Finance Committee, 24 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Official Report 261KB pdf

---

Public Sector Jobs Relocation Inquiry

I open the sixth meeting in 2004 of the Finance Committee. I welcome members of the press and public and our witnesses. I remind everyone that pagers and mobile phones should be switched off, in case they go off during the proceedings. We have received apologies from Wendy Alexander.

The first agenda item is our first evidence-taking session on our inquiry into the relocation of public sector jobs. At our meeting on 3 February, we agreed to instigate an inquiry to follow on from work that Fergus Ewing and Elaine Murray have undertaken. The remit of our inquiry is to inquire into and make recommendations on the objectives, criteria and weightings of a policy for dispersing public sector jobs, so that we can contribute to the development of the policy. We are also considering the mechanisms for transparency in decision making in relation to the relocation policy.

I welcome Eddie Reilly, who is the Scottish secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union; Anne Douglas, national officer with Prospect; Michael Byers, information and development officer with Unison; and Rozanne Foyer, who is the assistant secretary at the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

It might be appropriate for those of us who are trade union members to make a declaration of interests. I am a member of the GMB and the Educational Institute of Scotland.

I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.

I am a member of the National Union of Journalists.

Members have a written submission from the STUC. I ask Rozanne Foyer to give a brief opening statement, after which we will begin our questioning.

We thank the committee for inviting the STUC and the unions to give evidence. We welcome the terms of the inquiry. The issue is an important one that affects many trade union members. While we support in principle the Scottish Executive's policy for the relocation of public sector jobs, we think that greater transparency is needed in the implementation of the policy in practice. We believe that an objective assessment of economic development requirements throughout Scotland and a more strategic approach to jobs relocation are required. My colleagues from the PCS, Unison and Prospect will be delighted to respond to any questions or to go into any details.

Is the STUC aware of the relocation policy that is being applied in the Republic of Ireland? The key element of that policy, which distinguishes it from the policy that the Executive is pursuing in Scotland, is that it proceeds on the voluntary principle. Under the policy, public sector workers are not compelled to move if it is decided to relocate departments or functions from Dublin to other parts of the Republic. Those who wish to move volunteer and those who do not wish to move are offered other positions within the public sector in Dublin. Does that principle find favour with the STUC?

That is an important starting point. My union will meet representatives of the Irish civil service and public service unions in about a fortnight to talk to them about the implementation of the policy and any difficulties that they have found with it.

Not wishing to go back to what has happened at Scottish Natural Heritage and, indeed, moving on a bit, we as a civil service trade union feel that the principle that only volunteers should be relocated is important and should be enshrined in future relocation policy. The dispersal of jobs from London in the 1970s—many of which came to Scotland—was based on a volunteers-only approach and the premise that other departments would absorb the surplus. However, such an approach does not appear to have been taken with SNH.

As for the ability to absorb surplus staff, we must make a distinction between the civil service and the public sector. For example, in the case of SNH, a few public servants who were previously civil servants could have been absorbed back into the civil service. However, the vast majority of public sector workers would not be able to cross the drawbridge into the civil service because they have not been recruited or appointed under central United Kingdom civil service rules. That important factor is missing from what is happening at the moment.

The implementation of the entire relocation exercise lacks central management. It is almost as if public sector and civil service organisations are operating in silos with regard to the choice of locations and with criteria that do not appear to be consistently applied across the board. If social and economic circumstances are the major determining factors, no one quite knows how such criteria are being applied. Moreover, as I said, the situation is not being managed centrally.

That comment perhaps brings me to another key aspect and principle of Irish relocation policy. That policy has a clear starting point called the national spatial strategy, which seeks to identify the parts of Ireland that have most need of the economic boost that relocation can bring. Indeed, the Irish deliberately seek out the areas that most need such a boost, which seems to be a commonsense approach. I imagine that it is also politically controversial, because Cabinet ministers might be suspected of securing plum departments for their areas. However, that is politics.

As I understand it, a key element of the Irish policy is that, before a decision is taken on which department or function is to be relocated, consultation takes place between the unions and the Government. In other words, the Government does not simply issue a diktat about which department, part of a department or function is to move. Instead, your counterpart bodies in Ireland are fully involved and engaged in the process of reaching a decision about the departments that it is appropriate to consider for relocation. Am I right to say that that is the situation in Ireland? Do you want that to happen in Scotland?

