of facilities and estates services, and Michael Garden, who is head of the corporate responsibility unit.

As I am sure the minister is aware, various committee members went on case study visits. We discussed the issues arising from those visits at our meeting on 20 April. We also set up an online questionnaire in March to gather public sector staff's views on relocation. Committee members have a copy of the analysis of the responses to that questionnaire. We also have a copy of a written submission from Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I ask the minister to make an opening statement.

I do not have any planned remarks. I am conscious of the work that the committee is doing on the matter and have read the Official Reports of its deliberations with keen interest. I look forward to being of any assistance that I can be.

As the convener has said, we went to various places—Ireland and all kinds of exotic places. I went to Galashiels, which was interesting.

I feel that I ought to raise a point of order on that.

From our visit to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency in Galashiels, we discovered that, although 200-odd jobs were relocated, only seven people had physically moved from Edinburgh down to Galashiels. What is the purpose of relocation? Is it to move people out of Edinburgh to the remoter regions or is it to bring jobs to those regions? What is the essential policy?

The policy, as we have discussed before, creates a number of opportunities in locations such as the exotic town of Galashiels, including having an organisation's brass plate in the town. That is an important point, about which there is considerable evidence—we received representations from towns and other places in Scotland that would like organisations to be relocated to and headquartered in their localities because of the kudos that that would bring. The brass plate on the wall and the headed notepaper help the growth and development of an area as part of a wider strategy that the local authority and the local enterprise company will implement, as is happening in every part of Scotland.

I accept your point on posts, but the economic spin-off and spin-out effects of the relocation to Galashiels are clear. I am dredging my memory for the Scottish Enterprise Borders report that indicates that, but I am sure that it was brought to the committee's attention. The discussions that I had with Ralph Garden when I was at the SPPA last summer were clear about those wider benefits. All the aspects that I mentioned can come together in the benefits that relocation can bring to Galashiels.

I am not denying that at all; I am trying to get at what the policy is and I am not sure that you have answered the question. Is the policy to take jobs out of Edinburgh and disperse Edinburgh people out into the regions or is it to attract jobs to the remoter regions that require them?

You know what the policy is because we have been over it a number of times before, particularly back in January, when we considered the matter in a lot of detail. The policy of relocation is to disperse civil service jobs around Scotland so that every part of Scotland can benefit from devolution. That was stated in 1999.

So jobs, rather than people, are dispersed.

It follows that the jobs that go with the relocation of organisations or parts of an organisation are important to the parts of Scotland that are chosen. That is the economic boon that comes from the policy.

Will you tell us how many new jobs—relocated posts that have not been filled by previous incumbents or others who currently work in the civil service or public sector—have arisen as a result of relocation?

I am not sure what you define as a new job in that sense.

A job that is new to the area.

Yes. I can tell you about Galashiels, but can you tell us how the policy has panned out overall?

I cannot tell you off the top of my head that X new jobs were created. However, over the five years of the relocation policy, 1,800 jobs have moved from where they were previously to other parts of Scotland. That is the direct jobs change over the period.

The Executive has stated that most weight is given to socioeconomic factors when deciding to which area an organisation should relocate. Will you be more specific on the particular socioeconomic indicators that are taken into consideration and how they are weighted?

That is a point on which the committee has been highly critical of us. It has pointed out in previous evidence-taking sessions that the approach to that is not consistent. As I have said before on the record, I have a lot of sympathy with that point. I am trying to bring consistency to the process and I would welcome the committee's thoughts on that.

The socioeconomic weighting in the relocation policy varies according to—dare I say it—which consultant is being used by the organisation that is going through the process. I do not find that satisfactory and I want the process to be tightened up so that it is much more transparent. I want it to be abundantly clear which criteria have been used so that not only the committee, but members of staff in organisations that are relocating and everyone who has an interest in the policy can be clear about what is happening and which determining factors are used in coming to a decision or presenting a business case for change to ministers. There is a lot to be done on that, but I do not think that I am saying anything that I have not said before on that point.

Would it be possible to provide us with a written answer to Ted Brocklebank's second question, which was about the number of new jobs that have been created in different areas—because people have chosen to stay in Edinburgh or Glasgow—rather than about the number of posts that have been moved? After all, I understood that the aim of the policy—apart from giving areas the kudos of having civil service jobs based there—was to provide employment in areas of higher unemployment and greater social deprivation.

I am quite happy to provide that information.

It would also be interesting to find out how many people have relocated from Edinburgh to somewhere else.

You will forgive me for not knowing that figure off the top of my head, but we will provide it.

Minister, you said that about 1,800 jobs have moved in the past five years. What is the scale of future relocation likely to be? How many organisations are likely to be relocated and how many posts are likely to be transferred in future?

Mike Garden or Paul Rhodes will pick out the figure and list the specific bodies. However, I should point out that, in January, we published in response to a parliamentary question a list of the bodies and the respective numbers of individuals in them. Obviously, the situation moves on not so much because policy evolves, but because of the trigger points for organisations.

