Relocation of Public Sector Jobs
Our next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1672, in the name of Des McNulty, on behalf of the Finance Committee, on the relocation of public sector jobs. Will those members who wish to contribute to the debate please press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Des McNulty to speak to and move the motion.
I am pleased to open the first committee debate in this new debating chamber and I hope that the work of the committees of this Parliament will be fully recognised for the terrific aspect of parliamentary work that it represents.
In his evidence to the Finance Committee's meeting on 13 January 2004, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, Tavish Scott, stated that there are three main objectives of the public sector jobs relocation policy, which he summarised as follows. First, he said, the relocation policy ties in with
"ensuring that the Government in Scotland is more efficient and decentralised, as part of our wider vision of a more accessible, open and responsive Government."
Secondly, he said that relocation is seen as a means of providing
"more cost-effective service delivery solutions by allowing organisations to operate away from some of the pressures of the Edinburgh market."
Thirdly, he argued that relocation
"can assist areas that have particular social and economic needs."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 13 January 2004; c 776.]
That is probably an accurate description of the Executive's current relocation policy. However, the Finance Committee's view is that we want a slightly different—perhaps in some ways significantly different—approach in the relocation policy, which would be more strategic and geared towards the Executive's general objectives, particularly its economic growth and social inclusion objectives. I hope that the committee's report will act as a driver in pushing the Executive towards recasting its policy in that direction.
There are probably three debates that we need to have, which emerged from the evidence that the committee took. There is a debate about efficiency and it is not entirely a one-way debate. There are, if you like, different kinds of considerations that point in different directions. There are certainly constraints operating on what is possible in relocation. We cannot simply shift organisations willy-nilly round the country without affecting their operational efficiency.
Will Mr McNulty take an intervention on that point?
I certainly will.
There has been a lot of controversy over the relocation of Scottish Natural Heritage to Inverness. Indeed, the Executive said in its response to the Finance Committee:
"We agree with the Committee's conclusion that relocations will have a negative impact on some people, and it will be vital, for the future, to continue to minimise that impact."
Indeed, over 80 per cent of SNH staff have indicated that they will not relocate. Does Des McNulty agree that little consideration was given to the effects that the relocation policy was going to have on people's lives and that, if SNH staff do not move, it could do considerable damage to the operation of SNH in the short to medium term?
It is certainly the case that the SNH relocation could have been better managed and could have been done in a different way, with clearer criteria being used and greater transparency in the decision-making process. It is nonetheless the case that any major relocation of jobs on such a scale will cause significant dislocation. The issue is how that is managed. I want to come to that in the course of my speech.
I return to the point that I was making. There are very clear efficiency benefits to taking jobs away from the overheated Edinburgh economy in terms of possibilities in recruiting and in terms of operational performance. Those benefits were clearly demonstrated in some of the visits that committee members made to organisations that had relocated up and down the country. All the committee's members reflected on that in coming to our conclusions.
At the same time, we recognised that there are real constraints on the Executive. What we want the Executive to do is to get, in a relocation exercise, the correct balance between the constraints that it faces in operational effectiveness and the advantages that can come in terms of efficiency. That is certainly something that needs to be looked at carefully.
The second point that I want to make is on geographical, economic and social inclusiveness. Such relocations are about ensuring that Scotland as a whole benefits from employment in the public sector and that not everything is concentrated in Edinburgh. I am indebted to Brian Adam for asking Andy Kerr last year about the distribution of civil service and agency jobs throughout Scotland. From the information that was provided it appears that of the 843 jobs that were created by the Scottish Executive since 1999, 607—72 per cent—were in Edinburgh. If we look at agencies, we see that of the 1,295 jobs created since 1999, 695—54 per cent—are in Edinburgh. That can be compared with the relatively limited number of civil service and agency jobs that have been transferred away from Edinburgh since 1999. The net figure for civil servants is 154—or 416 if we count posts, as opposed to people who have been relocated.
We should also remember, as we stand in this wonderful building, that Parliament has brought 480 permanent jobs to Edinburgh. That figure is for Parliament staff, although the majority of members' staff—at least those who work in parties other than my own—appear to be based in Edinburgh. Substantial numbers of people are being brought to Edinburgh and my calculation is that in excess of 700 new jobs have been created in Edinburgh as a result of Parliament being here.
I argue that we see, if we look at the balance, that Edinburgh has gained far more Government jobs than it has lost. If we examine the combined number of civil service and agency posts in respect of which decisions have been made under the relocation policy, we see that, of the 1,250 posts that the minister identified, nearly half involve relocation within what economists would regard as the Edinburgh travel-to-work area. I am sure that there are advantages in relocating posts from central Edinburgh to other parts of the travel-to-work area that is centred on Edinburgh, and I feel sure that members who represent places such as Falkirk, Livingston, Galashiels and Dunfermline will highlight the benefits to those localities of additional jobs.