Yes, that is our understanding of what happens in Ireland and we would very much like such an element to be included in any Scottish relocation policy. We are concerned that the current policy appears to be implemented in a piecemeal way. Indeed, the fact that lease breaks form one of the determinants for relocation makes the process almost artificial. We need a far more cohesive approach that not only examines Scotland's needs as far as jobs dispersal within Scotland is concerned but that takes into account the possibility that jobs might transfer to Scotland as a result of the UK review of dispersal policy. If we had a national debate that involved the unions and other stakeholders in Scotland, such as the business community, local government, enterprise agencies and obviously the Scottish Executive, that would give Scotland an opportunity to utilise its resources in the best possible way and to level the playing field in socioeconomic terms.

The final aspect and principle of the Irish model that I wanted to mention is perhaps a consequence of the voluntary principle. Because the Irish seek volunteers, there is no need for compulsory redundancies—or, at least, if there are any redundancies, they take place on a much smaller scale. The human cost of redundancy is often understated; indeed, we perhaps look too readily at the financial costs alone. Do you agree that another advantage of a relocation policy that is based on the principle of volunteers rather than conscripts is that the actual financial and human costs are not as great? After all, that approach avoids a large and perhaps unnecessary amount of compulsory redundancies, which is what, according to the predictions of Eddie Reilly's colleagues, might happen with SNH.

Unison feels that a major flaw in the process has been the limited use of partnership working at the local level between the Executive and all stakeholders, including trade unions. As that obviously impinges on staff, we urge the Executive to get involved in partnership working from the outset of any relocation process.

I would love to think that Ireland is the utopia that we keep hearing it is. I have never been to the place, but I am sure that it is.

I do not want to misquote Tavish Scott, but I recollect that in his evidence to the committee he said that, although Ireland had a voluntary system for relocation, it was often the case that not enough people volunteered to go where the Government wished them to go. As a result, an element of compulsion eventually came into play. Is that your experience of the system? Common sense would suggest that people simply do not want to go to some areas, which means that any voluntary system would fall down.

Your question raises a number of issues. First, ministers must make up their minds about whether they want the people to go with the jobs or whether they want the jobs alone to be relocated, allowing people to be absorbed into other parts of the civil service or other public sector organisations. If we are not managing the exercise centrally, that evaluation cannot take place. We need a central relocation unit within the Scottish Executive civil service to examine and manage the implementation of the relocation policy with transparent criteria and the ability to make assessments. For example, as far as lease breaks are concerned, if the Registers of Scotland, which has about 1,000 employees, decided to relocate, there is no way in which the people who did not wish to relocate could be absorbed into Scottish Executive main. Indeed, about 90 priority ticket holders in that department have been awaiting assignment over the past 12 months.

Decisions on such matters are as important as the decisions on the timescale for a relocation. It might be possible to manage a substantial relocation over a period of time instead of having to deal with a relocation that happens simply as a result of a lease break. For example, it was decided that, due to a lease break, the Scottish Public Pensions Agency should relocate to Galashiels. The fact that public transport links from Edinburgh to that area are not very good immediately affected the number of people who volunteered and, because those who remained were absorbed into Scottish Executive main, a considerable number of jobs could be advertised in the Galashiels area.

However, assessment must be made at the centre—and not just by ministers. Quite honestly, we suspect that the SNH relocation and other matters are more to do with political expediency than with the proper application of criteria for relocation. On a number of occasions we have asked the Minister for Finance and Public Services to evaluate the implementation of relocation policy, only to be told that no one has responsibility for that. That arouses considerable suspicion, whether that suspicion is merited or not. In the minister's most recent letter to the STUC, which followed a meeting that we had with him, the explanation of the criteria was a dog's breakfast: no one could make any sense of it, certainly on our side. Whichever Government is in power should properly review the implementation of the relocation policy, make the criteria transparent, manage the policy centrally and discuss it with all stakeholders, including the unions. There should be more of a top-to-bottom approach, rather than the bottom-up exercise that happens just now. I think that that was the point that Fergus Ewing was making.

As the inquiry's remit—which I outlined at the start of the meeting—suggests, we are trying to be proactive and to consider what the policy should be, rather than focus narrowly on what it is. I think that the STUC welcomed that.

I do not disagree with anything that Eddie Reilly has said. Clearly, much is wrong with the relocation policy as it is currently being implemented. We are told that the process is evolving, but clearly there have been more ups and downs in that evolution process than one would have hoped for.

Do you accept that, if we want to move people away from large cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, the nature of the people who live in and enjoy the benefits of such cities, such as schooling, means that it is unlikely that they will all be happy to move to remote parts of Scotland? I do not want to cast aspersions on any towns, so I will not name any. There will not always be the voluntary element to the relocation that appears to be the case in Ireland, as Fergus Ewing and others have suggested.

That might be the case on certain occasions and within certain departments, agencies or public sector organisations. However, Fergus Ewing was quite correct to make the point that what is important is how the move is managed. It might be that, as was the case with the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, we can relocate some staff, train others and create job opportunities, while still being able to absorb into other parts of the civil service those who do not want to move.

