Agenda item 2 is a continuation of our post-inquiry scrutiny of the Executive's policy of relocating public sector jobs. As members will recall, we agreed with the Executive that we would be given six-monthly reports on progress. Today, we will discuss the second of those reports. I am pleased to welcome to our meeting Tavish Scott, who is currently the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. With him are David Robb, who is head of the Scottish Executive's public bodies and relocation division, and Morris Fraser, who is also from that division. As indicated on the questions paper, a written answer on the policy was published this morning—hard copies have been given to members. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement. After that, I will invite questions from members.
Thank you for your kind words at the outset, convener. It has been a great pleasure to work with the committee wearing the relocation hat and, indeed, wearing a number of other finance-related hats. I hope that the committee will be as fair and as courteous to others who sit in this chair as it has been to me during the past couple of years.
Thanks very much. I have two things to say before we move on to questions. Today we hope to finalise our response to the Public Administration Select Committee's inquiry on the civil service. We welcome your positive remarks about flexibility of transfer between non-departmental public bodies and the civil service, which are likely to be incorporated into our response.
I will get Morris Fraser to give you the detail on the numbers.
Around 255 special health board posts that are based in Edinburgh will go to Glasgow by the middle of 2007. Given that about 600 staff in those boards are already in Glasgow, the co-location will be a chance to move some of them around to ensure that the organisations are as efficient as possible.
That would be helpful.
Congratulations on your elevation, minister. As someone who was a reporter for the committee's initial inquiry on relocation, I find the production of the new relocation guide satisfying. The way in which the committee and the Executive have worked together to make progress on relocation is not always the sort of thing that hits the headlines, but it is part of the good work that is done in the Parliament. I am grateful to you and your team for the way in which you have worked with us to make some of the necessary changes.
I will allow my colleagues to answer that, but my assumption is that the answer is yes. Thank you for your remarks.
We would have to check with the Cabinet Office. I cannot imagine that staff in that position would not be able to continue their service.
You also say:
At the moment, that is just an assumption. By August, the Cabinet Office will have the beginnings of an on-going list of relevant NDPBs. At that point, it will become clear to what extent transferability works both ways.
I will explain further. At the moment, there is a gateway system for civil servants who move between Government departments. Under the Cabinet Office proposals, NDPBs will be invited to join the gateway mechanism and vacancies and opportunities will be advertised. Given that the scheme will be rolled out throughout the United Kingdom, we have to be careful that we are correct about some of the details, because we are not human resources experts. The gateway is being broadened so that it includes not just central Government departments, but NDPBs that meet the tests of the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners on fair and open recruitment processes. Individual opportunities will be matched with the skills of applicants, regardless of whether they come from another Government department or an approved NDPB.
I assume that, if staff are unsuccessful in applying for jobs, they will go through the normal redundancy mechanism. Are there any specific arrangements to deal with such cases?
If a body was relocating and individuals were unable to find suitable alternative employment, even with the broader opportunity through the gateway process, the redundancy rules would come into effect.
I congratulate the minister on his elevation to his new post.
As we have discussed before, convener, and as Mr Brocklebank knows, I have never played down how tough some decisions are for individuals who have families, mortgages and all the arrangements to make that you and I have to make in relation to our families. I have always accepted that. It is not a case of being on the back foot; it is about accepting the reality of the implementation of the relocation policy. In a perfect world, everyone would move with the body, as it is important from the point of view of operational effectiveness to retain core skills and people who know the nature of the organisation. Relocation is not without its challenges, but there can be no doubt that the bodies that have relocated have provided benefits to the wider community through the transfer of posts. We can now clearly demonstrate that; studies have been done, with which the committee is familiar, on the benefits that the relocations have brought. I hope that many members of staff will decide to remain with the organisations that are involved in the most recent announcements. All that we can do is monitor the situation and keep a close eye on it.
We would all agree that there are benefits to relocation. However, were you disappointed to discover that the cost of moving SNH to Inverness from Edinburgh is now approaching £30 million?
