Petition
Scottish Natural Heritage (Relocation of Headquarters) (PE670)
The next item on the agenda is an update on our reporters' investigation into the Executive's relocation policy. Members will remember that when we accepted the referral of petition PE670, on the relocation of Scottish Natural Heritage, we appointed Fergus Ewing and Elaine Murray to act as reporters on behalf of the committee. As Fergus Ewing is not present today, I am looking to Elaine Murray to give us an update on where we are.
I am pleased to be able to give the committee some idea of what we have been doing so far. If members had thought that we had not been doing anything, they will see from the thickness of my relocations file that a fair amount of paperwork has been generated.
We selected a number of civil service and non-departmental public bodies that were relocated either because of a lease break or because a new organisation had come into being and for which a location outside Edinburgh was considered. We wrote to all those organisations to ask for details of the consultation that each of them had with the Executive prior to moving and to find out what information they received on the reasons for relocation and the final location choice. We asked about whether there was provision for staff to provide feedback to management before they had to move and, if so, what feedback was received, how many staff moved and whether any unexpected issues arose out of the relocation, such as the loss of experienced staff. We also wrote to the Executive for its position on those matters.
We received a number of different responses. I am sometimes cynical when the Scottish National Party suggests that we consider countries such as Ireland and Finland but, in this case, Fergus Ewing's suggestion that we consider the Irish experience has proved extremely interesting and valuable. We have managed to get some detail about the different system of relocation that operates in Ireland and it might well be interesting to explore with ministers whether they examined that system and whether they feel that we could learn anything from it.
One of the messages that I am getting from my study of the responses from the various agencies is that there has obviously been a bit of an evolution in the relocation policy during the past four years. Although there seems to have been a development of criteria that have been used to establish a ranking order, there is still a certain lack of transparency about the way in which decisions have been made.
For example, the decision to relocate the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit to Falkirk, which seems to have been fairly acceptable to staff, was made because that was the cheapest option. When it was decided that the Scottish Public Pensions Agency would move to Galashiels, which is in Jeremy Purvis's constituency, there was a fair amount of opposition from staff, because Galashiels is further away from Edinburgh, but there was a fairly strong business case for moving to that locality. In that case, the rather curious judgment was made that Rosyth, which was the favoured option, was a suburb of Edinburgh. I am sure that that did not go down well with our colleagues in Fife.
We should explore with ministers what must be the most anomalous relocation case—that of Scottish Natural Heritage. In the initial analysis on transport criteria, Inverness finished joint 24th on the list—I was disappointed that the proposed location in my constituency finished even lower down the list, in spite of our aspirations. The consultants went on to consider the status quo, two locations near Edinburgh, two mid-point locations and a distant location. They assessed the cases for the existing site, a regeneration area in Edinburgh and further sites in West Lothian, Perth, Stirling and Inverness. Inverness was rejected at that point, on the ground of cost, and the consultants suggested that West Lothian, Stirling and Perth were the options to run with. The SNH board favoured a regeneration area in Edinburgh and then either Perth or Stirling. There is a lack of transparency about how the final decision to relocate to Inverness was made, although we must accept that the minister who is currently responsible—Tavish Scott, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services—was not a minister when the decision was made, so it might be difficult for him to reflect on that.
However, it is important that the mechanism under which the decision was made and the reasons behind the decision are made public, particularly given the staff's strength of feeling and the extent of their unhappiness. It is clear that SNH was already a highly devolved organisation with significant branches in many areas of the country. Although staff were consulted on their views, those views were recorded and then, it appears, ignored. It is dangerous if a consultation exercise is performed and it appears that the views of the people who were consulted are ignored.
We should certainly discuss that with ministers and seek to ensure that any future relocation decisions are more transparent. We need to strike the right balance. As well as having criteria, we need to do what the Irish do, which is to identify where we want civil service posts to go, to try to find the best people to go there and, at the same time, to retain sufficient numbers of jobs in the centre to accommodate those staff who do not want to relocate and who genuinely find that difficult.