I think that a relocation review has been announced for another 1,800 people, but no decision has been taken as yet.

What is the timescale for that review?

Many of the relocations will be decided this year. The largest review, on the Registers of Scotland, will be completed by the end of the year.

You said that relocation policy is dependent on a trigger such as a lease break or the creation of a new organisation or agency. Would changing the triggers significantly alter the number of posts that might be relocated?

Do you mean changing the existing trigger mechanism?

Yes.

If the Executive changed the policy—which is what changing the triggers would mean—that would undoubtedly have an impact on implementation. However, we are where we are on this matter.

I was one of the members who were lucky enough to visit Ireland to find out about the Irish relocation policy. The Irish have a fairly ambitious target of relocating more than 10,000 jobs in three years and I was impressed by the fact that their relocation strategy was guided by a regeneration strategy. Earlier, you talked about the benefits of relocation. The Irish were looking strategically at specific areas to which jobs needed to be dispersed and how relocation could support those areas' economies. Would an approach in which the Executive's job relocation strategy mirrored a regeneration strategy for the regions of Scotland have some merit?

You will forgive me for not making policy on the hoof. Much as I might be tempted to do so, that would be dangerous.

You are quite right. What you describe would be a fundamental change to our approach up to now. However, the Irish policy is not without its difficulties. I read with interest the case study and the Official Report of the members' discussions about Ireland. It is a little flippant simply to say that there are considerable differences between the two policies, but I found it interesting that the Irish civil servants and others whom you and Fergus Ewing met pointed out that their policy evolved over time. They did not suddenly decide to relocate 10,000 posts. Instead, they learned from what they had done in the past. That said, we are always looking at how our relocation policy meets the Executive's wider objectives with regard to the country's economic needs.

I suppose that that is a benefit of tying the policy into a regeneration strategy. You have said that you would like the process to be more transparent and consistent. If people understood how the decisions were made, surely that would enable more consistency in decision making to be achieved.

My final question concerns the balance between the benefits that accrue to the area to which the jobs are being relocated and the possible detriment to Edinburgh and to those who live and work in the city who are unable to relocate to the other areas. Does the need to achieve such a balance form part of the thinking when decisions are made? Are those factors weighed up?

We try to achieve a balance. One example is that, at the tail-end of last year, just before Christmas, the Executive chose not to relocate VisitScotland lock, stock and barrel. That shows that, contrary to public myth, we think through the consequences for an organisation in a business sense and the consequences for the staff and for Edinburgh in the wider sense. I believe that that example illustrates the breadth of thinking in how we take those decisions.

I am sure that both you and I have thought through the issue in the past. It is demonstrably the case that, if we were simply to base our consideration on one aspect of the policy—in other words, what we hear from the organisations about the staff's views—and to make that the driving force or the overriding priority of the policy, we would have no relocation at all. By definition, a relocation policy is difficult for the individuals and the extended families of those concerned. I would not want to disguise that for a minute; it is the uncomfortable aspect of relocation, in which I take no pride or pleasure. However, we either have relocation or we do not. There are implications of developing the policy for Government and, more important in this context, for the people who are affected.

Obviously, the relocation of Scottish Executive jobs and jobs in non-departmental public bodies for which the Scottish Executive is responsible exist alongside the relocation or potential relocation of jobs from the south-east of England in the context of the United Kingdom Government's relocation strategy. As we heard in evidence, Edinburgh and perhaps Glasgow, for example, were seen as desirable places for the relocation of UK jobs. Is it possible to argue for the relocation of one set of jobs out of Edinburgh and, at the same time, to argue that other kinds of jobs should be relocated from other parts of the UK to Edinburgh and Glasgow? Clearly, the object is to maximise the Scottish return on those UK job relocations. Is there an issue about how the two arguments are balanced?

I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in wanting the civil service jobs that are to be relocated out of London and the south-east of England to come to Scotland. I will be delighted if the business case arguments that the Lyons review and the wider system in London are making mean that the chosen location for those jobs is Edinburgh and Glasgow. I imagine that the Parliament would also be pleased about that kind of relocation. At the same time, if there is to be a balance, the relocation of those jobs would allow it to be achieved. In some ways, that would allow us to deal with the pressures that Elaine Murray mentioned in relation to Edinburgh.

To some extent, that mirrors the points made in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise paper that the committee kindly provided us with, which points out that relocations into Inverness or the Highlands and Islands allow Highland Council or Highlands and Islands Enterprise to be clearer about the decentralisation of their functions out into and around the Highlands and Islands. It shows the parallel that we can achieve in Scotland in addition to seeking to attract jobs into Edinburgh and Glasgow in the case of UK job relocations.