I do not want to put words into Des McNulty's mouth, but is he saying that the Executive's relocation policy is, in effect, a total failure?
I am saying that more jobs have been created in Edinburgh than in any other place in Scotland. That is simply a measure of the incline that we have to examine.
The policy that has been set out by ministers indicates that issues of deprivation and unemployment will be given a great deal of weight in considering where jobs will be relocated to. However, the west of Scotland, where deprivation and unemployment are concentrated, is to get fewer than 400 jobs, based on decisions taken so far. In percentage terms, the increase in agency jobs in West Dunbartonshire, to take just one example, might appear to be favourable at 22 per cent, but the raw numbers tell a different tale. The net increase so far is nine jobs—a leap from 41 to 50—and we have no Scottish Executive jobs in West Dunbartonshire. I am sure that I am not alone among members who represent west of Scotland seats in thinking that all that is perhaps a bit unfair, but I am sure that that concern is not confined to the west of Scotland. I feel sure that members who represent North East Scotland, the Highlands and the South of Scotland will feel that their areas would also benefit not just from more relocation but from a more strategic relocation policy. The committee's report points strongly towards the need for a more strategic relocation policy.
The figures that I have given so far highlight a considerable gap between the Executive's policy aspirations and its performance, and that is perhaps my answer to Alasdair Morgan's question. Economic growth in Scotland depends on mobilising the resources that are tied up in its people, wherever they happen to live. It also makes complete sense—in my view—to bring jobs to parts of Scotland that are, for whatever reason, short of employment opportunities. The Executive has to see relocation not in terms of ad hoc opportunities, but as an integral aspect of its broader economic strategies, such as "The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland", which it published last week, and the "National Planning Framework for Scotland".
Last week, in my first speech in this chamber, I highlighted the fact that the Clyde waterfront and the Clyde gateway had been identified as the two most significant infrastructure projects in Scotland. We need to direct transport resources and investment in water and sewerage to ensure that those major projects come to fruition. However, it also makes sense to me to link in relocation, because putting jobs where we want to see economic growth and where we are putting investment to produce economic growth is a key corollary of an infrastructure strategy. There must be an integrated strategy that cuts across all the matters for which the Executive is responsible. The strategy should be opportunity driven and there are clear opportunities in the west of Scotland for relocating Government jobs in a way that will assist our economic growth objectives and our social inclusion objectives.
I come back to the committee's report to deal with some issues in more depth and detail. One matter that the committee highlighted particularly is the lack of transparency in the whole exercise. People did not know what the criteria were. There was no mechanism that people understood in respect of how decisions were made and there was a lot of confusion about what might happen to whom and when.
Our view is that that lack of transparency is regrettable and needs to be changed. One way to change that would be to have a clearer relocation strategy and for the Executive to be explicit about what it is trying to achieve and how it is trying to achieve it—although it is recognised, of course, that some decisions must balance irreconcilable objectives and irreconcilable interests. In my view, it is the job of the Government to make hard decisions, but in making them the Government must be able to explain how decisions are arrived at and it must be able to defend its stance in making them.
Does Mr McNulty agree that it is a question not only of transparency but of much more information being available to possible bidders right at the beginning of a possible relocation? Does he also agree that it is about the nature of the relocation, the kind of jobs that are required, the facilities that are required and so on? I have received many complaints from local authorities in my region that they do not get enough information. They get a letter on one side of A4 that is not even filled.
There is some truth in that. One of the measures that I suggest is considered in the context of a development strategy. It is to link the economic development agencies in different parts of Scotland to relocation possibilities so that rather than, in a sense, their finding out late in the day about what opportunities there might be, the strategy sets out broadly what is intended so that there is more capacity for economic development organisations to match the kinds of jobs that they bid for with the economic development strategy that is adopted at local level.
I agree with Keith Raffan about transparency; I hope that he agrees with me that there is also an issue about criteria. What we saw repeatedly as we worked our way through them was that every relocation process was different—largely because each one used different consultants who operated on different criteria. What was remarkable about the process was that the relocations all seemed to end up in the same places, which perhaps indicates that the whole criteria exercise was a bit shaky all the way through. If there is to be a criteria-based system, the criteria must be capable of being referenced and they must be seen to drive the process in some way, except where political decisions are required. Where political decisions are required, they need to be explained in relation to the criteria more clearly than they have been.