It would be better if that process were managed centrally, using completely transparent criteria and taking decisions about the areas that most need jobs. People who live beyond Inverness will tell you that the north of Scotland does not stop at Inverness; indeed, Inverness has a booming economy compared with some areas that should be considered. If a proper assessment were made, which was opened up to stakeholders, it would be possible to have a discussion and come up with a priority list of venues for relocation. That process could be managed sensibly and only those who volunteered would be relocated.

Do you agree that, although the principle of relocation is a good one, not enough thought has gone into it? Relocation should be voluntary and take place over a much longer time, using natural wastage so that the jobs of people who retire are filled elsewhere. That would cause less disruption to families. The last thing that we want is a repeat of the Highland clearances in Edinburgh, as the city is cleared out in an attempt to repopulate the Highlands, but that seems to be the thinking behind some of the current policies.

As you said, we need a co-ordinating body that would control the whole process and ensure that there were better incentives, because often a person might want to move, but their partner might have a better job in Edinburgh than they could find elsewhere. The principle of relocation is all right, but the implementation is far from perfect and we must consider the policy internally before it goes any further.

That is right. Family-friendly policy is often forgotten about—except perhaps by the Parliament. People's lives are disrupted by relocation, especially given that in many families both partners work. What happens to the kids when they have to change schools and all the rest of it? All those factors have to be weighted and considered.

We must face head on the hard fact that any relocation policy will affect people. If we say that there must be no detriment to anyone as a consequence of a relocation decision, we will never make a relocation decision.

If I understand you correctly, Eddie, you are saying not that there should be no relocation, but that there should be a managed process of relocation that would address the adverse consequences for individuals of relocation decisions. You are saying not that relocation should not go ahead if there is any prospect of a disadvantage to individuals, but that in such situations a set of steps should be in place which could be taken to allow people to find alternative employment or to identify precisely how the prospective disadvantage might be dealt with.

One can be committed to a relocation policy in general and perhaps to achieving certain targets—the transfer of X number of jobs away from Edinburgh, for example. However, how do we decide which jobs should be relocated? From the trade unions' point of view, what processes are appropriate and fair in that context? If I have understood you correctly, I think that you might argue that, in essence, we should target for relocation the jobs whose holders might find alternative employment, because that might be easier. Do you accept that there are other pressures and that other parts of Scotland might want higher-level and more specialist jobs to be transferred? How do we deal with that complexity?

I am sure that my union's members would not want me today, off the top of my head, to draw up a hit list of jobs that could be relocated.

On your first point, we must understand that we do not need to reinvent the wheel. In the 1970s, there was substantial dispersal—as it was then called—of jobs so that, for example, thousands of civil servants in Edinburgh worked for the Inland Revenue and dealt with London and provincial tax districts. Considerable numbers of Ministry of Defence staff were relocated and jobs also went from London to the north-east and the north-west, for example. All that was managed centrally and the need for compulsory redundancies was avoided.

On your broader point about the jobs that might be relocated, another key factor, which tends to militate against the leasehold approach, is that there are areas of the civil service to which there should be greater local public accessibility. A core of policy jobs might well need to remain close to ministers, but other parts of an organisation might be enhanced and public accessibility increased by relocation to other parts of Scotland. We are only five years into the life of the Scottish Parliament, so it is difficult to be specific about the jobs that might be relocated. Often there is no need to relocate whole organisations, but parts can be relocated to increase public accessibility.

We have little difficulty, industrially, with small relocations. A relocation such as the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit's move from Edinburgh to Falkirk does not create difficulties in relation to transport links or the numbers of jobs that are involved. The big problems arise when we consider, for example, where the new transport agency should be based or where the Registers of Scotland should go if it has a lease break.

Part of the problem, which again comes back to the point that Fergus Ewing raised, is that Scottish ministers seem to be considering only the jobs that the Executive is relocating, while taking no account of the number of civil service or public sector jobs that exist in UK departments and agencies. Beyond the jobs for which Scottish ministers are responsible, the Department for Work and Pensions and other such bodies employ people in Inverness and elsewhere in Scotland. That makes us concerned about looking at relocation purely in terms of jobs that are controlled by Scottish ministers. The Lyons review is going on at UK level and I think that it was Andy Kerr—I apologise if it was not him—who said in a recent statement to Parliament that the Executive would shout loud for Scotland. Where does that knit in with the social and economic circumstances, when there are a number of UK civil service jobs in other parts of the country? That does not seem to be taken into account in the equation.