One thing that angered me about the HIE paper was the idea that there was a perfect right to relocate jobs from the central belt to other parts of Scotland. Given that Glasgow and the Clydeside conurbation have the highest concentrations of unemployment and social deprivation in Scotland, it seems inconsistent with the policy to bracket together the west coast with Edinburgh, where the economic circumstances are different. It is also inconsistent to have a policy of stripping jobs from Glasgow and moving them to a place with much lower unemployment, such as Inverness. What are your comments on that?

That illustrates that the situation is not black and white and that it is not easy to implement the policy. You ask a fundamental question about the policy—whether it is simply about aligning the relocation decision with socioeconomic circumstances. We give the socioeconomic circumstances only 50 per cent weighting as opposed to 100 per cent, which might be the logical extension of your line of argument. We balance that with other issues that we have to consider, such as the business efficiency of an organisation. I argue strongly that we have made some progress in the past year in relation to particular organisations in west central Scotland, including Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Paisley and South Lanarkshire. It could be said that progress has been made in relocating jobs, on the basis of the socioeconomic statistics indicators, to areas where unemployment is as you describe it.

I want to be assured that Glasgow would not be disadvantaged. Glasgow has not quite the highest—it has the third highest—concentration of unemployment in Scotland. I am sure that people from Dundee would make a similar argument in relation to Dundee. The object of relocating jobs is not to spread jobs to new places; it is to focus job relocations where need is greatest. The balance between that and the business efficiency of the organisation is to be taken into account. In that context, any policy that treated Glasgow in the same way as Edinburgh would seem unreasonable.

Our policy does not do that, as you know—the presumption relates to lease breaks and new organisations in Edinburgh. Another factor to consider is that the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department relocated to Glasgow in 1999. The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport has already made an announcement about a body in his portfolio with which he is proceeding. That illustrates our understanding of the issues that you have raised.

If you look at the rules that govern the transfer of organisations, you will find a trigger that treats Glasgow and Edinburgh similarly. That information has crossed my desk recently. There might be some need to clarify that issue.

Are you quite happy that we are going about implementing the policy in the right way, minister? At our meeting on 20 April, I mentioned to Andy Kerr that the south-east of the UK is totally overheated. What positive steps are you taking to move jobs from the south-east of England to Scotland? The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is moving jobs down south from East Kilbride, where I come from. Have you no control over such movements and, if not, are you failing in your objectives?

Scottish Trade International has responsibility for implementing the Lyons review in the context of relocations north of the border because that is its task in life and it has the skills set to do it, although we play our role, too—STI is our agency after all.

My understanding is that the Department for International Development is progressing with further relocation into East Kilbride and that the Health and Safety Executive is also looking at Scotland in conjunction with some location opportunities in England. We need to recognise the competitive nature of the marketplace. In the same way as many towns, cities and other areas throughout Scotland are working hard to attract relocations from Edinburgh, other parts of the United Kingdom are working hard to attract any relocations that emerge from decisions that are taken in Westminster in the context of the Lyons review.

On the UKAEA, just as there have been campaigns down the years to retain organisations and headquarters in Scotland, I have no doubt that similar representations were made by the appropriate department to retain that body. However, we can certainly check the detail of that and provide a more considered answer.

I am interested in your earlier comments about the key drivers. Will the reading that you are doing and the process in which you are involved clarify the key drivers that the Scottish Executive believes should drive relocation policy?

As I said at the outset, we will be genuinely interested in the committee's findings on relocation policy. I do not claim to have all the answers, but from my reading of the Official Report I think that the committee has also found that the issue is not black and white. Relocation policy is not straightforward; it is a tricky issue and some stark choices must be made about how the policy is taken forward.

I am certainly determined to ensure that we have more clarity and consistency on the indicators that we use. I was interested to note the point that the convener made about the use of consultants. All those points will be genuinely useful for us as we examine closely the policy's operation and consider how it can be improved.

As we accumulate data and as the debate surrounding the interchanges moves forward, would there be merit in Scotland adopting an overarching national spatial strategy similar to the one that has evolved in Ireland?

I am not convinced about the value of such a strategy, which would represent a large and significant exercise. That is not to say that there would be no place for it if we were to decide to consider economic drivers area by area and—dare I say it—constituency by constituency. Undoubtedly, such a strategy would involve a lot of small-"p" politics that would drag in every department of Government. There is, I repeat, at least an intellectual argument that it would be entirely fair for any Administration to promote such a strategy, but that would be quite a move from where we are now and it would take a considerable amount of time. I suspect that relocation would be a small part of the entire exercise if the Executive were to choose to go down that road. We would need to be very convinced before following that route.

In addition, I simply make the observation that, from my reading of the Irish situation when I was there a couple of years ago, the strategy involves quite a lot of big-"P" politics as well. As I recall, the Opposition parties had some criticisms—heaven help us—about the places to which the Government had decided to relocate departments. The process is very political.

However, the Irish policy seems to have been carried out in a broad and relatively objective way. The Irish Government is at least trying to overcome the tendency that we can describe by the word "agglomeration". It has tried to overcome the gravitational pull of the centre. Given that Scotland is facing an 8 per cent reduction in the number of economically active people, I suspect that, in the context of growth in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen and Dundee, there could be a dramatic impact on some of our remote and rural areas.