Will Des McNulty address the issue of how people are persuaded to move?
There is an important debate to be had about fairness to employees. Concerns emerged constantly in the evidence that we took that employees were not consulted as fully as they possibly should be; that many of the consequences of relocation for employees were such that they felt that they could no longer continue in that particular employment; or that the circumstances in which they were being asked to shift were unacceptable. Relocation does not have to be like that. We can do it differently and better if it is better planned. There must be more effective consultation and attention must be paid to employment rights. Relocation, particularly over a big distance, cannot be done on the cheap.
Much can be learned from what is happening elsewhere. Members went to Ireland and examined relocations around that country. There is a strong argument for setting out a regional approach, for considering clusters and for linking our relocation approach more clearly to our broad economic strategy. That will lead to greater efficiency, fairness and transparency in, and acceptability of, what we are trying to do.
The committee concluded that relocation was important for Scotland and that we should pursue it, but that we can and must do it better than at present.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 6th Report 2004 (Session 2) of the Finance Committee, Report on the Relocation of Public Sector Jobs (SP Paper 189), which summarises the considerable evidence in support of the principle of relocation of public sector jobs, calls for greater transparency in the decision-making process associated with relocation, highlights the need for the objectives of the policy to be set out clearly and realistically, identifies lessons to be learnt from elsewhere and puts forward a number of recommendations for consideration and debate.
I thank Mr McNulty for the constructive manner in which he presented his committee's report to Parliament.
I will make two introductory points. I had a light lunch today to leave room for the consumption of humble pie. I apologise to Parliament and to the committee for the Executive's failure to respond to the report within the appropriate period. That was a mistake that was in no way deliberate. The Executive did not intend to cause the committee difficulty and we regret it if our late response appeared in any way to signal disrespect for the committee or Parliament.
As I have made clear to the committee's convener, I will do everything that I can to ensure that such a mistake is not repeated. As the Minister for Parliamentary Business has told the committee, measures have been put in place to monitor the timing of responses so that the Executive prevents the same situation from arising in the future. The situation was not acceptable and should not happen again.
This afternoon, Parliament will discuss relocation policy in this new debating chamber and on this day of high drama in the Scottish Land Court—I suspect that that cannot be said every day. It was exactly five years ago, on 15 September 1999, that Donald Dewar set out for Parliament the devolved Government's relocation policy. On the policy's fifth anniversary, having been relocated itself, Parliament should use the Finance Committee's invitation to consider what has been achieved and what remains to be done.
Devolution was and is about bringing government closer to Scotland's citizens. Ministers have been clear that we are committed to continuing the process of devolution.
Is the minister concerned by the front-page lead in today's edition of The Press and Journal, in which a local Labour member of Parliament says that the United Kingdom Government is about to centralise Government departments, which will lead to a loss of civil service jobs in Aberdeen? Will the minister acknowledge that that would be bad for Aberdeen and that it would run counter to the Scottish Government's policy? Has he made, or will he make, representations to the UK Government to save those jobs?
I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions has disputed this morning's story. The issues are being examined closely and we will keep a close eye on them.
Our relocation policy has played an important part in the devolutionary process. Public sector jobs have been relocated or established in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Falkirk, Dundee, Galashiels, Dunfermline, Inverness, Livingston, Paisley and Ayrshire. As the policy has developed, the list of areas to benefit from relocation has grown, and it will continue to grow.
I had the pleasure to visit the Carnegie campus in Scott Barrie's constituency yesterday. Scottish Enterprise Fife and its partners are working to provide high-quality options for public and private sector organisations. Earlier this month, I visited City Park in Paul Martin's constituency, which is an imaginative and bold vision for a former cigarette factory. Like all ministers with responsibility for relocation, I remain committed to the persuasive case that Dumfries and the tireless convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council have made, which complements Elaine Murray's work in Parliament.
I thank Finance Committee members for the work that they have put into the report on the relocation of public sector jobs. The report distils clearly the policy's background and development. The scope of the work that was undertaken to prepare the report—not least by members who were appointed as reporters—shows the committee's commitment to work with the Executive in driving the relocation policy forward. We are grateful for that.
The committee has helpfully scrutinised our policy and practice on relocation and I believe that we have responded positively to many of the constructive recommendations in the report; the fundamentals that underpin relocation policy are described in our response. We welcome the report's constructive tone and are happy to respond in that way. Three subjects are of particular interest.
The minister has obviously been busy travelling around Scotland and I applaud some of that effort. When he has been doing that, has he spoken to local authorities throughout Scotland, which are beginning to tend to centralise services back in the major towns for which they are responsible? Is not that counter to what the Executive is trying to achieve? What can the minister do to ensure that local authorities do not start to centralise within their own boundaries?
