Scottish Natural Heritage<br />(Relocation of Headquarters) (PE670)
I welcome the press and public to the Finance Committee's first meeting in 2004 and I remind everybody to switch off pagers and mobile phones. I wish everybody a happy new year and congratulate Wendy Alexander on her marriage since we were last all together. We have received no apologies, but I understand that the roads down from Dundee have some traffic difficulties, so I expect that Kate Maclean will join us later.
I thank the committee for the invitation to be grilled this morning, which I have read about with interest in all my papers for three days. Detailed consideration of the relocation policy is timely. I will take a moment to open with thoughts on the policy in general, after which I will be pleased to answer questions and to examine closely the report that Dr Murray and Mr Ewing produced, which I read and found helpful.
Thank you. I offer Elaine Murray and Fergus Ewing the opportunity to highlight issues that arise from their report.
We considered two different aspects in our report. Fergus Ewing considered the Irish situation—it is helpful to consider the way in which another country has approached similar issues and the desire to relocate. As you know, I have a certain amount of parochial interest, as many of us do, because I represent one of the areas that does not succeed in attracting civil service jobs. It is helpful for people who have been unsuccessful to see the way in which the relocation policy has developed since it was introduced in 1999. The minister's explanation was useful, but will he comment on how we can ensure transparency in decision making?
Dr Murray asks an entirely fair question. In the evolution of the policy, we have been keen to provide advice to organisations against the criteria that I outlined: socioeconomic factors, the availability of transport, property suitability and operational business matters. By doing so, we hope to make it clear to organisations that enter the process that ministers and the Scottish Executive will consider their business cases against those criteria.
I appreciate that you were not among the ministers who were involved when the decision was made, so it is a difficult question for you to answer. However, do you know why Inverness was chosen for the SNH relocation, given that it had been discounted and that it did badly in the initial tranche of analysis that was done on transport links?
I could argue that many areas of Scotland would not do well on transport links. On that issue, we could have a debate about areas that are close to our hearts, such as our constituencies, but if we focus only on transport, all peripheral parts of the country would struggle.
Has the Executive considered approaching the issue in a slightly different way? If there is a perceived need for relocations to certain areas, we should flag up those areas as being where we want organisations to relocate and we should look for the most suitable organisations to relocate to those areas after discussions with staff, trade unions and others. That alternative approach would at least say to areas—I hope to areas that are, as the minister says, "close to our hearts"—that we want to find relocations that are suitable for those areas. The perception in many areas of the country is that they will never get relocations. That relates not only to Dumfries and Galloway—Clydebank and other areas that are close to the hearts of many members of the committee are in that situation. Those areas feel that they are never on the map. Would not it be easier if you said, "Those are the areas where we want to relocate, so we must find something suitable."
That would be a very different policy from the current one in terms of the criteria and triggers that begin the process by which an organisation enters a relocation review.
Would you say that the SEIRU relocation and the report by Fuller Peiser Ltd are examples of your new approach or your old approach?
Sorry—which relocation?
I mean the relocation of the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit.
That is part of the new approach; therefore the weightings and the separate criteria were used.
So you are saying that that represents an example of new good practice?
That is correct.
I will come back to you on that. In fact, perhaps I should follow up on that now, although I am anxious not to cut across Fergus Ewing too much.
The policy has evolved, which we have sought strongly to achieve in terms of socioeconomic criteria and the weighting that is given to them.
Your policy is to have a relocation strategy that links to socioeconomic disadvantage. That is how you articulated the policy. If every time there is a consultant's report a different set of criteria is applied, it is difficult—as Elaine Murray said—for people in various parts of Scotland to know how to meet the criteria because a different mechanism is employed each time. The point applies all the more given that the way in which the criteria are employed appears to offer no hope at all to the areas that one would have thought should benefit most from the policy, if one followed its logic. That is a fundamental problem.
I will let Mike Garden deal with the question, but I take the point, to which I think you are alluding, about the consistency of approach that should be taken by consultants. I trust that the same statistical base would be used by all consultants that make assessments under the criteria. Mike Garden will pick up the point about the particular organisation and how the study was done.
As the minister said, we regard the study that the consultants Fuller Peiser carried out for SEIRU as an example of good practice in that it adopted an overall weighting system and used the individual weightings that were ascribed, principally the figure of 50 per cent for socioeconomic factors. As yet, we have not sought to micromanage the work of consultants and bodies within the broad framework but, to that extent, I agree that they sometimes come up with rather perverse conclusions. Ministers will be informed by the study, but will not—of course—be bound by it, although it is one of the matters that they will take into account.