Across the water, Ireland has a relocation mechanism that involves no compulsory redundancies, because the staff transfer on a voluntary basis. That provides clear-cut benefits: it helps staff motivation and eases the pressures on the public purse, because it does not involve paying relocation expenses. That seems to be an example that would be worth following. Perhaps Ireland also provides other examples with which we could compare ourselves and from which we could cherry pick solutions to address our problems. Perhaps we need to learn from the expertise that others have evolved.

I would never rule out considering other options or other countries' experiences. I have two observations on Mr Mather's point. First, I take the point that the sparsely populated areas of Scotland face a gravitational pull. To some extent, if not to a great extent, that is why I believe that the small units initiative is so important. As we have discussed before, five, 10 or 15 jobs can be important in such locations. I tend to feel frustrated by how quickly that initiative is being rolled out, or not, as the case may be—I would like to see it move.

Secondly, correct me if I picked this up wrongly, but from reading the case study and the Official Report of the discussion on it, some of the arguments about Ireland's ability to relocate large numbers of people appeared to relate to the fact that many people were happy to relocate to Dundalk or wherever because they had family ties there. It would be an interesting study to find out whether that would be the case in Edinburgh. The decision to sell a well-appointed and therefore pretty expensive house in Dublin to go back to the family croft, as I might put it, given that I come from the Highlands and Islands, is perhaps not what would happen in Scotland, but I am happy to be corrected on that.

The impact might be softened somewhat if people were taking their Edinburgh salaries back with them.

The scale of the Irish job relocation is remarkable: the most recent announcement was on the relocation of 10,300 jobs. We have heard that jobs may be coming from the south to Edinburgh. As a back-to-back exercise, is it not worth thinking about emulating that, even just to create space and avoid additional overheating of the Edinburgh economy, through a policy that frees up residential and commercial property and therefore allows relocation from London to Edinburgh?

The property people in Edinburgh tell me that, as a glance at the commercial property pages of our national press would suggest, at present, the Edinburgh market is a little looser than it was two or three years ago. I suspect that there are issues of which we at least need to be aware. My answer is similar to one that I gave the convener earlier: I do not think that there is an inconsistency between being proactive in seeking to attract to relocations to Scotland from the Westminster system in the wider sense—if that happens to be to Edinburgh, so be it—while at the same time making progress on relocation within Scotland. Those two aims can sit perfectly well together.

In the absence of a volunteer-based scheme, how can compulsory redundancies be avoided in public sector bodies in which staff have no right of transfer and do not wish to relocate?

We have not had compulsory redundancies so far, but I accept that the position may change, although I hope that it does not. We have not developed proposals for that, but we would be happy to consider any firm recommendation that the committee made on the subject.

In the context of current projections, have you made contingency plans for how you might handle compulsory redundancies if they arise?

As I say, we do not have any such plans at present. It would be for individual sponsoring departments to consider the issue when bodies are being taken through the review and relocation process. The redundancy issue has not been brought to my attention yet.

So there is no financial projection of how much compulsory redundancies might cost and no provision has been made for them.

No, not in terms of general policy. Those are matters for individual bodies and sponsoring departments to take into account when carrying out relocation exercises.

So if departments anticipated that compulsory redundancies were likely as a result of their policy decisions, they would have to include provision for that in the costs of relocation.

They would have to make that assessment and put that into the proverbial melting pot when making the business case argument to ministerial colleagues, but such a situation has not arisen yet.

Dr Elaine Murray covered the first point that I wanted to raise—namely, that in any national strategy on relocation or decentralisation, we should seek to pass on the benefit of public sector jobs to those parts of Scotland that are less well off. That is a first principle, and it was set out in the conclusions that you read in paragraphs 51 to 54 of the paper on Ireland.

I want to touch on the other main feature—if I can term it thus—of the Irish model of such a policy. I think that you accept that I am not suggesting that we should replicate the Irish policy here. That would be wrong-headed and impossible anyway, but we are looking at the principles. The second principle is that the Irish seek volunteers rather than conscripts. Is not that a better approach?

I accept Mr Ewing's point that not everything is perfect in any system, including the Irish system. That is where the Irish are at the moment; it is not the system that we have at the moment. To adopt such an approach would be to make a fundamental change to the way in which we carry out relocation policy. The issue is a little like the point raised in the earlier discussion with Elaine Murray. My concern is to take forward relocation. I do not expect it to be universally popular among the staff who are confronted with what are, after all, big lifestyle decisions about their futures. I appreciate totally that those are extremely difficult circumstances. I suspect that, if we were to have a voluntary policy in Scotland, relocation policy would not go anywhere.