I am sure that Mr Crawford would not want me to start lecturing local authorities on the manner in which they should conduct their business, as I do not believe in central diktats. As former councillors, he and I know that effective government must involve reflection on the need to provide public services to ensure that the public moneys that are available to local authorities are used for front-line public services. The ability to provide such services goes hand in hand with a local authority's running as efficient an organisation as it can. Highland Council has decentralised its structure—for example, it has located its harbour and port division in Lochinver—so there are good examples of best practice in Scotland. Other local authorities might wish to learn from those.
A little bit of self-interest comes into this question. As the minister is well aware, there has been a bid for the relocation of the administration of crofters' housing grants to the island of Tiree. That matter has been lying on his desk for a substantial time and, indeed, I have been pressing ministers for the past year to come to a final decision on the matter. The jobs would be of immense benefit to the island if the relocation were to get the go-ahead. Will the minister tell us the status of the decision at the moment: is it close to being announced and can the island look forward to some benefits flowing from the Executive in the near future?
Mr Kerr and I are currently considering whether East Kilbride or Lerwick would be the best location. It is a serious matter, and I assure Mr Lyon that that decision should be with us all within a matter of weeks. The representations that he has made on the matter have been important in consideration of the relocation. We hope to bring the decision forward quickly.
I will deal quickly with the three areas of interest that will be important in considering the Finance Committee's recommendations. Many of the report's recommendations will inform the Government's on-going evaluation of the relocation policy's impact. Our response demonstrates how closely linked are the committee's and the Executive's approaches on future development. To deal with one of Des McNulty's considerable core points, we have already improved the option-appraisal process to take deprivation into account. As the committee knows, 50 per cent of the quantitative weightings for comparing locations now refer to socio-economic benefits. That is an aspect that the committee has stressed repeatedly and to which we have responded.
The response sets out specific Executive commitments. They should address matters that the committee suggested as being areas in which improvements are required, such as the transparency of the process and communicating the objectives of the policy—Des McNulty made points on both. I accept the argument that transparency in the process can be highly beneficial to staff, to staff representatives and to locations that bid for public sector posts.
Our response sets out the following detailed commitments, which reflect some of the committee's conclusions and recommendations. We will publish revised guidance about the relocation process on the Executive's website. We will issue a statement that highlights the main reasons for each future relocation decision and we will set out clearer standards for staff consultations on relocation. We will consider how the application of appraisal criteria could be made more consistent through publication of clear guidance on the methodology that is to be used in relocation reviews. We will also continue to evaluate the impact of the relocation policy and provide detailed information on the costs associated with relocations.
The kernel of the committee's report starts at paragraph 97. It suggests a new approach, which is that each department in the public service should carry out an audit and that, in tandem with that, consideration should be given to which parts of Scotland require some benefit. Will the Executive commit itself to that fundamental recommendation in the committee's report?
I recognise the point that Mr Ewing—and, indeed, the committee—made. We are strongly influenced by the work that has been done and will consider Mr Ewing's detailed point in the context of the wider objectives about which Mr McNulty spoke.
With those issues in mind, we welcome the Finance Committee's report. Having this opportunity to debate the report and our response is important for Parliament. It provides an opportunity for colleagues throughout the chamber to make their case and to inform future policy development. This devolved Government looks forward to working with the Finance Committee on that future policy development.
I suspect that the attention of the press and media today might be elsewhere, on a building in Scotland. This debate is about building a better Scotland and is based on an excellent piece of work by the Scottish Parliament's Finance Committee. The SNP supports the committee's approach and is encouraged by the basic response of the minister.
The relocation or decentralisation of public sector jobs is based on the idea that every part of a nation should benefit from the presence of people who work in the public sector in all its forms. All parties are committed to that principle. In the UK there have been various reviews of how far the process should be carried through. After all, we well know that in Edinburgh and London we have two capital cities that get the cream, while many parts of Scotland—and, I dare say, many parts of England and Wales—do not benefit at all. The purpose of a relocation policy is to redress that basic injustice.
The Flemming review in 1963 recommended that 57,000 staff should be relocated from London, but only a third of that number were relocated in the period following that review. In 1973, the Hardman review recommended the dispersal of 31,500 posts, but only 10,000 were relocated. Perhaps inevitably there is a tendency—this is not necessarily a bad thing—for the initial target not to be met. Our task is to identify a policy of relocation that is directed specifically towards the needs of our country.