I understand that there must be a combination of opportunistic and strategic approaches—that is always the way in which strategies work. However, I am concerned that, if the Fuller Peiser report is followed through, the way in which the criteria operate will offer no hope at all to the Borders, Dumfries and areas to the west of Glasgow because, under the criteria, relocations will be geared to places such as Stirling and Dunfermline. In fact, Edinburgh city centre comes out with a pretty high score of 27 points, which makes it about the fifth or sixth highest-scoring location.
I will make two brief points. First, the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department's work on the framework for economic development in Scotland includes a strong feed into relocation policy. The department's on-going work on FEDS will allow further consideration of your general point, convener.
Yes, but in practice, the relocations that have taken place have concentrated in an arc around Edinburgh. That is my point of concern.
It is otiose to say that we all wish our own areas to benefit from the effective deployment of public funds. However, I do not understand—my incomprehension is shared by the trade union and the staff of SNH—why the relocation decision was taken against the advice of SNH and of DTZ Pieda Consulting Ltd, whose report, I believe, cost about £20,000. In your letter of 13 October 2003, minister, you stated that ministers received and took into account the DTZ Pieda report and a submission from the SNH board. In paragraphs 5 to 7 of our paper, which you called helpful, we point out that Inverness was not the first choice or the second choice, but the 24th choice, according to DTZ Pieda, and that, while it was put on a short leet of five, it was dropped on the ground of cost.
No.
Will you say whether the civil service advised against Inverness?
As you well know, Mr Ewing, I am not going to get into the advice given to ministers before the election or indeed at any other time, because, as you know, the code governs that.
I am sorry to hear that, although I am not surprised. The Executive would do well to take a leaf out of Lord Fraser's book—it should learn a little more about transparency from an unelected peer.
I am amazed that you are pursuing that line of questioning, Mr Ewing, although I am not surprised. I have here a comment that you made on 28 October 2002, when you said:
The minister is right to say that I lobbied for my constituency to receive more jobs from SNH, but I did not realise at the time how successful I would be. In fact, I met John Markland and Roger Crofts to suggest that functions of SNH should be devolved before the decision was taken. Now that SNH is coming to Inverness in its entirety—apart from the U-turn whereby around 50 jobs will stay in Edinburgh, as was announced just after the election—of course I support more jobs coming to my constituency, although there is an argument to be had about whether £45 million could be used more effectively in Inverness, such as by buying out the public finance initiative at Inverness airport terminal, for example.
The persistent attempt to link SNH and Holyrood is ridiculous, even by Mr Ewing's standards, although it will no doubt provide a good press release for The Courier and Advertiser tomorrow morning. Could we stay in the real world, as opposed to the one that he seeks to invent? Let us be clear about the costs. It is SNH's responsibility to submit robust figures for the project plan to the committee and the Executive and that is what it is doing. The figures that have been submitted illustrate an estimated net cost of £22 million. The net present cost calculations are not a way in which we construct a budget; under Treasury rules, they are our mechanism for assessing competing costs and options. That is what is going on and it is part of the project plan. I am sure that Mr Ewing, who, as he said, has discussed the matter with the union, is aware of that.
I will return to the bigger issue of relocation policy. I am not sure whether my question is one for you, minister; I suspect that it is one for your officials. You mentioned that the policy has undergone evolution, which would be expected over five years. I am trying to establish when the policy changed and when the Parliament was told about that. Could you or your officials tell us how the policy changed from 2001 to the present and when those changes were made known to Parliament?
I will let Paul Rhodes deal with the detail of that question. Rather than talk about changes, I would talk about evolution, which I have tried to do all the way through the meeting. In September 2002, a conscious decision was made to consider the weighting more carefully, which had an effect in terms of relocation options or organisations entering the process in December 2002. Therefore, that has been the policy for the past year. However, we are talking about evolving the criteria and developing the percentage breakdown to which I referred earlier rather than about a clear change. Paul Rhodes has been dealing with the issue for longer than I have, so he may want to add to what I have said.
I do not think that ministers have seen what has happened as a change in the policy. All the elements of the way in which the policy is now considered were present in the 1999 statement. What has happened in relation to the 50 per cent figure is that the type of advice and guidance that the department offers to bodies when they start reviews has been honed and fine tuned as we have moved forward, in order to obtain responses from organisations that match ministers' policy objectives. The policy is one of dispersal. Through the advice that it gives, the department is trying to help ministers to have bodies consider a spread of opportunities and to report those to ministers in relocation reviews.