I think that there are at least three advantages in applying the voluntary principle. First, it is less expensive, because you do not run into compulsory redundancy. I think that it was Mr Wyse, an Irish civil servant who, when asked whether there had been a single example of compulsory redundancy in Ireland since 1987—when the policy was introduced and since when nearly 4,000 jobs have been relocated—said that there had been not one compulsory redundancy of which he was aware.

The second advantage is attitude. Those who volunteer are surely likely to be more enthusiastic about the venture than those who are press-ganged. The third advantage is a concomitant and necessary feature of the voluntary principle. Those who do not wish to relocate from Dublin—we might perhaps call them the relocation refugees—are entitled to claim asylum, as it were, in another public sector job.

I understand that that would be a major change, but the Parliament, on the first anniversary of its second session, has been criticised for not coming up with radical, ambitious, forward-looking and significant policies and for being a wee bit timid. At least, the Executive has been so criticised. Do you recognise that, if you were to subscribe to the voluntary principle, a concomitant requirement would be that you would have to take steps to equiparate the treatment of public sector workers in quangos, who have lesser rights, and the treatment of those who work in the civil service? An element of equiparation of rights would open up opportunities, so that those who did not wish to relocate could transfer to other public sector jobs.

Finally, do you agree that, unless a relocation and decentralisation policy that applies to Scotland's circumstances was on a fairly large scale, the possibilities for migration to other departments of those who wished to stay in Edinburgh would be slim? The ambitious policy would need to be on a fairly large scale to work; otherwise there would be a diminished pool of opportunities for people in Edinburgh to take up.

I could accept all Mr Ewing's arguments if that was the route that we chose to embark upon and which the committee recommended—I will be intrigued to see whether the committee chooses to recommend that route. I accept the fact that, were the Executive to move towards or implement a voluntary system, the kind of changes that Mr Ewing describes would be necessary. I take it from the transcripts of the evidence that you gathered in Ireland that such changes would be prerequisite to the success of such a system. I would not argue at all about that. However, timidity is not a word that I associate with relocation policy. It is slightly ironic, in that I usually get accused of the opposite of timidity on this matter, and it is not fair to make that accusation in relation to relocation policy.

On Mr Ewing's final point about the scale of relocation, any member would be ill advised to start plucking figures out of the air in relation to posts and organisations. However, my reading of the Irish situation is that a fundamental change is happening, including the relocation of very senior civil servants to different parts of the country. It is a very different approach from that which is being taken here. Nonetheless, I accept the premise of Mr Ewing's argument if that were the approach that one wished to take.

Certainly, no one has accused Charlie McCreevy of timidity.

Indeed.

I have a supplementary question on that issue and a couple of other questions that are not directly connected, although they lead on from Fergus Ewing's point, which was well made.

I want to get to the heart of where the Executive's priorities lie. Does the Executive believe that the best way forward is to consider the matter on the basis of an appropriate business case that would suit either a Government department or an executive agency—of which there are perhaps more in Scotland than there are in Ireland—and which would suit circumstances, providing a best fit for the area that an agency is going to go to? Effectively, that would mean continuing on an ad hoc basis and ironing out the wrinkles.

Alternatively, would the Executive prefer a spatial strategy approach? That would mean the consolidation of the indicators—such as socioeconomic indicators, which we have been discussing in the committee and on which you will know my view—of the projected change in population over the next 10 years, of population density, of the Scottish indication of multiple deprivation, of average weekly earnings, of the benefit claimant count, of unemployment and of the proportion of employment in the public sector. The population of my constituency goes up and down and up and down and up and down—there is no consistency at all. A spatial strategy would have to create a set view of where the need in Scotland was—which, incidentally, may not be consistent with what the European Commission says in relation to structural funds.

Which of those approaches do you, as the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, believe would ensure that our civil service and the public services that our constituents receive were best protected?

The relocation policy strongly favours an approach whereby the trigger for relocation arises either from new organisations coming forward or from lease breaks taking place. I am not in a position to start changing policy by deciding that the spatial approach that the committee has discussed is appropriate for Scotland. I strongly believe that the manner in which we currently produce policy is appropriate to our need. It is also important in the context of the improvements that we can make in relation to points that the committee has made previously—for example, on the consistency of information, data and indicators. That method of policy production enables us to refine and steadily improve our approach.

I believe firmly that it would be a root-and-branch change to move to a spatial management regime based on regeneration. That would be a considerable exercise and would, by definition, create a lot of uncertainty throughout every organisation and department of Government until it was clear where the exercise finished. I suspect that the Irish example illustrates that. I am not advocating a change to our current approach; I am strongly advocating that we continue to work on tidying up elements that we have not got right at the moment. In that respect, we will consider what the committee says; however, a fundamental change in policy, such as the choice that Mr Purvis has described, is not on our radar screen.

In passing, I noticed in the 2002 annual business inquiry that Shetland had the lowest proportion of employment in the public sector—I am sure that that has not escaped your notice.

Earlier, you mentioned the importance of the brass plaque and the kudos that can be generated by relocation. Do you know how much that kudos has cost the public purse? Are you keeping a running total?