Thank you for that comprehensive report. Tavish Scott has confirmed that he will attend our meeting on 13 January to be questioned on relocation. It is intended that the reporters will have completed a short report based on their work so far in time for that meeting.
There are two further points to make. If there is more work that SPICe can do that the reporters and clerks would consider helpful in preparing questions, we should feed in issues to the reporters this week so that they can pass them on to SPICe. That would allow us to get most use out of our session on 13 January.
I also emphasise Elaine Murray's final point, which is really about a proactive relocation policy. It is all very well to rake over the coals of past decisions—there is obviously a requirement for us to do that—but I hope that the committee will be constructive in identifying how we might best go about developing a sensible relocation policy. There should be appropriate balance in the way in which we question Tavish Scott, so that the meeting is not purely an interrogation about the way that things have been done in the past. We have to be more proactive than that. I hope that the report from Elaine Murray and Fergus Ewing and the other information will help us to strike the correct balance between a positive engagement and a review of what has been done. I see members nodding that they agree that that should be the thrust of how we proceed.
I am keen to factor in the proactivity that you were talking about. Everything that you said sounded absolutely rational and logical. In last week's budget statement Gordon Brown specifically mentioned transferring 20,000 civil-service jobs out of London and the south-east. Those jobs might not go to Edinburgh because of its congestion, but more than 8.6 per cent of them should come to Scotland, with a disproportionate number going to the sparsely populated parts of Scotland. We should do anything that we can to elicit more information on that and take a proactive role in galvanising the loins of the enterprise agencies.
We considered the policy in Scotland and Ireland. It might be worth seeking further information on the UK relocation policy.
That would be useful.
On the Irish point, the centrepiece of Charlie McCreevy's most recent budget—in the middle of November—was decentralisation. That is immensely useful in relation to our questioning of Tavish Scott, because it will not be aspirational; we will be able to say, "Here is another small nation close by that has grasped the nettle in the last month." It would be really useful if SPICe, through the reporters, could consider what tangible commitments were made in the November budget in Ireland and the process that the Irish Government will adopt in relation to the same issues that we are considering.
A copy of Charlie McCreevy's speech is available.
Great.
That will be useful.
I stress the pro-rata nature of the situation. Ireland has a population of 3.6 million or 3.7 million and it is transferring 10,000 jobs, which is a lot.
It would be useful to get a forward projection from the Executive of its anticipated relocations. One of the problems is that the Executive seems to be identifying relocations on an opportunistic basis, rather than on a planned basis. We might want to explore that issue. We might want to ask the Executive to produce a plan on how big it thinks its relocations will be.
It might be simpler if the Executive made relocations on a proportional basis: a proportion of people who were willing to go would get relocated and, with natural wastage, over a period of time more and more people would eventually join them. The human impact of dropping the guillotine and moving a whole department is serious.
In Ireland there seems to be a mechanism by which people can stay where they are if they find it difficult to move and other people can volunteer to fill their places, although that is more difficult in agencies with specialist staff. We have to consider whether it is necessary to relocate every single agency, irrespective of the impact on staff and the potential loss of those staff. Should we be considering a match, in the way that the Irish do?
In this day and age we should be able to do something along those lines more easily.
At the moment a trigger point is a change in the lease. A change in the use of technology might also be a trigger. When departments progress to using new technology, people often consider taking early retirement or moving on to avoid the trauma of relocation, which creates an opportunity for younger people to come in. The sparsely populated areas of Scotland are probably exporting more than 80 per cent of their graduates. The chance of going back to one's home territory with a decent job would be attractive to lots of people and it might solve some of the recruitment problems that elements of local government and national Government face.
That does not apply only to sparsely populated areas. I am sure that those of us who represent areas to the west of Glasgow would argue that although those areas are not particularly sparsely populated, they suffer from lack of employment and the export of young upwardly mobile people.
I think that we have formulated how we want to proceed. It looks as though our reporter system is working effectively in getting information. I hope that we can move towards an outcome as quickly as possible, because people want responses to both this issue and the water issue, which are quite sensitive issues. We have grasped the nettle and need to deliver an outcome.