A decision was made in relation to that body and a costing exercise was carried out at the start of the process, which is in the public domain. As the deputy minister with responsibility for finance, I can say that it is in the Administration's interests, being responsible for public money, for such costs to be minimised. We can observe the amount of money that has been involved in that exercise, but I still think that the decision that was made was correct. It was right to move Scottish Natural Heritage to Inverness, as there will be wider benefits for that organisation over the period of time that we always said would have to be considered in any assessment.
You just mentioned evaluation and monitoring. In the evaluation that you say that you will carry out, will you provide the committee with information on how many existing staff move to the new locations in each of the transfers and on whether short-term support measures need to be introduced to maintain continuity when staff are not able to transfer to the new locations for whatever reason?
That information is presented as part of the regular feedback to the committee. Indeed, it is in the public domain, as we have put that information out generally as part of the on-going six-monthly exercise. Mr Ballard will also be aware that there are mechanisms such as PQs that ensure that such things are observed. He should not worry about that information not being available to the committee.
I add my congratulations to the minister and I look forward to questioning him on the transport budget in due course.
That is a fair question. I would not suggest that delays do not occur and I know that they are difficult for staff to deal with because of the uncertainty that Mr Arbuckle mentions. However, we do our best. The committee will recall, from its own investigation, that, in response to our joint work in the area, we have set up the central unit to monitor the process and ensure that it is driven forward. David Robb, Morris Fraser and the other officials in my team spend quite a lot of their time in seeking to minimise delays, for the reasons that Mr Arbuckle has mentioned. In fairness to them, it will take a little time for the unit to bed down, as it was put in place only relatively recently in the context of government. I hope that the fact that the central team has that responsibility will help the process. Ultimately, however, decisions are made by ministers and it takes them perhaps a little longer than we would all like to make those decisions.
I join my colleagues in congratulating the minister on his elevation. I welcome the fact that he will be able to maintain his interest in relocation by pressing ahead with a route action plan for the A82 at an early juncture.
I am not quite sure what Mr Mather means by the strategy document.
The document that you have circulated to committee members states:
I apologise. I should have understood Mr Mather's point.
It would therefore be fair to say that the current triggers are not strategic and that a better way is available.
No—I do not concede that the current triggers are not strategic. I have argued for two years in this job and before this committee that we take a Scotland-wide view of relocation. Relocation ministers meet regularly to do that. All I am saying—and all I have argued—is that we can drive forward improvement, not least in response to the committee's recommendations. My mind is never closed to ways in which we can sharpen up the process and make it more effective.
Having seen the document, we concede that it is strategic on one hemisphere, in that it tries to address need, but it is not so strategic in terms of triggering relocations in the first instance.
Mr Mather is familiar with the mechanisms such as lease breaks that we use in respect of new bodies. That is the agreed position that the Administration has adopted at this time. However, those matters are under review and we will keep in close touch with the committee as to how that develops.
I detect that you are not going to be in a position to tell us exactly what will drive the new strategy. However, will it include prioritising areas that suffer from particularly low levels of economic activity? To what extent will the strategy draw on aspects of the Irish national spatial strategy?
Mr Mather will know that employment statistics and other economic data feed strongly into statistical analyses and how reviews are carried out, and that they contribute to the decision-making process. Economic data are built in as a core element of analysis. That will continue to be the case, as is absolutely right. We set out the relocation policy as we wish to do it. As I said to Elaine Murray and Fergus Ewing when they reported on the Irish strategy, we are happy to examine other examples. However, ours is a Scottish policy for Scottish needs.
Finally, can you give us more information on a strategic approach to trigger mechanisms? Will the future strategy include concrete targets?
I cannot give that information today, but we will keep in close touch with the committee. Part of what will be done will be consideration of whether specific targets are appropriate. I hope that Mr Mather accepts that, by definition, the way we currently conduct relocation exercises does not relate to targets, simply because of the trigger points that are used. That is the kind of issue that we are considering.
There are targets in other jurisdictions, such as Westminster and other countries.
Yes, but our record is not bad. I look around and see what other areas are doing, and I think that our record is pretty reasonable.
Jim Mather skirted around the issue of the timescale. When do you expect to publish information about the strategic approach to trigger mechanisms?
We were at quite an advanced stage in developing an approach when another couple of policies that the Executive is running with came into bloom. We are now making the link between them at the development stage. Later this year, we will be able to point out the right direction.