We would need to write to the committee about that. If Mr Purvis means the cost of relocation, the committee is familiar with the manner in which relocations are done—they are done on an economic basis and on the basis of statistical analysis and the economic cases that are put together. Certainly, I cannot provide such information off the top of my head, but we would be happy to write to the committee with details on costings, if that would be helpful.

However, there is a difference between a pure budget line and the wider impact of relocation, which is obviously sometimes more difficult to quantify. Earlier, I discussed brass plaques with Mr Brocklebank. Brass plaques are a difficult concept on which to put a monetary figure, although Scottish Borders Enterprise has sought to do exactly that. If I may put it this way, the independent audit of how we do such things—that is, through local authorities and local enterprise companies bringing together information—may be a more useful check on what is happening.

Yesterday, I spoke to a local business that is relocating many of its staff. If a business is moving and there is a clear indication of how much relocation will cost—whether in respect of relocation costs for individual staff or capital costs for moving equipment or facilities, or whether there is new build—I would hope that officials would keep a running total. There might be brass plaques, but there might be 24-carat gold plaques in many places, if we were to find out the figures.

There is a serious point. I think that you mentioned Scottish Development International linking with the relocation of civil servants from Whitehall, and said that it is "our agency after all". However, SDI's expertise and systems for linking inward investment to particular, suitable areas seem to be distinctly missing from the process. Instead, each agency seems to hire expensive consultants—we will find out how much that approach will cost in total. Is there a role for the Scottish Enterprise network, which already has links and sophisticated computer systems to do with the labour market, transport issues and all the things that we read that consultants use? You said that you are looking into that matter, which is welcome. Will you widen that consideration to include existing systems and agencies that taxpayers are already paying for?

I absolutely accept that there should be more clarity in the process—that is what I desire. We want to ensure that organisations that regularly carry out reviews achieve consistency, and although we must give organisations some flexibility, I do not want different consultants to be pulled in who will use different information about each different relocation, as that is exactly the criticism that the committee has made of the process so far, with some justification.

On using existing mechanisms and the Scottish Enterprise network, the network is already heavily involved, as Mr Purvis said, but perhaps it could do more. We want to continue to make progress in that area of work.

I have one more question. Until now, my local experience is that the Scottish Enterprise network has been part of the team that has been put together either to submit a bid or to provide background information as to how a bid would work in practice if it were successful. The network's mechanisms and systems have not been used at a much earlier stage in determining where the best fit is for some agencies. It needs to be brought in. If taxpayers' money is being paid to an agency of Government to provide the information that consultants ask it for, that would seem to be a rather obtuse use of public funds.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise made a submission to the committee; I do not see a submission from Scottish Enterprise. I simply make that observation.

And, very briefly, I—

You are running on, Jeremy.

I know, but I read such an interesting document over my wonderful bank holiday weekend: "Civil Service Statistics 2002". The statistics helpfully detail the number of civil service jobs from 1996 to 2002. In 1999, Scottish Office jobs numbered 5,290; the latest figures in the "Civil Service Yearbook" show that Scottish Executive jobs currently number 12,590.

I accept that a figure of 3,600 relocated jobs by the end of this year would be a substantial number—it would be between a quarter and a third of all current Scottish Executive jobs. However, at the same time that quite a lot of jobs are being relocated, there has been an enormous growth in the total number of jobs at the Scottish Executive. You might wish to write to us on this, but could you say where those jobs have been created and state how much as been spent on them by the public purse? It seems a wee bit perverse if you, as a minister, have been getting flak over a relatively small number of jobs in some agencies, while 7,000 new jobs have been created in the Executive and we do not know where they are.

We need to check the figures that you have cited, as I must confess that I do not recognise them. That book does not sit next to my bedside every night—I have to commend you for your diligence. We will look at the figures and will give the committee a considered, detailed answer. I am aware that, of the number of civil service posts that currently exist in Scotland, the vast majority—70 per cent or so in the public sector in the round—are out and about in every part of Scotland, in health boards and so on. We need to be careful about how we look at the figures, but I will be happy to provide details on them.

It would be interesting to know where those jobs have been created.

Thus far, Fergus Ewing has been uncharacteristically quiet about Scottish Natural Heritage and the Inverness situation; perhaps he is just keeping his powder dry.

My question relates to the online survey that the committee commissioned. Are you at all concerned about the responses? Staff, most of whom had been transferred to Inverness, were asked what they understood were the most relevant factors in the organisation's relocation. Of the 66 people who specified their own reasons, 73 per cent said that the relocation had been for political reasons, whereas 12 per cent said that it was in line with the Executive's relocation policy. Does that perception that the move was a blatant political act worry you?

I thought that you indicated that you would come in with a question that was supplementary to a previous one.

Sorry about that.

I thought that we were going to deal with that point differently.

I see—okay.