I am trying to establish whether we are dealing with apples and apples or with apples and pears. In April 2002, you agreed a set of terms of reference with SNH. Was the SNH board told of the September 2002 decision to give more weighting to social and economic matters?
At official level, SNH would have been aware of the decision. However, it would not have been stressed to SNH, because we were not applying it post hoc to existing reviews. The change in advice was issued to organisations as they started reviews after that point.
That is a critical issue. You are saying that the change did not apply to reviews that were under way, only to new ones.
Yes.
That means that the SNH decision was not affected by the decision to give greater weight to social and economic factors.
I understand that SNH was subject to the policy as laid out in the 1999 statement and as subsequently developed. However, the specific point that you make is correct.
In September 2002, you indicated that greater emphasis would be placed on social and economic factors. When was the figure specified as 50 per cent?
I expect that that would have happened at the first meetings with the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit. I recollect that those took place in December 2002. However, as the minister says—it is important to re-emphasise this—it was not held to be reasonable or fair to ask bodies that had already started reviews and had agreed terms of reference with consultants to change course in the middle of the process.
I appreciate that—indeed, that is where I was heading. If the department decided in September 2002—six months before the SNH decision was announced—that it wanted to change the criteria, it would seem sensible for it to have told the SNH board and to have had the consultants do the work again. Clearly, that did not happen, which takes me to an interesting question. When the original criteria were applied, DTZ Pieda recommended a shortlist of West Lothian, Stirling and Perth, using exactly the same terms of reference that led the SNH board to suggest a new location in Edinburgh, with a second preference for Stirling and Perth. Inverness did not feature at all. Why, when ministers were allegedly applying the same criteria, was Inverness selected, although it appeared nowhere on the lists of DTZ Pieda and the SNH board? Today we have heard from officials that the same criteria were being applied. Can anyone offer an insight into what happened?
It was my representations what won it.
I will not be drawn. My best understanding of the decision is that the wider objectives of relocation policy were considered to be paramount in relation to SNH. Achieving decentralisation of jobs and the potential for placing parts of government around Scotland were regarded as of considerable importance in the balance of the argument relating to SNH. I cannot expand on that.
I appreciate that at the time you were not the minister responsible. However, can officials clarify the essential insight that the criteria that were published in 1999 were used to agree with the SNH board the terms of reference for the review that were given to DTZ Pieda and that the same terms of reference were used by ministers? Is that a factually accurate assessment of how the SNH decision was made?
I did not catch the last thing that you said.
This morning, we have explored the fact that there was policy evolution. At issue is whether ministers were operating under a regime of policy evolution with respect to this decision and whether the work that was done by the consultants and the terms of reference that were given to the SNH board reflected an earlier regime. Today we have established that ministers were not operating under a regime of policy evolution, because they did not tell SNH or DTZ Pieda that the terms of reference had changed and ask the consultants to re-examine the issue. I am trying to establish whether the three bodies that had a part to play in the decision were comparing apples with apples and whether the same is true of all other relocation decisions.
There is an important distinction to make between the evolution of policy and the evolution of the process of relocation reviews. That is a key distinction, especially in relation to the SNH situation. I see where Wendy Alexander is coming from. I suspect that her line of questioning is leading to the suggestion that the decision is explained by the fact that the policy had changed, but that is not the case at all.
You suggest that, on the surface, some decisions appear perverse.
No. Before you proceed, I would like to clarify that. I was saying that some of the individual weightings at which consultants may arrive within the broad framework of the application of the criteria may be considered perverse.
Okay. Nonetheless, to those listening to what has been said so far, it may appear that some of them are wilfully perverse. We are trying to establish why some of the decisions were made.
I do not recognise the £45 million figure. It is not part of the SNH project plans.
I refer to the £22 million estimate, plus the £23 million that the unions claim is the subsequent and on-going cost of relocation.
That is not part of the project plan that has been submitted to ministers or the letter that the committee has received from Ian Jardine, the chief executive of SNH. I do not recognise the figures that you have given. I repeat that ministers have a clear determination to ensure that SNH's figures are robust.
So the cost will not end up anywhere near £45 million.
The figures that the committee has received and that the Executive has in the project plan are the figures on which we work.
That does not sound like a resounding no.
That is a comment, Ted.
We have talked to some extent about the relocation of offices. I would like to ask about new offices that are being set up outwith the Edinburgh area because of decisions similar to the one that you have been talking about this morning. I have always been interested in the siting of the Public Record Office in St Andrews in Fife. Somebody may be able to give you some background to that. The office has been sited in St Andrews and will be up and running within about a year.
