Agenda item 2 is on relocation of public sector jobs. A few months ago, following publication of the committee's report in June, the committee agreed that it would like to monitor the Executive's progress on its relocation policy. The committee asked for, and the Executive agreed to provide, updates every six months, the first of which is in front of us today.
Thank you very much. I wish one and all a happy new year. I agree with the sentiments that the convener has expressed in his opening remarks. I support the way in which the committee conducted its inquiry into public sector jobs relocation and the very positive way in which I believe that the Executive and the committee have together pushed the issue forward.
Thank you. I commend the Executive's short paper entitled "The Relocation Guide", which sets out clearly the direction of travel on relocation of public sector jobs. The committee is not in a position to provide a fully fledged response at this stage, so we will question the minister and officials on some of the details of the paper. I suggest that the committee should find a mechanism for bringing back a paper—perhaps in early February—which could feed into the consideration process. We will try to ensure that we provide a submission that covers points of detail.
I am delighted by how the Executive has responded. I was one of the reporters for the committee's inquiry into relocation of public sector jobs, so I am particularly pleased to see how the committee's suggestions have been taken on board by the Executive. It is, however, disappointing that the Scottish media are far more interested in with whom people go on holiday than in how committees can work with the Executive to influence policy and make changes. I doubt that there will be much media interest in the subject that we are discussing. However, that will not detract from the pleasure that I feel on reading through the guidance that the Executive has supplied. The document is particularly clear and helpful; I do not know who was responsible for putting it together, but it is impressive.
It was Morris Fraser.
Many of the concerns that were expressed to reporters at an early stage came from the unions, particularly those which were involved with the Scottish Natural Heritage relocation. Has there been discussion with trade unions about aspects of the guidance that relate to staff? The committee considered the issue of staff who cannot relocate or who are being made redundant, particularly in the context of Ireland, where there was a desire to help such people transfer to vacancies not just in the civil service but elsewhere in the public sector. Has consideration been given to transfer of staff to posts elsewhere in the public sector or even beyond it? The mechanisms in Ireland are a little different from those in Scotland.
Thank you for saying that the guidance is clear; that is very welcome.
I was pleased to see that the document sets out on page 20 how the calculations will be made in relation to the criteria. Will you say a little more about the thought process behind the weightings for each indicator? For example, I assume that under "population density"—which appears under the heading, "Supporting fragile communities"—you would consider sparsity of population. However, if you were considering a large-scale relocation to an urban area, I assume that the population density of the area would not detract from the calculation. Also, I presume that the indicator, "employment by the public sector", relates to lack of employment by the public sector. How would the indicators be used in practice? It might be useful if they were applied to a theoretical case, to see how the calculation would work out in practice.
This is perhaps the first time that the criteria have been laid out in such a way, but the organisations that are currently under review have been using the system for the past year, so we can provide examples of how the calculations stack up. Indeed we have a table of the 32 local authorities' up-to-date figures on all the criteria, which we can provide to the committee. We propose a similar register or table at local authority or even more local level, perhaps for 80 or 90 towns and cities in Scotland. The register will be publicly available, so that anyone can see at any time how the situation would stack up for their town or city. The process will be much more open.
Simply because of the diversity of Scotland, I have been keen to deal with such matters at sub-local government level. I think that that is workable and we will continue to do work in that regard.
I, too, am glad that many of our suggestions have been taken up and that you are working towards taking on board even more of them. Of course, I am pleased about the good fortune of Tain in Easter Ross, which you mentioned. I am sure that Tain is totally deserving and that the fact that the jobs are going there has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the minister's colleague, Jamie Stone, represents Tain in the Scottish Parliament.
Funnily enough, when preparing for this meeting this morning, I wrote down Ted Brocklebank's name and then wrote "political" next to it. As usual, he did not disappoint; I always know where Mr Brocklebank is coming from. However, in his question, Mr Brocklebank did not mention the fact that, time and again—once again this morning—we have stated that there is a requirement on us to be as transparent as possible about the process. The suggestion that we can make political decisions, as Mr Brocklebank always likes to suggest, without context or caveats, is not the case. The decisions will be laid out transparently and will be based on the criteria that Elaine Murray has just described. Any relocation decision will be subject to internal scrutiny and the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. That has been the case previously and the process that we are putting in place will ensure that it happens in an even more robust fashion than at present.