Perhaps Kate Maclean could come in—

I do not mind if the minister wants to answer that question.

The only way of answering the question would be to say—as I said when I was asked pretty much the same question by Wendy Alexander and Susan Deacon back in January, when we discussed the same issue—that, ultimately, such relocation decisions are political; I do not disguise that in any way. I notice that, if I have got it right, the majority of respondents supported the relocation policy. I do not find it surprising that there is a perception of a political process taking place. That is factually what happens. Ultimately, all these decisions are part of a political decision-making process by Government. Would I like that not to be the perception? I do not think that that would be living in the real world, in relation to either this or any other policy.

I suspect that, no matter how we had dealt with the particular circumstances of Scottish Natural Heritage, that allegation would always have been made. I would put this in the context of the entire spread of relocation policies, Mr Brocklebank: I do not believe that any of our decisions are taken without recourse to a political process in the context of considering a business case.

In response to Elaine Murray's question, you said that the nature of relocations means that they are difficult and painful. The analysis of the results of the online questionnaire shows that the staff who responded to it share the view that relocations are difficult. Of the respondents, 55 per cent felt that the consultation process in which they were involved was poor, 78 per cent felt that their views did not contribute at all to the decision-making process and only 1 per cent felt that their views had been taken into account in a significant way.

I hope that the relocation policy will continue, even if posts rather than jobs are moved. Dundee has benefited from having the care commission located there, so I accept that there is some kudos attached to having the headquarters of a civil service organisation based in an area. I hope that the policy will continue but, as the years go on, there will be fewer opportunities for people to choose to stay in Edinburgh rather than to be relocated elsewhere. I accept that, at this stage, probably half the responses to the questionnaire were from people who had the opportunity to stay in Edinburgh in a different department but, in future, there will be less opportunity for that, so the consultation process with staff and the taking on board of staff points of view will become even more important.

As Fergus Ewing has said before, it is not possible to have an entirely voluntary system, because people would just choose not to move. Do you have any ideas about how in future staff views could be taken on board to a greater extent and how staff could be made to feel more involved in the consultation process? The survey results are quite worrying as regards staff morale.

I accept that the difficulties that Kate Maclean mentioned exist. Although I do not want to belittle in any way the online survey that the committee has conducted, it must be pointed out that the number of respondents represents a small percentage of the total number of jobs involved.

As we have said in previous discussions with the committee, we are strongly of the view that we should leave the consultation process on the relocation to the organisation concerned, regardless of whether that is the care commission, Scottish Natural Heritage or the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit. I do not think that it would be appropriate for Scottish Executive officials to get involved in the nuts and bolts of an organisation's consultation process, as I believe strongly that that is a management role, in that it demands liaison with staff, unions and other representatives within the organisation. I am sure that there are ways in which such processes could be improved and I hope that lessons will come to light from the case studies that the committee has carried out. We will consider carefully any recommendations that you make to us.

Kate Maclean's wider point is entirely legitimate. Relocations are just not easy. If our policy was to elevate the staff response to the status of being the initial trigger that put an organisation into the relocation review, I suspect that we would simply stop there. I agree with her view that relocations are not easy. I am sure that we can do more with the consultation process and I will be interested to find out what recommendations the committee makes on that area.

Is it not important that there is some strategic overview of consultations with staff, to ensure that there is a benchmark for the standard of consultation that we would find acceptable? That cannot involve turning the consultation exercise into a veto—while people do not feel that a consultation is a real consultation unless their desired outcome is what actually happens, that is just not going to happen. Do you think that a standard for consultations would be an improvement and would make the monitoring process much easier?

I certainly accept that it would be appropriate to provide some broad parameters on how consultations should be handled in an organisation, but they would have to be pretty general. That is the balance.

I repeat that it is not our job to tell an organisation how to run a consultation, because it is probable that the organisation would already have appropriate relationships with unions and staff representatives and direct staff contact, in the context of its management of staff resources. It is not appropriate for ministers to interfere with that. However, I repeat that we would be happy to consider a recommendation on what the broad parameters should be, but that the balance is important.

We can all accept that there cannot be a relocation or decentralisation policy without tears. Some people will be unhappy whether or not the voluntary principle is a strand of the new strategy. However, the committee has a duty to take up some of the points that were raised in the online questionnaire. We owe that much to the people who took part, who did so in good faith, because they hoped that their views would be taken into account, even though that might not have happened during the consultation on whether there should be a relocation. I have read the paper on the questionnaire that the clerks prepared and I was struck by the fact that, in response to the question about whether their views had been taken into account, 78 per cent of respondents—nearly four out of five—said "not at all". The paper says:

"A strongly recurring message, particularly from staff of Scottish Natural Heritage … was that the consultation exercise had been a charade".

That is strong stuff—I have been known to administer strong stuff, but in this case that comes not from me but from more than 100 people who answered the questionnaire.