Do you mean the Scottish information commissioner's office?
Yes. I live in St Andrews and think that it is a wonderful place in which to live. However, why was the decision made to site that office there? Was the decision taken on socioeconomic grounds? Would it not have been more sensible to have sited it in Glenrothes, for example, which has a joblessness problem and better transport links than St Andrews? What were the fundamental reasons for deciding that the office should go to St Andrews?
I apologise for the fact that I do not know the answer to that. However, I am sitting next to a man who does. He will give you an answer.
That was not a relocation policy decision. The location of that office is not in the gift of Scottish ministers. The Executive simply provided assistance to the commissioner in locating premises in which to carry out the office's work. The location was not in the gift of Scottish ministers.
So it was entirely the decision of the commissioner where he wished to base himself. He could have gone anywhere.
Yes. The commissioner is a parliamentary appointment, rather than an Executive appointment. If there was a control mechanism, it would lie with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body or the Parliament.
We have been joined by several other members, including Mike Pringle, Sylvia Jackson, Christine May and Susan Deacon, whom I welcome to the committee.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to take part in the discussion. I am delighted that the committee has decided to investigate the matter.
I am not sure that I could name one place. I am aware that there have been many parliamentary questions—indeed, many oral parliamentary questions, even at First Minister's question time—about the subject. Whether that is all pooled together in one concise—or, indeed, long—answer, I am not aware. However, if it would be helpful, we would be happy to put that information together for Susan Deacon in response to the point that she has made.
It would be very helpful to see that, not just for members, but for the individuals in the organisation concerned.
Perhaps I just did not explain that very well. I accept the premise of the point, which is that these are, ultimately, political decisions. I might argue that all government is, ultimately, a matter of political decisions. Certainly, relocation decisions are, ultimately, a political judgment of ministers—I accept that. I hope that ministers would be able to explain—either concisely or in a somewhat longer form—the decision to relocate any specific body with reference to the organisation's business case, the report and the criteria that were used, either post-evolution of the policies that we have discussed or in terms of organisations that were affected under the first regime, if I can describe it in that way. We would also explain such decisions in the context of wider policy objectives. Nevertheless, I accept the premise of the question, which is that these are, ultimately, political decisions.
I have a couple of final questions to finish off the line of questioning that I have pursued. Although I recognise what the minister has said about political decisions, I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to acknowledge that it is difficult to understand why ministers might make such a political decision, arguably unwisely, in the face of the opinion and evidence of every other party—I think that I can say that with impunity—that has examined or commented on that relocation decision. In relation to the SNH case, I note that the process of ministerial direction—which has previously been described by ministers as a "nuclear option"—was used not once but twice. Will the minister take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that that makes the decision even more difficult to understand?
Many people—especially the SNH staff—feel strongly about the matter, and I recognise that representatives of Edinburgh constituencies feel strongly about it, too. It is difficult for me to elaborate on what I said earlier about the wider policy objectives and my understanding of why the SNH decision was made in that overall context. There are organisations that will continue to argue—Mr McNulty illustrated the point earlier—for large relocations of large bodies to different parts of Scotland. We have had significant discussion on the robustness of the criteria that were used in making that judgment. However, in overall policy terms, I would continue to argue that it is right that ministers are able to make decisions on relocation, recognising both the wider perspective and the weight of evidence that comes through during the course of the business case being put together. As Ms Deacon has rightly said, it is not an exact science, which is why I continue to argue that it is a political decision. Nevertheless, I take the point about the weight of evidence.
Does the minister agree that the Executive's criteria are totally flawed? Surely the main principle in relocation is to go to deprived areas and resurrect them, giving them a boost from Government to try to lift the whole community. As Des McNulty pointed out earlier, Clydebank is an ideal location, although it might not be as prestigious for this great organisation as Inverness. Is the appearance of where an organisation goes more important than the good that it will do?
Mr Swinburne says that our criteria are "totally flawed". I would be interested in exploring the precise nature of that comment and how we are "totally flawed". I take his wider point about the socioeconomic impact of relocation and the importance of relocating to the kind of communities that he described. We will continue to work hard on that; it is why the Accountant in Bankruptcy organisation is going to Ayrshire. We will continue to seek to make decisions with that strong theme in mind based on the points that Mr Swinburne and the convener have made. I accept that general premise and the need to continue to work on that basis. However, there are other aspects to consider as well. For example, under the small units initiative, a small number of jobs can be very significant, both in socioeconomic terms and in prestige terms, to peripheral parts of the country. We always have to balance those arguments, but if Mr Swinburne has specific criticisms of our criteria, we would like to hear them.