You accept, of course, that there appear to be problems about relocation of Scottish Natural Heritage to Inverness. Indeed, I think that you conceded that, although you were not party to that decision, there were questions about it. Would it have been helpful to have avoided placing in the document a line such as:
I thought that, in a democracy, ministers had the right to make decisions based on advice given by officials. I seem to remember that a former Tory Prime Minister said:
I repeat: we have responded positively to the committee's recommendations and I hope that we can take the process forward with the agreement of the committee.
Have you any plans to continue to monitor the Irish national spatial strategy? The Irish were open with us about what they were doing when we visited Ireland to find out what was happening in that regard.
That is a fair question. We will keep an eye on what is happening in Ireland. We have always been open to examining what is happening in other parts of Europe and further afield. Elaine Murray's report on Ireland was helpful in terms of our gaining an understanding of the context there. We have always made it clear that there are differences between Scotland and Ireland in respect of relocations; nevertheless, the exercise was helpful.
On the small units initiative, the trigger for the process is in the gift of senior management. The document includes the caveat that such decisions need not be driven purely by costs and efficiency savings. On the evidence from Dingwall and, I suspect, many other areas, there are cost savings to be made. Will you consider a volunteer-driven approach that might further emulate the Irish situation and create a production line of cost-saving small-scale moves?
I am sympathetic to that argument. I think that such an arrangement is inherent in the principles of efficient government and would be one of the ways in which improvements, savings and productivity gains could be illustrated. Although Mr Mather is correct in his appraisal of the role of the management group, I assure him that there is a great deal of ministerial drive behind the principle of the voluntary approach that he talked about and behind greater roll-out of the small units initiative, in which the examples that we have seen so far achieve the objectives that we all share.
Paragraph 2.3 of "The Relocation Guide" says:
The fund is £500,000 a year for this year and next year.
How many jobs is it anticipated would relocate under the umbrella of that £500,000?
The cost per job will vary significantly in each case. However, we imagine that the amount would cover between 40 and 80 jobs a year. However, the number could be significantly higher, depending on the location.
For many areas in Scotland, the small units initiative is the only one that will bear fruit, because those areas do not have the capacity to absorb bigger units. However, it is not clear to me how the initiative will be driven forward. You imply that there is general willingness among ministers to do that, but do you have, for instance, a target for how many jobs over a period should be dispersed as a result of the small units initiative? How will you know whether you have done well, or not?
I do not mean to demean or to diminish the question, but I am wary of setting a target. If we were to set a target for jobs, we would end up scrabbling around the system trying to create positions to ensure that the target was met.
I know that you have to be sensitive about the feelings of staff, but is there any intention of making that list public?
The list of locations is available, but because of the sensitivities that you mention, we have not said that, for example, we intend to relocate a certain number of people from a certain department, or what groups of people have been identified in that regard. This is a people issue; other members have mentioned staff unions, which would have legitimate concerns if we were to make such a list public.
I think that I heard you say that you are keen to go below the local authority level in an attempt to gather indicators. Did I pick that up correctly?
Yes.
It strikes me that the indicators are such that the same places will always be at the top of the list. Quite a few small units could be moved out and the same place would still be at the top of the list, while other deserving places would be further down the list. It is a question of how we ensure that the jam is spread evenly throughout Scotland. If the indicators were broken down, that would avoid the danger that one place would always be at the top of the list, but it would also produce a huge list of potential locations. I suspect that members of the committee could each provide the minister with a dozen potential locations. How can you attempt to satisfy all those requirements?