The minister said earlier that politics plays a part in the decision, but that is not really the point. The point seems to be rather different and quite straightforward: the decision was taken against advice. People have expressed their disillusionment and, as the paper from the clerks says, their feeling that

"the decision to relocate SNH to Inverness was because it would be of electoral benefit to the Executive".

The decision to relocate was taken against the views of staff and against the advice of SNH and of the consultants who were paid £20,000—if my memory serves me correctly—to come up with a recommendation.

Does the minister accept that that is a valid point? The adverse response that we have received is a result of the perception that the decision was driven by political reasons, against advice that was obtained at great expense.

If you accept that, will you also explain whether the civil service advice matched that of SNH? Did the civil servants recommend that the relocation should not go ahead? I appreciate that you said at the Finance Committee meeting on 13 January that civil service advice is not normally disclosed, but I think that you would accept that such advice can be disclosed in the public interest. That situation is specifically provided for in the relevant code of practice. A large number of people in Edinburgh have expressed concern. Can you confirm that the advice from the civil service, as well as from others, was that SNH should not be relocated to Inverness?

Mr Ewing, you know that I will not give an answer to that. I repeat what I said in January about civil service advice. That is the position and the Executive will not change its view on the matter. I was not a minister when the SNH decision was taken. I am not ducking the issue, but I cannot add to what I said in January under repeated questioning from you and many of your colleagues. We have been round the course on the issue and I am sure that you have taken advice in some depth on that particular relocation.

I accept the point about the number of respondents to the questionnaire who said "not at all". I do not know the detail—that is my fault—but I would be interested to know the question to which that was the response. Did the questionnaire ask whether their views on the decision had been taken into account or did the question refer to their views on all the different components of lifestyle and work practices that are important to everyone's private and professional life, which is a rather different issue?

I take the general point about the seriousness of the consultation. I am not going to go back on what I said earlier. Mr Brocklebank was asking me not only about SNH but about general relocation policy. In that context, I sought to explain that, as with every decision of Government, a political decision-making process is involved.

I can help you, as always, minister. The question that elicited the response, "not at all" was as follows:

“To what extent do you feel that your views contributed to the decision process: significantly, well, partially or not at all?"

Some 78 per cent answered "not at all" and 1 per cent answered "significantly". I would be interested to know who that 1 per cent was. However, I understand your response. It is one that I was expecting with a 99 per cent degree of certainty.

In conclusion, I invite you to accept the premise that the disclosure of civil service advice is something that can be done but, in this instance—as in so many cases—will not be done because the Scottish Executive chooses not to make it public.

Mr Ewing should go away and read the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, although I am sure he is familiar with it. It provides a real test of responsibilities with regard to advice and information. It takes forward the openness of government in Scotland quite considerably and creates a situation that is far better than any that has existed in this country before. I would have thought that Mr Ewing would welcome that development and, indeed, I seem to remember that he voted for the bill—I certainly hope that he did so. The act has created a new, dynamic and much more open society in Scotland.

I will not add to what I have already said on the issue of civil servants' advice. If Mr Ewing expects me to, he can keep on asking me about it, but I will keep on giving him the same answer.

I think that this is a case not so much of "Yes, minister" as of "Aye right, minister."

Distilling your evidence today, what is the core message that you seek to convey to the committee, minister?

I can think of something to convey to Mr Ewing, but I will not do so as we are both gentlemen and it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

What I would be interested to see coming out of your inquiry is akin to the question that Mr Purvis asked earlier. I would be fascinated to know whether the committee has come to the view that a complete change in policy and the advocacy of a spatial management approach to Scotland as a whole, with relocation as one part of a much larger economic picture, are preferable to the existing policy, which we will continue to refine and develop, particularly the clarity and consistency of the criteria. That is the element of your deliberations that I find particularly interesting.

If those final deliberations come out with categorical proof that a full-blown relocation policy with structure and perhaps even volunteers would have a beneficial effect on economic growth and competitiveness, is there a presumption that that would get the backing of the Scottish Executive?

I am sure that you do not expect me to give any guarantees about changes that we would make to our relocation policy. We firmly believe that the manner in which we are handling the matter is appropriate for Scotland's needs. However, I genuinely want to know what the committee has to say on the issues that are involved.

One issue that has arisen with regard to SNH concerns the status of staff who are employees of non-departmental public bodies. Civil servants can transfer across the civil service and have more places to go, but the employment status of SNH's staff gives them fewer places to go in the public sector. Is enhanced status for NDPB employees who are likely to be affected concomitant to proceeding with the relocation policy in which you are involved or with a more strategic relocation policy? If the process does not give employees rights throughout the public sector, they will continue to feel picked on in comparison with other similar staff. Is the Executive considering that?

The Executive is not considering that at this time. I cannot add to what we have said. We would be happy to consider the proposal, and we will provide a full answer to that point, and others, in responding to the committee's recommendations.

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance. The committee is progressing with the process. We expect to consider a discussion paper in the next couple of weeks and to move towards findings before the summer.