If we are looking to move civil service or public sector jobs—either as whole organisations or as parts of them—it is important that priority should be given to assisting in developing local public access to Government services. However, we must bear in mind one aim that we all share—we want to ensure that there is an effective machinery of government. That important criterion must also be weighed up with the others.

I would like to ask two more questions before I bring in other members. One of the things that—

Other members of the panel want to answer some of your previous questions.

Sure.

You asked what jobs should be dispersed and what jobs should be transferred. Eddie Reilly has identified obvious difficulties. We are not going to give you a hit list, but I think that it is right that all areas of Scotland should benefit from high-skill jobs and professional jobs as well as jobs that are easily filled without training. That is another reason why we think it important that the Scottish Executive take an holistic view over the long term, so that we are not just transferring people who volunteer, but ensuring that there is a feedstock for specialist jobs to be replaced in different parts of Scotland in future.

The first of the other questions that I wanted to ask was about the way in which the present policy operates. With the exception of SNH going to Inverness, most of the other relocations have been to places not that far from Edinburgh—Galashiels, Falkirk and Dundee. However, from a west of Scotland perspective, or from Elaine Murray's south of Scotland perspective, there has not been significant job transfer. If we look at the west of Scotland beyond Glasgow, we see that those areas have the highest levels of unemployment. Is it your view that that is a flaw in the existing system? Would a different system address that issue more effectively?

It seems to me that there is a desperate need in some parts of Scotland for those opportunities for relocation. The current policy, as we view it, seems to overlook relocation to those areas. We would like a mechanism that would enable us to take a closer look at the process and to manage it better, so that those areas are at least considered.

I return to the point that Fergus Ewing made at the outset. If the main thrust of relocation policy is about social and economic factors, as it was in the 1970s, and if those factors are the key criteria—not exclusive, but key—there must be a more top-down rather than bottom-up approach. There needs to be a look across the board at the areas that anyone who is considering relocation should take into account, whether that is because of a lease break or whether it involves small relocations. That would be a critical change of direction. At present, there is a silo approach and organisations look at the situation from the bottom up rather than in consultation with one another, with no one at the centre, apart from ministers, taking a view of the matter. We also find that a fair amount of money is spent on consultants. Then, when the reports come in and choices are made, somewhere that was 20th on the list all of a sudden becomes number 1. That makes it impossible for anyone to have confidence or faith in the system.

As part of our earlier exercise, we got the consultants' reports for three of the relocations. The criteria did not seem to throw up the most disadvantaged areas of Scotland as the places to which those jobs should go. The mix of criteria appeared to throw up Stirling and Dunfermline as the only two places in Scotland that met the specific criteria that were being used, although that may just be a matter of the fine-tuning needing to be sorted out. It was interesting not only that those were the two places that were being picked, but that the same approach was being adopted across a number of different relocations.

We cannot have a system that always throws up the same answer, whatever that answer might be. There must be a mechanism that allows us to match job availability with the locations that organisations want to go to, so that there is a framework within which those jobs will be particularly valuable in the areas that they are heading for. I presume that that is an issue that you would take on board from a wider trade union perspective.

Absolutely.

That is what we are looking for. The social and economic criteria should be applied at a Scotland-wide level. Sustainable transport, the availability of accommodation and the business effectiveness of the relocation should follow on from that, but the first decision, which should be made on a national basis, must be based on social and economic factors relating to which areas need jobs. Then and only then should we look at what jobs could possibly be transferred to level out the playing field and make things more equal.

One of the things that struck us when we looked at the analysis of some of the relocation proposals was that decisions were dependent on how the consultants interpreted the criteria. In some cases, their analysis seemed, to those of us who live and work in certain areas and know them better than Edinburgh-based consultants do, to be dubious.

I was struck by your evidence about how the policy seems to have evolved over a period of time and how it has been identified only through ministers' responses to questions. I think that that is true, and that really is a criticism that could be levelled against the Executive. There has not been any public debate about the relocation policy, even within the Parliament, never mind with anybody else. We are beginning to address that now by holding this inquiry.

One of the things that has evolved is the policy of small units relocation, which the Executive is quite enthusiastic about. I presume that there has not been any specific consultation with the unions on that policy, but I wonder whether the unions would find that a better way of going about things. Would that address some of your concerns about the voluntary nature of relocation? If departments identify small units that could go to more remote communities, should that be more of a driver than large-scale relocations such as SNH upping sticks and going up to Inverness?

The fact that there are no industrial problems with the small relocations does not make the rest of it all right. The same problems will still arise. For example, if the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit is moving from Edinburgh to Falkirk, that obviously throws up no industrial problems. It is easy for people to stay where they are and to travel, so the move is not a difficulty. However, that does not mean that the decision on Falkirk was right.