I would hate to be accused by Mr Brocklebank of being political about the matter, but Mr Morgan has put his finger on the dilemma that we have about a statistical breakdown. There are two parts to our work. As well as producing a statistical breakdown, we will continue to ask—as we have done in the past—local authorities and local enterprise companies to give us their thoughts and their guidance on the areas within their areas that meet the overall criteria and, as it were, the sub-criteria. We will do more of that at the seminar in February. In relation to Mr Morgan's area—the south of Scotland—we have been keen to ask the councils and the enterprise companies to think about where they would like such units to be located. They have already done that.
I presume that the new criteria will not necessarily produce the same clustering effect that is evident in Stirling, Dunfermline and West Lothian, where relocations have tended to be concentrated. I presume that there will be a thinning-out process. Will you consider the subject retrospectively, and factor into the equation, relocations that have taken place in the past 10 years, or will you take a fresh look every time a relocation is proposed?
I do not think that we can avoid considering where we have located bodies. We will also have to pay regard to decisions that are taken in London. In my opening remarks, I mentioned linkages with other areas of policy; it is incumbent on us to take an overview. Ministers must have an overview of relocation because the system does not always throw that up, which answers a question that has been asked. Ultimately, we have ministers so that we can balance competing arguments and external pressures.
I am sure that you will tell us that there is considerable buy-in from your colleagues throughout the Executive to your approach, but sometimes that needs to translate into practical changes in policy memoranda or regulations, or into instructions to departments or non-departmental public bodies. An issue that came up in our inquiry was that property availability for relocations appeared to be a key criterion. Market failure had meant that there were some areas, especially in the west of Scotland, where property did not appear to be available, with the result that those areas were in the catch-22 situation of not being eligible for relocations because a key part of the matrix could not be filled in.
That is a fair point, and much work has been done on it. The analysis that you gave has been tested and there have been discussions on the mechanisms that we could use to deal with such situations. The seminar that we will hold at the end of February will deal with that matter, too. We must look through the eyes of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning at the whole of the enterprise network; in other words, as well as engage with local enterprise companies, we must go to the top and work with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise at senior level. We are well aware of the point that the convener made and we will pursue it and ensure that we provide an update on progress in the six-monthly briefings.
What will you do to prevent complacency from creeping into your overall plan? What targets will you set in the next few years to ensure that you can say that you have achieved more relocation than has been achieved in the past? Are you happy with the pace at which progress is being made at the moment?
Mr Swinburne will acknowledge that we must always be sensitive about relocations because of staff concerns. Although it would be nice to be able to make a sweeping statement about what we were going to do with regard to the relocation of a range of bodies, we must recognise the responsibility that we have for the people who work for us, whether directly or in NDPBs.
Are you quite happy with the progress that has been made to date or do you feel that you need to do much better?
I would always say that the process could be more efficient and more effective and could be conducted more quickly. I suspect that we are all frustrated that such matters take a long time. I would like the process to be sharper and more effective. David Robb, Morris Fraser and the team that will drive the process from the centre will be a strong part of that focus. If I am honest, I must admit that that focus has been missing for the past two years. I now feel much more confident about the process that we will go through and I hope that the six-monthly reviews and updates that we will give to the committee will demonstrate that not just what I want to happen, but what the committee would like to happen, is taking place.
You say that the relocation process will be speeded up, but do you have any assumptions about how long it should take?
I have no such assumptions because, as Mr McAveety knows, the process involves numerous hurdles that have to be overcome. I simply add to the point that I made to John Swinburne, which was that having a central team will change things. The committee knows that, in the past, organisations and departments could use external consultants in the process. I am not saying that that was necessarily wrong, but there is no doubt that the involvement of such outside organisations could slow the process and did not ensure the consistency that we and the committee want to achieve. I hope that the timeline will improve as a result of the central team that will deal with the process.
Do you have any idea when the announcement on the headquarters of sportscotland will be made?
Perhaps that is what the minister meant by hurdles.
I have no idea; I am loth to use the word "soon", because I know that it can be misinterpreted. We will do our best to ensure that the announcement is made in as short a time as possible.
I am keen to build on what the Executive has produced for us and to give the process a bit more momentum. I was disappointed in the annex on additional relocation costs, but I trust that the minister will find that my criticism is positive.