As is so often the case, the debate that we are having was stimulated by a hard case, which of course was the controversial relocation of Scottish Natural Heritage from Edinburgh to Inverness in my constituency, on which there was a total lack of consultation. The staff were not consulted at all. I believe that 93 per cent of them expressed the view that they did not wish to move, despite the obvious advantages of living in Inverness, not least of which is the representation that the constituents enjoy from all its MSPs.
The DTZ Pieda Consulting report on the relocation—which, incidentally, cost £20,000—recommended that Inverness should not be the preferred location. The problem that I have with what happened—I put this point to the minister and his answer is referred to in paragraph 31 of the committee's report—is that the decision appears to have been taken against the advice not only of DTZ, SNH and the staff but, I suspect, of the civil service.
One of the lessons from the Holyrood debate is that the civil service in Scotland has to be more accountable. We are entitled to know what its advice is, most certainly on issues of controversy. That is not to say that every letter and e-mail can be made public, but there is a strong case for reforming the way the civil service operates, so that the fundamental memos that are given to ministers and on which decisions are taken are made public not after 30 years but after a short period. The minister rejected that proposal, which is a shame.
My other point about the SNH relocation, and this post-dates the report, is that to make the relocation workable and to persuade the staff to move to Inverness through financial means—bribe is too strong a word—they are each being paid a moving fee of £10,000 and then, after a year, a staying-on fee of £10,000. From informal discussions that I have had, I suspect that the unions could not believe their luck when they negotiated that package.
Does the member agree that we pay similar amounts to dentists to go to the far north of Scotland? Does he agree that if people need financial incentives to go to the north of Scotland, we should provide them?
Not under the model of relocation policy that I would like to be in place. I do not believe that the SNH case is a wise precedent. I put it on record that I welcome jobs coming to my constituency but, as I believe that there is scope for considerable savings and more efficient spending, my point is that relocation should not just be carried out at any price. We have a duty to look after the public purse and I do not believe that £20,000 per person is a price that should be paid.
The estimates for the cost of the SNH relocation have followed the track of a mini-Holyrood process. The initial estimate has been doubled and, in recent parliamentary answers that I have received, either the Executive will not say how much the move will cost or—as I suspect—it does not know how much the move will cost. That seems to me to be like the Holyrood process in miniature.
Given what Mr Ewing has said about the cost of the SNH relocation, is he suggesting that it should be abandoned and that the jobs should not move from Edinburgh?
It may be abandoned de facto if the staff do not move. We do not know whether they will move, which is the point that Mike Pringle made earlier.
I will touch on the evidence about the policy in Ireland. Elaine Murray and I had an extremely useful and interesting visit to Ireland and we learned a great deal during the arduous days that we spent there. The Irish Minister for Finance announced last December that more than 10,000 jobs would be relocated from Dublin, with the aim that half of public service jobs would be located in Dublin and half outwith it. That policy is visionary and ambitious, but it also has certain features that commend it, not for replication but as a matter of process. First, to address Maureen Macmillan's earlier point, the policy is based on the voluntary principle, which means that there should be no redundancies. From my reading of the Irish newspapers, I believe that the response to that has been reasonable.
The Finance Committee has recommended a new and logical approach that has been carefully thought out and agreed by all members of the committee and which should be followed. That approach is that we should carry out an audit to find out which public sector jobs can be relocated effectively and whether that should involve whole departments or parts thereof. There should also be an examination of which parts of Scotland should be the recipients of the benefit of those jobs. With respect, the minister has not really responded to that specific recommendation. It is incumbent on the Executive to give a clear answer on whether it will support that recommendation. If it supports the recommendation, it will be responding to the requirement that we all raise our game; if it does not, it will be ducking that challenge. Given that I am a politician who always tries to be consensual, I hope that the Executive will choose to do the former, not the latter.
I hope that I am not making an overtly political point when I say that it would have been helpful to have had the Executive's response to the Finance Committee's report on the relocation policy within the accepted timeframe. I accept the minister's apology even if, thus far, there has been a lack of explanation.
The Scottish Conservatives, too, welcome the Finance Committee report and support its findings and criticisms. I will come to the Executive's response in due course, but I make the political point because, in many ways, relocation, certainly in the lead-up to the most recent elections to the Scottish Parliament, appears to have had less to do with policy than with politics.
Although we might question the minister's delay in responding to the Finance Committee's report, nobody should question his candour. Here is how he responded to my queries during the Finance Committee's meeting of 4 May:
"ultimately, such relocation decisions are political; I do not disguise that in any way."