If social and economic reasons are meant to be the main driver, other parts of the decision about a small relocation could be just as wrong as they have been in some bigger relocations. No matter what relocation policy is being applied, the criteria for that policy must be applied transparently, regardless of whether the relocation is small or large. That is the important point.

It would be easy for us to say that we totally support small relocations as the way forward. Small relocations should be part of the policy. However, just because a small relocation would not have the industrial consequences that come with decisions such as the one to relocate SNH, that does not necessarily make the rest of the decision right. The approach that we propose is that relocation policy should be reviewed and changed so that it is managed centrally. The approach ought to be applied consistently both to small and large relocations.

My question was more about what the emphasis of the policy should be. None of us is content with the transparency of the way in which the criteria were identified or with the way in they have been applied since.

If we are to make recommendations to the Executive on how the relocation policy should be shaped, should we recommend a change of emphasis from large-scale relocations to smaller-scale relocations? What do the other unions feel about that? Would an emphasis on small-scale relocations be an easier way of dealing with some of the consequences for workers? Would that give more flexibility? Should the Executive go down that road rather than go for the big headline-grabbing relocations? We should bear it in mind that small-scale relocations could go to smaller and more remote communities, which might be more appropriate.

If the Executive could engage with trade unions and involve them in smaller relocations, that could act as a springboard for establishing more effective partnership working in the larger relocation processes. It is all about engaging. In Unison's opinion, the Executive is failing to engage with all stakeholders, especially trade unions, during the current relocation processes.

Has there been little consultation with the trade unions in any of the relocations so far?

Our experience of the relocation of the Common Services Agency was that there was plenty of consultation on the part of the national health service employers, but, in effect, no consultation on the part of the Executive.

On whether small relocations are the way forward, I agree with the PCS that the issue is not whether there should be a mixture of large-scale and small-scale relocations. The problem would not be resolved by having only small-scale relocations. The problem is that the policy itself is not right—it is not transparent, it does not take a long-term view, and it does not look widely enough. It is like trying to put together a jigsaw without knowing what picture you are trying to make. If we can see the picture, we can take steps to fill it in to benefit the whole of the country.

Eddie Reilly is right to say that small-scale relocations would avoid some of the industrial problems, but that is not to say that they would bring the benefits to the whole of Scotland that the relocation policy is supposed to bring.

So small-scale relocations should still take place within an overall policy framework.

Absolutely.

Eddie Reilly mentioned that the Executive should have a role in the UK relocation policy. I endorse that. Did he read the oral evidence that the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services gave to the committee? The minister outlined not only how the Executive intends to link in with the review at Westminster, but how Scottish Development International has been given a role in lobbying for the location of European Union civil service jobs in Scotland. Perhaps there is potential for Mr Reilly's colleagues at Westminster to link in with his Scottish colleagues so that there is an overall Scottish approach. I think that the Parliament would welcome that. Did Mr Reilly read that evidence?

I am sorry, but I have not seen it.

The convener raised an important issue that comes down to whether the relocation policy should take a top-down or bottom-up approach. I have no direct interest in the matter, but I have a constituency interest. I represent and live in Galashiels, so I see the Scottish Public Pensions Agency regularly. It is perhaps worth asking whether, given the poor transport links that have been mentioned, that relocation would ever have happened if people had been asked whether they wanted to move to Galashiels. Is it fair to say that, if relocations were purely voluntary, there would be no relocations because nobody would want to face such upheaval either in their organisation or in their personal lives?

That question is perhaps more for the STUC and for Eddie Reilly.

I do not think that that is true. As far as our union was concerned, the SPPA relocation involved full consultation. We were afforded every opportunity to hold meetings with our members to discuss the issue with them. We had no real problems at all. We negotiated allowances for people. Training was provided for staff in Galashiels and some staff went to Galashiels for a short period while other staff were being recruited. Of course, not all staff moved to Galashiels but a considerable number did.

On a micro level, the SPPA is a good example of a relocation, because there was good will, co-operation and partnership among the employer, the ministers and the unions. We supported the relocation. I stress that our experience was that the relocation of the SPPA was a success. At that time, staff who wanted to remain in Edinburgh were able to be absorbed, although it would be a different matter if the relocation were to take place today.

We asked the minister at the time why the Executive's approach made relocations dependent on lease breaks. With the pensions industry being in Edinburgh, it might have made more sense to keep the SPPA where it was and to move part of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department to Galashiels. Galashiels might have ended up with the same number of jobs at the end of the day. However, because SEERAD was not asked to examine relocation options because it did not have a lease break, the SPPA jobs had to go to Galashiels. I do not say that that will prove to be the wrong decision, but I think that it makes no sense to look at relocation in that way.