I am very taken with those suggestions, which we will certainly consider; I have no difficulty with having a close look at them. Perhaps we can consider how we have been able to respond to them when we come back to the committee in six months' time. I am always slightly nervous—dare I say it—about listing intangible benefits simply because, in different avenues and in different areas, Government has been criticised for measuring things that are perhaps, in measurement terms, a bit of a leap of faith. We can give some thought to how we can best measure the examples that Mr Mather has given today. In broad terms, I am happy to look at Mr Mather's suggestion.
I echo other members in welcoming the minister's note and the relocation guide. I also endorse Jim Mather's point. From the information that I have seen, the relocation of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to Galashiels has greatly improved the agency's staff turnover figure and productivity and has had a beneficial impact on the community. From the work that the local enterprise company has done, it would be useful to capture that information and to use it nationally as a basis for comparison. It is not inevitable that an agency will work better because it has been relocated, but that is what has happened de facto in Galashiels. Constant vigilance is important.
The short answer is no.
On the separate issue of the dispersal of UK Government jobs, I was interested to see that the minister's note says that UK Government departments lack a strategic approach. In his discussions with the Treasury and other UK Government departments on the implementation of the Gershon review, will the minister ensure that those departments are fully aware of the Executive's relocation guide and the improvements that the Executive is making? Perhaps they can learn about better information and timely contact with their own staff. Will that be part of the minister's discussions?
It would be unfair to claim—and I did not do so—that the UK Government has no strategic approach, given that it has a top-line figure of, I think, some 80,000 posts. However, the issue for us is how that impacts on Scotland. The precise answer to Mr Purvis's questions is that, through Scottish Development International and through the work of our relocation policy team and other officials within our department, we plan to keep in close touch with those developments so that we can make some assessment. My understanding is that UK departments with staff in Scotland are only now getting to the position of assessing what that top-line target that was set by the UK Government in the summer will mean for individual departments. What impact that will have for staff in Scotland will come out of that process only as it continues.
I appreciate that. The minister's note states:
Obviously, we will do our best to influence the UK Government's relocation process. On that side of the equation, we can suggest the course of action that we are taking and illustrate how we have worked with the parliamentary committee to achieve it. From Scottish Development International's description to me of the relocation process in London, I understand that there is currently no consistency across UK departments on how relocation should be taken forward. Ultimately, that is a matter for them. All that we can do is to invite them to note the mechanism that we follow because we are very worried about consistency.
The minister will be aware that, in evidence to us on the budget, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform said that there were too many quangos in Scotland. When I asked whether he had a hit list, he said no. Nevertheless, it would appear that Tom McCabe thinks that there are too many quangos while Tavish Scott is mapping out the future and the locations of many of those quangos. It is slightly alarming that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform does not have a strategy, but it would be a bit odd if Tavish Scott were to propose the relocation of an organisation that Tom McCabe had it in mind to cut.
It is difficult for me to second-guess the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. I guess that my principal responsibilities here are for relocation. Let me put it this way. If the Government as a whole decided that a public body should no longer exist or must change fundamentally, my job would be to ensure that we had the ducks in a row and that there was not an inconsistent decision to relocate a body that was simultaneously to be abolished, as that would not be efficient government. That is all that I can say on that.
Let me recast Jeremy Purvis's question. In the context of the efficient government drive, it has been suggested that non-departmental public bodies—or supported public bodies in whatever guise—should bring together key backroom functions, such as administration, personnel management and payroll. Most organisations would do that by drawing in those functions from different agencies and locating them in a central unit. However, there might be a perceived tendency for that to cut against relocation policy. How will the Executive deal with the tension between those two policy intents?
That is a fair observation. However, if we take, for example, the personnel departments of public sector bodies within the Highlands and Islands—which is an area of Scotland that I know a little about—I do not believe that we should assume that all the personnel staff should naturally be located in Inverness. Given modern information technology such as broadband, there is no reason why that function could not be located in Lochinver—if I may pluck that hypothetical example from off the top of my head. The same principle probably applies to any area of Scotland. For example, in the south of Scotland, if the council, health board and local agencies in Dumfries and Galloway were to combine their personnel functions—which would seem to make eminent sense in efficient government terms—that function would not necessarily be located in the main town.