Those criticisms were already highlighted when it was pointed out that Clydebank's lack of available office accommodation ruled it out right away. With the £45 million that is being spent, even our Executive could build suitable offices in Clydebank to meet the relocation criteria. Such a relocation would revitalise Des McNulty's constituency and would have a far better impact on Scotland overall than relocating up to leafy Inverness.
I did not pay John Swinburne to say that.
We could perhaps debate that.
I suggest that you take a long hard look at your consultants.
They are not our consultants. The consultants were employed not by us but by the organisation. Employing consultants is the organisation's job.
There may be an issue there, but perhaps we can return to it later.
I have two questions. First, one element of the reporters' report—I think that you have read it, although it has not been touched on so far—highlights the United Kingdom Government's announcement on relocation. Is the Executive doing any work to try to attract UK Government departments to Scotland? If so, does the Executive have any mechanisms for doing that, or is it the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
The Scottish Executive is involved in the Lyons review, which is on-going. There has already been contact at official level and the First Minister has written to the review. It is expected that there will be ministerial contact shortly. Obviously, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scotland Office are heavily involved because they have an important linkage role in Whitehall. The practicalities of such inward investment—if I may couch it in those terms—are being handled by Scottish Development International, which has the expertise, knowledge and ability to put together the locational advice that we hope will pay dividends over the coming year or so. The Lyons review is an important area for overall relocation policy and we are determined to try to achieve what we can from it, as well as from the European Union's decentralisation proposals.
Carrying on from the precedent set by the reporters and the convener, I too will indulge myself by raising a constituency issue.
I assure you that there is certainly no question of that. We continue to emphasise our case-by-case approach, so no area is ruled in or out.
I also want quickly to follow up on what the reporters said about the Irish experience. The figures from the Irish Government show that some of its relocations have been very small. I acknowledge the convener's point about the biggest impact coming from big relocations, but the Irish model shows that there is also the prospect for small numbers of jobs to be relocated perhaps, as Fergus Ewing said, from departments within agencies. What work is the Executive doing to relocate specific teams from within agencies and departments? Perhaps if such teams were relocated to other existing offices, that might bypass some of the problems of staff anxiety that come with moving en bloc.
The small units initiative, which was announced last year, is very much about the issue that you have described. Over the past six months or so, there has been active consultation with the local enterprise network across Scotland to consider and establish areas and—more to the point—specific locations to which such units could be relocated. That work has now concluded. During 2004, I hope that we will see a lot of progress on the location of small units. Like you, I recognise, as we all do, that such relocations can make a colossal difference to extremely rural and peripheral parts of the country.
One thing that consistently comes across from the various studies that the reporters carried out was that the consultation of the unions was perhaps not sufficiently thorough and did not always take place early enough in the process. Will the Executive consider issuing guidance to establish criteria or a framework for trade union consultation in relocation processes?
Until now, we have seen difficulties with involving the Executive explicitly in discussions with unions about external bodies. We would be wary of such involvement, which would not be appropriate. I take your point about guidance and best practice, which are possibly the way to take the issue forward.
I want to pursue the issue of contact and communication with your ministerial colleagues and with the bigger non-departmental bodies. One thing that is particularly attractive about the Irish experience that our reporters considered was the national spatial review—the paper refers to
Your argument has merit. Indeed, we have developed the small units initiative, which is a small part of the overall policy, in conjunction with the enterprise network, to identify suitable locations. The development of such a principle and theme could readily be applied in the way that you have described. I would certainly be more than content to take back what has been said about the need for considering office suitability and availability.
We should begin to draw the discussion to a close.
I have a brief suggestion to make about criteria, which, to a certain extent, relates to what Des McNulty has just said. I do not know what parallel universe exists in Dumfries that is completely inaccessible and in which there is no unemployment, deprivation or poverty. That is certainly not the Dumfries that I drove to the Parliament from this morning.
That is a fair point and is not dissimilar to the point that other committee members have made. I take Dr Murray's point about consistency of approach—if I may describe what she said in that way—and how criteria are used in business cases for organisations coming through the process. It strikes me that, on the surface, there should be such consistency and that consultants who are putting together a business case on behalf of an organisation should use the same basic information about deprivation indices and other socioeconomic factors. I hear what Dr Murray says loud and clear. As I said earlier, we will do work in that area.