In response to the question, the SPPA relocation was a success because staff who did not want to relocate could be absorbed, staff who wanted to relocate could volunteer and new staff could be recruited in the area. That meant that good quality work could be moved to Galashiels.

You commented on the need for more central direction, such as a unit in the Executive that could steer through the policy. I am interested in the role of such a unit.

As an outsider, I agree with you entirely that the SPPA relocation was a success because there was a close relationship between your members and the agency and because of the way in which the agency approached the issue. Your written evidence mentions a need for transparency, which comes up in all the suggestions.

You highlighted the need for the involvement of all three players: staff, the employer and ministers, with whom the ultimate decisions lie. Given that any successful relocation probably involves a greater role for staff and the employer, with ministers just ensuring that guidelines are complied with and so on, I am a bit concerned about the proposal that there should be a central unit that would almost have powers of direction.

I am especially concerned about the suggestion that a relocation decision might involve two relocations, whereby one agency might be required to move outside Edinburgh so that another agency could move within Edinburgh to the building that the first had vacated. That would involve a considerable amount of shuffling. I would be concerned about giving more powers to the centre. I would rather that we allowed for a bottom-up approach, which your written evidence says might be justified.

The problem with that suggestion is that six civil service agencies and three public sector bodies might all be on lease break at the one time. They would all have to consider where to go and all of them would hire consultants. They could all end up in the one location. What would be the point in that?

They might all end up in Stirling or Dunfermline.

The issue is not whether those organisations have the right to take views on where it would be best for them to go. There needs to be central management of the implementation of relocation policy and of the application of the criteria. Unless we take a top-down approach that takes into account which areas in Scotland are most in need, each organisation will act within its own silo. Relocation reviews will be conducted and concluded without even the Scottish Executive civil servants at the centre knowing whether the relocations will lead to compulsory redundancies or transfers, or require absorption of civil servants into Scottish Executive main.

But not all agencies are the same. Relocating the sea fisheries division of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department is different from relocating the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, which is different from relocating the children's commissioner or the information commissioner. Your evidence shows that there are huge differences.

Even just stating, "You will operate against agreed guidelines, and there are preferred areas in Scotland," would set a remarkable precedent; if any unit under any minister were to lay down a list of areas of need, there would be 129 MSPs taking one view or another on it. I would argue that jobs should be relocated to the Borders, and I am sure that Elaine Murray and others would argue that jobs should be relocated to their areas. How would you protect particular agencies, given that your evidence states that one of the important issues is operational effectiveness?

My understanding of a central agency is not that it would be directive, but that it would be guiding and shaping.

On the bigger picture, we all need to recognise that relocation is difficult. There is a lot to be learned from successful and less successful relocations in the past. Experience and expertise can be built up, but that does not mean not working in partnership with all the public sector agencies or departments concerned. A piecemeal approach should not be taken. A strategic overview that has the benefit of past experience must be taken.

Nobody is saying that every time there is a relocation we will manage to move every member of staff on a voluntary basis. We are not saying that there is a utopia that we want to reach, because we need to recognise that that utopia cannot be reached. However, if we decided to go down the relocation road, budgets and so on would have to take account of the hard issues to ensure that staff were properly supported if they decided to move, or that they were moved elsewhere if possible or, if that was not possible, that they were properly recompensed for the human cost of compulsory redundancy.

There needs to be a strategic overview, and we need to be able to talk in detail about how a relocation policy is developed. Once the policy is developed, it has to be open to scrutiny. Every relocation should be judged against a fair and open policy.

The weightings that consultants use and which ministers have cited have been supplied to the committee and are in the public domain. Like Elaine Murray, I query some of the conclusions of the consultants and some of the decisions of ministers. Nevertheless, criteria and weightings have been published, which should take into consideration some of the comments of Anne Douglas and members, who wish relocation to stimulate local economies. Do you have a problem with the weightings? Have you seen them?

No.

I think that we have, if you mean those on sustainable transport, accommodation availability and business effectiveness. One of the issues is that consultants weight those three areas to suit what their reports will say at the end of the day.

Consultants would never do that, surely.

We are looking for agreed principles that will apply irrespective of the agency or department that is being considered for relocation. That is where the top-down approach that we want to see would come in, so that there would be fairness and equal consideration of the options.

That is where the weightings come in, so that the criteria are set. We all have problems with the consultants' conclusions, but the weightings are designed to act against the problems by effectively equalising areas of social deprivation and economic development. If the weightings are not working practically that is fine, but we would appreciate it if you would consider the issue and respond in detail. Our clerks can point you to the information that we have been given.