I suppose, however, that like everything else in government, the question of who does it determines whether it happens. When Highlands and Islands Enterprise appeared before the committee to talk about economic growth, it highlighted that it was interested in bringing together different backroom functions of different agencies that serve the Highlands and Islands. It is less easy to see how that would work in central or southern Scotland. Has thought been given to involving not just local enterprise companies but Scottish Enterprise and Executive departments in seeking out opportunities, in relation not just to efficient government activities and bringing together back-office functions but to the relocation strategy? You could get a double bang by thinking about the issue in more strategic terms.
I accept that, which is why I set out the two-stage process. Your point is embedded in the second stage. We need to be aware of the opportunities.
The minister will be glad to know that my next question is not political, but concerns accountancy. You still believe that the decision to move Scottish Natural Heritage to Inverness was the right one on balance. Can you bring us up to date with the additional costs of that move? The costs were originally supposed to be £12 million, but they went up to £23 million. One trade union has even stated that the gross figure will be something like £45 million. Can you tell us what the actual cost will be?
No, not today, as I have said numerous times. With respect, I do not think that Mr Brocklebank was listening to what I said. We can produce the final costs for relocations once the final relocations have taken place. We will be happy to furnish the committee with our most up-to-date figures through our colleagues in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, which is the sponsoring department, but we cannot give a final figure at this stage.
Can you confirm the story in The Scotsman on 21 December, which stated that SNH
That story is wrong. SNH is looking at rent options, lease options and outright purchase options. The story is factually incorrect.
That is another story from The Scotsman that cannot be confirmed.
I want to ask about the trigger for relocation—which you helpfully describe in your guidance—the definition of which seems to be broader than it was previously. One of the major differences with the Irish attitude was that nobody was exempt from consideration for relocation. When the tourism, culture and sport brief was brought together, the tourism section relocated from Glasgow to Edinburgh but, under the relocation policy, departments in Victoria Quay might never be considered for relocation. Do you intend to examine departments that do not trigger the relocation policy, and to consider partial or complete relocation of departments that are located in Executive-owned properties in Edinburgh?
That is a fair question. The example I give in response is the Enterprise Department—the Government made a conscious decision to move that entire department to Glasgow. The same could apply again. Elaine Murray is right that there is no policy to suddenly move all of Victoria Quay. However, there is a constant drive, as we discussed a moment ago, to examine discrete parts of departments and to determine how they could fit in to the small units initiative. The logic of that is that as the work continues, departments are examining the most efficient delivery of their services. I suggest that were a complete department to move, that would be a decision of Government, taken on the same basis as the decision on the relocation of the Enterprise Department to Glasgow some years ago.
One of the counterbalancing arguments against the relocation of small units to rural areas has been the high cost of information technology in certain locations. Would that be much of a factor, given the Executive's emphasis on rolling out broadband throughout Scotland and the additional funding that has been provided?
I would hope not, and I hope that that cost would steadily diminish. One of the arguments for Tain, for example, was that the IT links that the Crown Office needs in order to electronically send transcribed police tapes are there, and meet the office's standards. I agree with Elaine Murray's premise that the Executive's investment in IT should ensure that no area of Scotland will be disadvantaged by its location, which is the desire of the country. Heck, I represent one such area, so I feel strongly about it.
When is the seminar in February?
We do not have a definitive date yet.
I will follow up on the IT point, with which I very much agree. Annex B of your guidance states that
We might have to come back to you on that in writing. There was a case in which we had significant difficulties with IT, but I am sorry that I cannot answer the question today. We will get back to you.
My second point is on reduced staff turnover after some relocations, presumably as a result of increased staff satisfaction. Although it is early days, are there plans to examine turnover following relocations, with a view to using the figures in future publicity? We have a big problem in some rural areas, not with job relocation but with attracting people such as doctors, dentists, teachers and social workers—particularly the younger ones—who for some reason think that they will miss out on something if they come out to the sticks and move away from the fleshpots. It might be a good idea to have some countervailing success stories to sell to those people.