Just to re-emphasise the point, he said, in relation to the decision on Scottish Natural Heritage:
"I would put this in the context of the entire spread of relocation policies, Mr Brocklebank: I do not believe that any of our decisions are taken without recourse to a political process".—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 4 May 2004; c 1337.]
Could it be any clearer? Despite the Executive's pious words about efficiency and decentralisation and despite its pledge to assist areas with special social and economic needs, its flagship relocation of some 270 jobs in the field of nature conservation appears to have had nothing to do with efficiency and decentralisation.
It would be helpful if Mr Brocklebank had reflected the whole of that exchange. I was at pains to point out on the record that that was in the context of decentralisation. If Mr Brocklebank quoted the whole of the passage instead of quoting selectively, he would see that. I presume that he would concede that introducing the poll tax was a political decision, too.
It is always difficult to quote Mr Scott in his entirety, as he seems to go on at very great length. I do not believe that I have misrepresented the thrust of what he was saying that day.
The decision had nothing to do with Inverness's special social and economic needs. Inverness is one of Scotland's boom locations.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will carry on for a little. Office space is expensive and unemployment is negligible. Inverness is one of the least socially deprived places in the nation. As we have heard, it was because of those advantages that Inverness was ranked only 24th equal out of the 85 proposed locations. It did not make the shortlist that had been drawn up by the consultants who had been hired by the Executive. SNH staff had already indicated that, if they were forced to move, Perth and Stirling would be more suitable locations.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will perhaps do so in a minute. Just six weeks before the Scottish Parliament elections of March 2003, Ross Finnie announced that Inverness was to be awarded the glittering relocation prize of Scottish Natural Heritage. Can it just be coincidence that Labour was contesting a key marginal seat in Inverness? Might news of the SNH relocation have swayed voters in the balance? Can it also be just coincidence that the city of Dundee, which also faced key marginals and which had recently been awarded 106 Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care jobs, was chosen as the site for the new Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator before the 2003 election?
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
Perhaps in a moment. I do not believe in coincidences. I am prepared to take the minister totally at his word: the relocation decisions were nothing if not political. Let me compare and contrast that with the treatment meted out to the town of Kirkcaldy in the region that I represent.
What action did the Conservatives take to try to preserve the SNH jobs in Edinburgh? How did they campaign to try to change the decision?
There is no doubt that we believe in the policy of relocating jobs. However, was Inverness the only location that SNH might have gone to? Why not Perth or Stirling, in Mid Scotland and Fife?
Will the member take an intervention?
I have taken enough interventions so far.
In a recent survey on poverty, Kirkcaldy, the birthplace of Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and of the renowned economist Adam Smith, was named as the third-poorest place in Britain. Fifteen per cent of Kirkcaldy folk bring home less than £100 a week. Unemployment in Kirkcaldy stands at 5.68 per cent, compared with the Scottish average of 3.97 per cent. By any socioeconomic standards, Kirkcaldy fulfils the requirements for relocation. It has excellent rail and transport links and bags of available accommodation. It is 28 miles from the capital. If Livingston, South Queensferry, Falkirk and Dunfermline have all been involved in relocations, why not Kirkcaldy?
On the issue of deprivation, the member will recall the debate in June on the acute shortage of affording housing in Fife. He said:
"if I cannot afford to make my home there, I should live elsewhere. That is exactly what I did until I was able to afford to come back and live in St Andrews."—[Official Report, 2 June 2004; c 8815.]
Is that the Conservative policy on relocation?
Jeremy Purvis brings up that statement again and again. I am totally happy to debate it with him any time we are discussing housing. On this occasion, however, we are discussing areas of social deprivation. Kirkcaldy is certainly one of those and it could benefit from relocation.
Fife Council and Scottish Enterprise Fife make their case for relocated jobs largely on the basis of socioeconomic factors. In the past year those bodies put forward eight relocation projects. Kirkcaldy was listed for six of them but, so far, the town has had absolutely no success. The Executive refuses to say whether it was even on the reserve list.
I am delighted that the Executive now agrees that transparency is the most important ingredient for all stakeholders and I look forward to future relocation decisions carrying an explanation of the reasons. I also welcome the statement that the Executive will examine how the application of appraisal criteria can be applied more consistently by consultants and others.
However, the Executive's response is obviously an interim document. We look forward in future relocation decisions to seeing just how transparent the new policy of transparency really is. The omens are not encouraging. Decisions on the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Higher Education Funding Council relocations are in the pipeline, involving 263 jobs. I checked today to see which locations were on the shortlist and when decisions might be made. The Executive could give no information on either point—so much for openness and transparency.