The truth of it is—[Laughter.] Sorry, the straight answer is that, as the committee has observed, the efficient government initiative has inevitably fed in to relocation. Unsurprisingly, my colleagues who are keeping a close eye on the efficient government agenda and its importance across all portfolios have asked us to be well aware of what may happen in relation to individual portfolio decisions on relocations. That is one of the factors to which Morris Fraser alluded.
I think it was Chairman Mao who described his policy position as letting 100 flowers bloom. I hope that we do not have the same outcome as China in the 1950s.
Communities Scotland is not an NDPB. That is, dare I say it, the direct answer.
So best practice does not apply to agencies.
Guidance exists. I understand that there were particular circumstances in relation to Communities Scotland that required that a quick decision be taken. In the context of the overall relocation policy, I would have preferred the best-practice mechanisms to be followed. I appreciate that because of the speed with which the decision had to be taken—there was a particular opportunity in relation to Communities Scotland at the time—ministers correctly chose to move quickly forward. I understand that staff have been fully involved in the on-going work. That is why that particular set of circumstances came about.
Can you tell us any more about the particular set of circumstances that led to that quick decision having to be taken?
I cannot today, but I am happy to provide what information we can in written evidence, in conjunction with the Minister for Communities.
Were you, as the minister for relocation, involved in that decision-making process, or did the departmental minister make the decision?
The departmental minister made the decision, but relocation ministers were advised about it. That is the process that is followed with all departmental portfolio decisions. Wider interests are observed at official level and there is considerable contact between the relevant departments and my relocation team.
Are you satisfied that your ministerial colleagues are all fully aware of the procedural requirements for taking decisions under the relocation strategy?
Yes. There is no doubt about our intentions and determination to drive forward the relocation policy. All ministers are aware of that, as is the management group. One example is the small units initiative, to which I have paid a lot of attention. We have constantly and consistently asked at ministerial and management group levels that a close eye be kept on opportunities that could arise and be followed up for small units. There is a clear understanding across all offices of what we are seeking to achieve.
My concern is that the committee has taken a particular interest in the staff consultation issues that are associated with relocation. The Executive has published best practice guidance, and in your first answer on Communities Scotland you said that it is not an NDPB, but an agency. I presume, however, that equal treatment applies to agency and NDPB staff. I would be concerned if best practice was published but ministers were finding circumstances—that you cannot tell us about in detail today—that could be used to override the application of best practice.
One should not generalise. We are talking about one specific set of circumstances and one body. I am absolutely not talking about general practice across the office. If that was general practice throughout the Executive, I would be very concerned. However, I know that that is not the case, and I would not like the committee to be under any impression that the circumstances that arose in relation to Communities Scotland are general and arise day in and day out across relocations. They do not; if they did, that would be a big problem that we would—I assure you—do something about.
I would certainly welcome more information about the Communities Scotland decision. I welcome your assurance that you consider it important to adhere to the best practice that you yourself have identified and have, I presume, discussed with the relevant trade unions.
In your opening statement, you referred to the difficulties in persuading the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland to move to Falkirk, and you were fairly bullish in saying that that delay would not derail you from the policy. What steps will the Executive take to resolve that problem, given that the relocation was originally approved on the basis that it would provide efficiencies?
As I said in my opening remarks, we are currently considering a legislative mechanism to ensure that ministers have the appropriate powers, so that such a circumstance cannot arise in the future. That process will rightly be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that the committee will take a close interest in that.
At the end of the day, are we talking about legislation? Are we talking about the direction in which bodies go?
We may well end up with legislation. We are considering legislative routes and we shall bring our thoughts back to Parliament and to the committee as quickly as we can, but it is important to recognise that such legislation would apply to the entire public sector and to the responsibility that we have for bodies through the Scottish Executive. We are certainly examining legislative routes.
I presume, however, that it is important that all the bodies that you propose to relocate are made fully aware of the legal position, and that that happens with public bodies all over Scotland, so that they can fully understand what is intended at an early stage.
I fundamentally agree—that is exactly the exercise that is going on at the moment. The fullest assessment is being made of those considerations in relation to all the bodies for which we are responsible. I hope that we will be able to present our advice on the proposed legislative route as quickly as possible.