I have a point to make that is similar to that which Des McNulty made. He spoke about learning from the Irish experience. We are indebted to Elaine Murray and Fergus Ewing. I think that Fergus Ewing in particular considered the Irish experience. I have learned that much of the relocation policy in Ireland is entirely voluntary. It might be impossible for us to go down that route, but it is obvious that there are merits to communities approaching the Government or the Executive and saying, "Look, here's what we have to offer. We would like to be part of things," and spelling out what they have to offer. If decisions are then made to relocate in areas, perhaps many relocation costs will be avoided. If there were more of a voluntary element to the policy, some of the problems that there have been over the policy's first years would be avoided.
I assure Mr Brocklebank that communities are not slow to approach ministers and the Parliament about their merits for relocations—Dumfries is a good example of that. However, I have a reservation about the approach that has been mentioned. I have read the report with interest and understand that the Irish approach is voluntary for staff, but the Taoiseach announced on 10 December, I think, that seven departments will move. He did not say that they may or could move or that there will be consultation. That is a pretty clear top-down policy on relocating government. We are talking about relocating central Government departments that deal with economic development and so on throughout the nation. On the back of that, I suppose that the minister who is left in charge of things must find a way of making the departments that are involved work in the context of the approach that Mr Brocklebank has just described—that is, having a voluntary approach for staff. The potential for difficulty as a result of such an approach can be seen. We have discussed the matter this morning. If a department were relocated elsewhere because the Government said that it should go there, what would happen operationally if staff voluntarily said that they would not go? Staff who would move would then have to be found. That seems to be the premise on which the Irish policy is based. The Irish have a very different approach and I am not sure whether we can compare like with like.
I presume that the Irish have already encountered such difficulties. They have gone through the process and it might be valuable for Executive members to go to Ireland to have a look at their policy and find out how they cope with difficulties.
I am always happy to go to Ireland and look at what the Irish do, but there seem to be fundamental differences in how they drive their policy.
I suspect that there is an army approach to volunteering.
I want to follow up what the convener said about the trade union submission. I am sure that you are right and that, at the end of the day, ministers must make the decisions, but from what Unison has said, consultation in the process does not seem to have been very effective. It is all very well for you to say that you are going to make things much better. You say that you have considered how things might be improved in future. What time scales would you recommend?
Incentives are a matter for SNH. They are being included in the plan for the move and are under active consideration. We can write to you with the details.
I am asking about time scales. The union said that it did not have time to report back effectively.
As I said, the Scottish Executive does not think that it would be appropriate for it to be involved in instructing an outside organisation to behave in a particular way. I take the points that the committee has made in relation to best practice. Internally, we want to be open and transparent and ensure that the time scales are long enough to ensure that the feedback is allowed for. I would hope that time would be available because none of the business cases that are put together for any relocation is done overnight. They all take weeks, if not months. I would have thought that, within that process, it would always be possible for an organisation—whether external to or within the Executive—to build in the appropriate consultation, because that is fundamentally important to the process.
Do you think that the consultation process allowed Unison adequate time to respond?
Is your question about Scottish Natural Heritage?
Yes.
Unison is not involved in the SNH case. It was involved in the Common Services Agency case.
I am sorry. Do you think that the union that was involved in the SNH case had adequate time to respond?
I do not think that I can give an absolutely straight answer to that. I will consider the issue and try to respond to you in writing. I do not think that we have received any letters as to the adequacy or otherwise of the consultation process, but I will check in the office to find out.
I had the pleasure of meeting a senior civil servant from Ireland who explained the basis of his policy. We are indebted to the Irish Government for providing us with a lot more information.
Mr Ewing is entitled to his description of the Irish policy. However, I do not believe that that policy is without controversy in Ireland and Mr Ewing should not present it as being uncontroversial. I am sure that he appreciates that such matters are never simply black and white in any part of government anywhere in Europe. I was in Dublin at this time last year when the Taoiseach announced the national spatial review. Frankly, the Opposition's criticism was that the review seemed to be targeted closely on ministerial constituencies. I do not know whether that had any merit as an argument. However, as an Opposition politician, Mr Ewing might be quick to make such an accusation here, if the Executive were minded to follow that theme.
We have probably exhausted questioning on the matter. It is worth pulling out a couple of issues from the discussion. First, members appreciate that relocation decisions are ultimately political ones, but what we want—which came out of the opening discussion—is transparency in the criteria for relocation decisions. Committee members believe that much needs to be done to achieve greater transparency.