I will cut back this discussion, because we are getting into the same dialogue. There is a sense that the criteria are very general, and that the scoring system is susceptible to being interpreted by different consultants in slightly different ways—although, surprisingly, they all end up with similar conclusions on locations. The criteria and scoring system need to be more sophisticated, so that they do not disbar areas of Scotland—as the present system seems to do—that lie outwith the central belt. We could examine that. We would welcome any contribution that the STUC wished to make on how criteria could be set out and how scoring should be undertaken in the broader sense to achieve a more objective system, rather than the ad hoc lease system that we have at present.

I apologise to the witnesses for being late. I was caught up in traffic, which may be an argument for relocating the Scottish Parliament somewhere north of the Forth road bridge, possibly in Dundee. That would be a good idea.

Although a new agency has located to Dundee, we have had no relocations of Scottish Executive civil service jobs. However, the UK Government has relocated a significant number of jobs to Dundee in recent years.

All the witnesses accept that the relocation of jobs for social and economic reasons is good in principle, in terms of spreading the benefit of having a Scottish Parliament throughout Scotland. Anne Douglas and Eddie Reilly mentioned the absorption of jobs. Will that become more difficult the more relocations that take place? A core of people will not want to relocate out of Edinburgh or Glasgow. In previous relocations, they may have been absorbed into the remaining work force in those areas but, eventually, there will be an element of compulsion in relocation. How do you see that progressing? Do you have any solutions?

We favour relocation in principle and in practice, if it is properly managed, but we are not about creating employment in one part of Scotland at the expense of creating unemployment elsewhere. For example, Scottish Executive main over the past year has absorbed more than 100 jobs from the rundown of the UK Department for Work and Pensions. That department has announced that by 2006 a further 18,000 jobs will go on a UK basis.

The Cabinet secretary is making statements today in London about reform of the civil service. The Gershon report referred to the hard figure of 80,000 jobs that will go in the UK civil service. I understand that the permanent secretary of the Scottish Executive is speaking to the unions this morning about how that figure will impact here. Taken with the 10 per cent cutback in jobs, if those things come to pass, over the next few years they will create an impossible situation in terms of Scottish Executive main absorbing people who are unwilling to relocate.

The management of the relocation policy might have to take that into account. Perhaps things cannot move as fast as people would like them to move. The loss of the jobs might impact hard on certain parts of Scotland, which might change the overall picture that Scottish Executive ministers are looking at. The timescale of how relocation is achieved in those circumstances would have to be considered as a factor. Parts of an organisation could be moved, if that is the sensible way forward, rather than moving the whole organisation and facing people with compulsory redundancies or compulsory transfers.

Is it not usually the case that if parts of an organisation are kept at the centre and parts are moved to the peripheries, the highest-quality jobs remain at the centre and the lower-paid jobs are moved out, so that the application of the policy has a disproportionately detrimental effect on lower-paid workers in the civil service and protects higher-paid workers?

That was certainly the case with the CSA's relocation to the Gyle. Many of our members who made the move are lower-paid clerical staff. Although the move from Edinburgh to the Gyle is only short, many work-life balance issues and extra child care expenses are involved, which are other human factors that the Executive is not factoring into the relocation process.

I am struck by how our views converge on the overall criteria in the strategy—the holistic approach, transparency, the top-down exercise and the emphasis on volunteering. I see trade unions, local government and the enterprise agencies playing a strong role and I see the Scottish Executive becoming the co-ordinating body, but who else should play a role, to bring clarity and instil momentum?

We would not suggest bodies other than those that you have listed. Obviously, employers and the different departments would have a role to play and local authorities would have a key role to play alongside enterprise agencies. In every case there are a range of stakeholders that we would want to include. Our key message is: please do not forget the unions, because they have been left off the list far too often.

I want to focus on the unions for a moment. What on-going co-operation is there among trade unions in the constituent nations and regions of the United Kingdom to promote actively job relocation out of London?

Nationally, the PCSU and its predecessor unions have always supported relocation and the dispersal of jobs, as long as they can be done in a managed way. There are problems with the relocation of jobs out of London that perhaps do not apply to the relocation of jobs in Scotland. The high concentration of ethnic minority staff, especially, although not exclusively, in London, and the need to maintain local access to job centres and benefits offices are major issues. In Scotland, we see public accessibility as a key factor. Rates of pay and issues about ethnic minority staff are a big concern for our members in London, but that does not apply to the same extent here.

That is an interesting response. Just before Christmas, it was announced that 10,300 jobs were to be relocated out of Dublin. That is equivalent to about 215,000 jobs being relocated out of London, which is a huge number. Do you plan to carry out an investigation into the Irish national spatial strategy?