We commend the minister for his honesty in accepting that political considerations have influenced relocations to date, but we condemn utterly such shoddy politicising of the democratic process. Let us hope that my fears are misplaced, that the Executive has learned a salutary lesson and that it will implement the transparency in relocation policy that it now advocates. I am not holding my breath.
I am amazed that Ted Brocklebank thinks that a Liberal Democrat minister conspired with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Highland Council to stop Fergus Ewing being re-elected. Fergus Ewing also believes that, but I do not know whether that is because he has such a huge ego or because he has such a low opinion of himself—others can judge.
I welcome the chance to debate the Finance Committee's report's recommendations on the process of relocation. Given that I am a Highlands and Islands MSP, it is inevitable that I feel that I have to point out the resonance that some of the committee's remarks have in the region that I represent.
At the outset of the Parliament, the Labour Party made a commitment that when a new department or Government agency was created or when an existing one needed to move house, it would be possible to relocate such a department or agency away from Edinburgh to another part of Scotland. That obviously had implications for the work force in such organisations and so, from 1999, it should have been on the horizon for those who worked in Government departments and agencies that they might be moved out of Edinburgh. It should also have been on the horizon for the Executive that moves that relocated people further than commuting distance from Edinburgh would meet resistance from the work force from the chief executive down, particularly if those who cannot move cannot access the internal civil service job market. That should have been addressed through discussion with the relevant trade unions well before any particular agency was chosen for relocation.
The conclusions of the Finance Committee's report show the ultimate difficulty: we cannot have a no-redundancy policy if we cannot offer alternative work to those who cannot move. Otherwise, we would allow one unwilling worker to jeopardise an entire relocation programme. We cannot look two ways at once, as I think Fergus Ewing is doing.
If that is the case, how have 3,000 jobs in Ireland been relocated so far without one single redundancy?
That is exactly what I am saying, but how do we achieve that? That question has to be addressed given the situation that we have here; it cannot be slid over.
If we have a relocation policy that includes Government agencies, we must have an equitable formula to protect the work force's interest. That might mean dealing with the barriers that prevent movement of the work force between agencies and civil service departments. However, I do not think that those barriers are terribly high. Albie O'Neill wrote in a letter to my former colleague Rhoda Grant that non-departmental public bodies such as SNH not only follow the principles of fair and open recruitment but apply the same standards that are required in the civil service. He said that he did not think that it was a big step to allow the work force from such agencies to access the internal job market in the civil service when a move is proposed.
I agree with the committee that there needs to be a strategic approach that encompasses the agencies, that there should be an independent assessment unit or panel—whatever we want to call it—and that the ultimate decision should lie with the appropriate minister. However, I do not want there to be any no-go areas for relocation in Scotland. The Parliament is for the whole of Scotland and every part of Scotland is entitled to the benefits that high-quality, well-paid Government jobs will bring. Perversely, the relocations are of more benefit to the receiving communities if part of the work force decides not to move, as local people can then more quickly access those jobs. However, that is acceptable—as I have said again and again—only if those who cannot move are catered for.
Every relocation so far has proved to be a success and I have no doubt that the SNH relocation to Inverness will also be a success in the medium to long term. The Executive has constantly been lobbied by back benchers of all parties to speed up relocation and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Highland Council have been working for the past five years to bring a significant inward migration of quality jobs to the HIE area. The area bid unsuccessfully for the Scottish Public Pensions Agency and lost the North of Scotland Water headquarters when Scottish Water was created. SNH has been the only significant inward migration that the area has had.
When Highlands and Islands Enterprise first put in a bid for SNH about five years ago, it did so because it was felt that it was an appropriate agency to have its headquarters in the Highlands. The idea was that the relocation would be not to Inverness but to Aviemore, in the centre of the newly created Cairngorms national park, because it was felt that that was an appropriate location. However, it was made clear—and I am not sure by whom—that the only place in the Highlands with the necessary infrastructure for SNH was Inverness. I found it astounding that HIE should be castigated for offering Inverness as the new location for SNH.
I note that paragraph 69 of the Finance Committee's report describes Inverness as
"a location a relatively long distance from Edinburgh not necessarily in need of economic stimulus".
I do not know what evidence the committee based that remark on, but it is the same sort of remark as the ones that Ted Brocklebank was just making—I should say that I am astonished that the member for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber did not challenge those remarks.
Inverness is only two and a half hours' drive from Edinburgh, half an hour away by plane for a chief executive and a blink of an eye away by e-mail. Distance should not be an issue in relation to relocation; otherwise Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and the far north can forget their aspirations. We are not the tundra, although we were described as such by some people in SNH.