I agree. That is related to Jim Mather's suggestion for three additional columns in the analysis table. Perhaps we could add Alasdair Morgan's suggestion, and come up with a way of dealing with the issue.
Alasdair Morgan could publish a guide to the fleshpots of Galloway.
I have two quick questions, but first it was interesting to note that Mr Morgan's good friend Christine Grahame attacked the relocation of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to Galashiels, and said that the jobs were not real jobs. It is incumbent on politicians to recognise good things when they happen.
I hope that that was not a party-political point.
Absolutely not. It was a non-party-political point.
Some have been relocated—they are in Glasgow. I do not know whether the head of the SPPA is among those 253. We would need to come back on that one.
If the aim is to change the culture and the underlying principles of the civil service, the relocation policy has to apply to the entire civil service, not just to administrative and clerical staff. Information on that would be useful.
I take that point—you illustrate, as other members have done this morning, the difficulties with a broad-brush, top-line approach to such analysis and that is why we are determined to push it down. Again, that is the advantage of having a central unit: we can not only drive the process but ensure that we achieve a consistency of statistical approach, which is, after all, one of the main planks that you have been pushing on us.
One of the points that I made in our debate on relocation in September is that it appears that a disproportionate part of the growth of the civil service since 1997 has been in Edinburgh. I understand your reluctance to set targets for relocation to specific areas, but is it not possible to set a target for balancing, or rebalancing, growth so that more of Scotland shares in it? Surely it is easier to set and manage a target that says that we will, in general, move jobs away from Edinburgh than a target that says that we will move jobs to area X or area Y.
As you know, we have a presumption against Edinburgh, which is not without its controversies, not least in Edinburgh. Having gone through the process, I am not particularly keen to open it all up again. You ask a big strategic question of Government. We have been through an intensive process of seeking to ensure that our system is better and that the factors that we have discussed at some length are included in it. I am more than happy to discuss the top-line approach with colleagues but I could not possibly give a commitment today to change our overall approach. You suggest a fundamentally different approach, which strikes me more as the Irish approach, given the interesting report that the committee produced.
I am not sure about that—the Irish approach is more about directing relocation. The Irish want to move jobs to specific types of area. I understand your reluctance to make such a commitment, bearing in mind the system that you have put in place, but one of the arguments is to do with the concentration of government in Edinburgh. It is clear from the statistical evidence that the biggest growth in civil service and public sector jobs since devolution has been in Edinburgh. There is surely a strategic consequence to what you say you are trying to do, in that you are trying to reduce that concentration to some degree.
Possibly the best way to respond to your point is to go back to the two-stage strategic approach that I described in the final part of my introductory remarks. The second stage perhaps does not precisely meet your objective, but it involves to some extent the interaction of different elements of Government policy with relocation. Other external pressures have to be factored in, not least what is happening in London at the moment and how that might impact on Scotland during 2005 or 2006. On the London jobs issue, the transactional departments that act in Scotland do not exist in Edinburgh, on the whole, so there would be implications there. We have to factor in those issues and consider the matter in the round. I cannot honestly give a very clear answer on that today, but we will consider the matter in the context of the strategic approach that we will take.
It is important to say that the matter needs to be considered in the round, because the two levels of Government have significant implications for the policy. As you say, the apparent concentration of civil service jobs could be accentuated. There is also a sense that relocation away from Edinburgh might in itself address or feed into other policy objectives: for example, one way to remove congestion in Edinburgh is to have fewer people travelling into the city.
I pick up on another issue: transferability, which was dealt with in paragraphs 111 to 117 of our report. I do not think that you have given us a clear reply on that. We might want to take it up with John Elvidge when he appears before us, but I give you the opportunity to respond.
I think that taking up that issue with John Elvidge is the answer. Issues that are related to staff management come into that area. I understand that John Elvidge will come along to the committee later in January to deal with many issues, no doubt, but specifically to deal with that one.