I highlight that the committee has been concerned about the locational decisions in respect of a number of bodies when they were set up. They are not necessarily bodies that are under the control of the Executive; they include bodies that were set up by Parliament and which have some independence. The Scottish Information Commissioner is one, and one could argue that Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People is another. In the context of discussing legislative approaches to such matters, I encourage the Executive to consider not only bodies that are under its control, but also some of the legislation that has been approved for setting up those commissioner bodies, to ensure that there is accountability for financially linked decisions such as location decisions, and that there is a proper mechanism for accountability. That is an issue that the Executive and the committee might want to discuss further in examining any proposals that might be made on the matter.
I absolutely accept that point. It is obviously not for me to direct bodies that do not come under the Executive's auspices; I think that Parliament would take a dim view if I did. However, I accept the central point that the convener makes. I can only commend our relocation guidance to Parliament for its reviews and decisions on bodies such as those which the convener described. I accept the point, particularly in relation to financial aspects.
The proprieties are such that it is not your job to deal with the issue, but there needs to be a dialogue so that Parliament can move forward in a way that is consistent with what the Executive is doing.
I agree.
I have another question about the link between relocation and efficiency. As Morris Fraser said in response to an earlier question, one of the thrusts of efficiency is to share back-office staff and to consider putting in place common human-resources approaches. To what extent is that drive feeding into the relocation policy? Can you give us any more information on that?
That drive is feeding into relocation policy. I do not know whether we can say more about today's announcement on health bodies, but that was certainly one of the issues in assessment of those bodies and in arguments for their co-location, because of the advantages in sharing services. We might be able to expand on that, but such sharing was certainly a driver. I hope that that example can be used in relation to relocation policy generally. Morris Fraser may be able to add some detail.
I can add some detail, but perhaps not on the health bodies, because that announcement has just been made and we really do not know what the shape of the services will be. The Health Department will now chat with the boards, and the boards will come together to decide on that.
I would also like to ask about timescales for the shortlisting and identification process. When we came to the meeting, there were six or seven organisations under consideration. We have had an announcement today that takes three of them off the agenda, so we now have about four, including major ones such as the new transport agency, the Registers of Scotland and the Scottish funding councils for further and higher education. Is not it possible to give us more advance information on those bodies? I also notice that you have approved a shortlist, so we are not getting information before a shortlist is approved. Is it possible to get information earlier in the process?
We could consider that and discuss how best to help the committee with information. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the benefit of the six-month review, which we have agreed to and which the committee originally asked for, is that it provides such an update. That is the kind of process that I envisaged when the committee made the suggestion, which I thought was good. In the past, we answered one parliamentary question a year, but now, in response to your suggestion, we make a formal report to the committee twice a year. We can examine the matter, but I would like to take a little time to see how things bed down, not least because there is always an issue about the balance between getting the update right by ensuring that information is accurately provided to the committee and to Parliament, and the on-going process that drives us forward day in, day out.
I have two questions. The first concerns the list of preferred locations that you have arrived at so far with local authorities, which I have now seen on the website. Is that list of locations simply for larger moves, or does it include locations that are suitable for the small units review? Is it the intention that the list will, in the fullness of time, include locations for smaller units?
I understand that the list includes both types of location. As far as I am aware, the list is fairly comprehensive and provides small-unit opportunities as well as opportunities for larger bodies.
Secondly, you make the fair point that about 55 per cent of existing Executive or Administration jobs are outwith Edinburgh, although it is clear that many of those jobs are not at the higher levels. Will you give us a flavour of what the larger elements within that figure of 55 per cent are? I suspect that the figure will surprise many people.
I am not sure that I can do so off the top of my head, but we will provide written information on that matter, if that is acceptable.
If the figure is 55 per cent, a fair number of folk who work for the Executive must be spread throughout the country; it would be nice to know who they are. How many people in the health boards are included, for example?
May we provide information on that to the committee in a proper written answer?
The figure does not include anyone in the health department.
In that case, the figure is even more interesting.
The local agricultural offices, for example, come to mind.
That is the obvious example.
As there are no more questions, I thank the minister on behalf of the committee for coming to the meeting and wish him luck with his promotion, which must be approved before he is elevated.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Interests