I hope to go with a delegation to Dublin in two or three weeks to meet the Irish civil service and public service unions. I will be happy to share our report with the committee once we have written it up. One of the things that I want to establish is that we are comparing like with like. I do not know the extent of centralisation in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland. It appears that the Irish Government and senior civil servants have taken the view that if someone sells their house in Dublin, that will be sufficient to carry them for the rest of their life when they move to Cavan or Kilkenny and so, as I understand it, there are no relocation packages. That is not how we have dealt with relocation here. I would like to wait and see the outcome of our report to ensure that we are comparing like with like when we compare London, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow and the rest of Scotland.

I am anxious to end this evidence-taking session, but I will allow two brief questions from Fergus Ewing and Ted Brocklebank.

I turn to mobility clauses, which are directly relevant to any relocation policy. My understanding is that, within the civil service, there is a mobility clause that requires civil servants, such as procurators fiscal or those working in the Scottish Prison Service, to move where they are told, as part of the service that they are expected to provide in the career that they pursue. My understanding is that, broadly speaking, in non-departmental public bodies such as SNH, the terms and conditions of employment are different. In SNH only the employees who were inherited from the Countryside Commission for Scotland have mobility clauses in their contracts. I understand from a letter from SNH that I received last week that the Executive has agreed that the employees of SNH with mobility clauses will receive a relocation package should they decline to move to Inverness. That has been agreed, but I do not know whether it has been made public yet. I wanted to raise the general issue and hear your comments about what you would regard as the ideal system and whether you think that the current system is somewhat anomalous in that some public sector workers are more equal than others, depending on the history of their contractual conditions and entitlements.

The circumstances depend not only on the person's employment history but on their grade. We have significant reservations about mobility clauses. My understanding is that despite their being in civil service contracts, the civil service has reservations about them, because of the potential for discrimination in the event that they are invoked. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the letter from SNH came out last week or the week before. That comes back to the question of relocating being voluntary. We are keen to see relocation progress on a voluntary basis, irrespective of whether people have mobility clauses in their contract.

The staff whom you are talking about in NDPBs are likely to be those who were civil servants prior to 1992. Whatever number there are in SNH, they would have a right of return to the civil service whereas others would not. On the mobility obligation generally, Anne Douglas is absolutely right that the employer—whoever that is for civil servants nowadays—has never sought to enforce it, because we have said that we will challenge it in law for the reasons that she gave. The obligation applied to what used to be called executive officers and those above them.

I certainly do not want to contest Jim Mather's view that there has been a convergence of views this morning, but if one wanted to be mischievous—especially in the light of what Eddie Reilly said about the possibility of a large number of civil service and other jobs being lost in the coming years—one could say that the central management group that is being advocated might well be a way simply to have more civil service jobs based somewhere such as Edinburgh to replace the consultants who, as we have all said, came up with a number of ideas that were promptly dismissed by ministers.

I think that your report dealt with the fact that, even if the central management group were responsible for overseeing relocations and giving a considered opinion on why they should happen and so on, ministers would still be ultimately responsible. Do you agree that your suggestion might simply replace a group of private sector consultants with a group of trade union organisers? Can you see why it strikes me that the idea might simply be to replace some of the jobs that are being lost?

I cannot see that at all. We are not arguing for more jobs; we are saying that there should be civil servants who are accountable to ministers and who, in whatever number—it does not matter whether it is two, three or four people—can deal not with the decisions on the relocations, but with guiding, implementing and ensuring the consistency of the relocation policy, as the convener outlined earlier.

I would imagine that, if what is predicted about the loss of civil service jobs is the case, the unions will react to that in ways that have nothing to do with relocation.

An interesting study that will probably never be done would be into relocations that did not happen and why they did not happen. Perhaps some of the location decisions that have been made in the past two or three years related to agencies that had been set up in Edinburgh or in places that would not meet the criteria without a process taking place. Perhaps we need to focus attention on why some departments seem rather neatly to evade relocation.

I thank the witnesses for attending. The process is continuing and our further work on the matter will involve visits to some of the places where relocations have taken place. We will work towards producing a report at the end of the exercise. If the STUC or the individual unions want to pass further information to us, we would be happy to receive that, as long as we do so within the timescale that we have set for finishing the process.

It might be worth saying on the record that, as we agreed at our meeting on 3 February, we will be establishing an online questionnaire to get the views of public sector staff on relocations. The questionnaire will be online for the whole of March and we hope to make available an analysis of the responses by the end of the Easter recess. That will give everybody an opportunity to say their piece on the issue. I think that it is quite a good thing for the Parliament to be doing in terms of its mission to be open and accessible.