Are you happy with the co-operation that you are receiving from the Westminster Government on the transfer of jobs from the south-east to Scotland? If not, what can you do to put pressure on Westminster? Such transfers would be the most positive form of relocation as far as Scotland is concerned.
We touched on that earlier, but I am comfortable with the access that Scottish Development International, which is, in effect, our agent in that regard, has to Whitehall departments. They are in close touch and have weekly contact at the right level, which is important. As and when appropriate, I will ask ministerial colleagues who have direct contact with those departments to engage with them.
On your response on transferability, John Elvidge is responsible for civil service issues but he cannot talk about, for example, the transferability of NDPB staff into the civil service or vice versa. You might want to take up the issue at your February conference. I would like to return to it at the next part of the six-monthly process, although obviously we can pursue it with John Elvidge.
Morris Fraser will deal with that.
The duty of best value has recently been imposed on the wider public sector, which means that not only the boards but the chief executives of public bodies are bound to do nothing that is inefficient. I am not suggesting that they did not do that before, but they now have that publicly visible duty.
It sounds like the issue requires a bit of fleshing out.
Being efficient may well mean doing as well as or better than organisations in other jurisdictions. We have heard that £500,000 will be spent and perhaps 40 jobs will be relocated with the small units initiative. Clearly, that will be benchmarked against what happens in Ireland, whose relocation policy covers matters that, in Scotland, are reserved as well as those that are devolved. The aspiration was 10,300 jobs, but the figure was around the 4,000 mark when I last looked, and I suspect that the cost per job was materially different. What level of discomfort do you have with such benchmarking? What other things do you need to do to close the gap?
The £500,000 is, of course, an initial start-up cost, which is normally the big hit, especially for small units. The cost per job of moving 10 people is significantly higher than that for moving 100 people, but we should realise that an annual saving will come back into that £500,000. Therefore, that cost is not in itself the cost per job.
I am well aware of that. However, the stark numbers relating to the transfer and the subsequent move will be in the public domain. I suggest that that will be a real incentive to our starting to consider, for example, the volunteer proposition that exists in Ireland. I will certainly keep a close eye on that matter.
Those things will be in the public domain. On the other hand, the overall approach will be based on a net change of expenditure, as we have agreed with the convener and the committee. We can always compare—or not, as the case may be—like with like, but you have asked us to ensure that, in agreement with the committee, we produce a table that shows a net change in expenditure figure, which we have been keen to do. We are happy to go away and consider the three or four ideas that will add to that by way of comparative analysis. I respectfully suggest that things need to be taken in the round. We can always pull figures here and there, but we will have the main figure and we will then consider the additional tables.
We can be your best value reviewers.
The minister said that financial assumptions would not be counted towards the efficient government review. However, consistency of approach is important. Morris Fraser outlined a similar aspect. If the efficient government review talks about the relocation of backroom operations, which may mean relocation within a particular area, there will be start-up costs and training costs, but considerable savings could be realised in the long term and there would be consistency. I do not know whether there have been discussions with Audit Scotland, but we certainly heard that, in connection with the efficient government review, the realised savings will be externally audited. A consistent approach would be welcome, considering that a similar process is under way. I cannot see any reason why such savings, which would be savings to the public purse, cannot be captured as efficiency savings as long as the auditor's requirements are satisfied.
Nor can I. However, the point is that the figures are auditable. The last thing that I would want to do is suggest that we will try to push the figures under in order to push up the overall efficient government savings without the Finance Committee or Audit Scotland being aware of that. We will make that clear.
At the start, I think that we said we would go through the document reasonably seriously and try to put in a submission. It might be helpful to have a technical briefing on issues such as weightings, which it is probably not appropriate to deal with in full committee. Would you be prepared to deal with that issue in that way?
Yes.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you and your colleagues for coming along, and I express the hope that we are making progress. We hope to see evidence of that in perhaps six months or so, when we have a subsequent update.
Thank you.
Previous
Items in Private