Of course the Inverness area is in need of economic stimulation. The travel-to-work area for Inverness stretches from Ullapool in the west to Brora and Forres in the east and has wages that are much lower than the Scottish average as well as having a higher proportion of seasonal employment. There is a need for more diverse employment, particularly for graduates.
The Highland economy is extremely fragile, which is why Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Highlands Council are anxious to attract a large organisation such as SNH. Are the Highlands only to have small relocations? Is that all that we deserve? Is the same thing true of the south-west and north-east of Scotland? Yes, it is more expensive, initially, to relocate staff away from the Edinburgh travel-to-work area but, as the evidence that was given to the committee shows, the long-term financial gains more than make up for the up-front costs. The financial issue is not the crucial issue. As I pointed out earlier, the crucial issue is to persuade the work force to accept the move. There was a great deal of misinformation put about concerning the move to Inverness and I dare say that the same thing would have happened if Clydebank, Dumfries or Ayr had been selected. We face a challenge in our relocation policy. We have to persuade people of the merits of a move and that decentralisation is good for them and their quality of life.
Do I have time for anything more, Presiding Officer?
No, you are now significantly over time.
I am sorry about that because I was going to relate a very good story about an SNH man, a Scottish Environment Protection Agency man and me in a taxi, but that can wait for another day.
We look forward to that day. Now, however, we must move to the open part of the debate.
Relocation should be an effective tool of Government. Ideally, Government-controlled bodies would be decentralised as and when they were initially established. As things stand, relocation in Scotland is not acceptable. Des McNulty eloquently and accurately quoted many figures, statistics and percentages and no one would doubt his facts. By way of an intervention, he was asked whether the relocation strategy is a failure. I think that to call it a failure is a massive understatement of the situation. When I visited one area that had been scheduled for relocation, I found that staff morale had plummeted and that they first heard about the proposed relocation on the 6 o'clock news. Fortunately, the project was eventually shelved, but politicians who are responsible for relocation should bear it in mind that, first and foremost, they are dealing with people. People are not statistics to be shuffled about by politicians or civil servants. We must do much more to make relocation viable and acceptable.
I was impressed by the report to the Finance Committee by Elaine Murray and Fergus Ewing, who were our reporters in Dublin. The Irish model is not perfect, but it covers many points in a much more transparent manner than any comparable project in Scotland. Negotiations should urgently be opened between Holyrood and Westminster with a view to relocating various public sector jobs from the grossly overheated south-east of the United Kingdom to Scotland. Relocation? Yes, go for it, but only after a complete rethink of the implementation of the relocation concept as it stands.
If the previous speaker wants to tell her little story now, she has plenty of time because it does not take me six or seven minutes to say what I think.
I am glad that the member takes an intervention. My little story is this: about two years ago I was in a taxi with a worker from SNH who was complaining that he might be moved to Inverness and a man who was originally from Edinburgh but who now works for SEPA in Dingwall. The man from Edinburgh was adamant that if the man from SNH moved up to the Highlands, it would be the best move that he would ever make in his life. I wanted that to be in the public domain; everybody should know about the quality of life in the Highlands and people should not be afraid of the move.
Have you anything further to say, Mr Swinburne?
No.
I have to say that I think that that was a bit unfair on members who are waiting to speak in the debate. There are at least three members who will not be called and I suspect that there will now be four. If members wish to finish in two minutes, that is their prerogative, but they should not call back members who have already spoken, and those members should not try to take advantage of the kindness of the member who has given way.
I find myself agreeing with Ted Brocklebank on one point, and that is not because the new building is having an effect on me. I agree that the issue is politically charged. We should be proud of the Executive's policy of relocating jobs from central Edinburgh, and we should implement it—as a Labour member, I am proud of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive's decision and I want it to be implemented. However, I have some sympathy with the concerns about the way in which the process has been developed, and the minister should deal with some of those points to ensure that we learn lessons from this complex process.
I will be my usual parochial self and make the case for my constituency. A number of people have already expressed self-interest. I add to that by welcoming the minister's comments on the City Park development in my constituency, which he and Andy Kerr visited recently. It is on the site of the former Wills tobacco factory and is able to hold more than 2,000 members of staff in good-quality office accommodation. In a constituency that faces serious social and economic challenges, that opportunity is most welcome.
We often hear about—and Opposition members often attack us for—the social profiles in our constituencies. This is a serious opportunity for us to attack those social profiles. Bruce Crawford raised his concerns about the opportunity for Glasgow to benefit from this relocation. However, the Executive's belief is that locating to Glasgow fits in with its economic and social policy. Glasgow fits very well with the Executive's policy of tackling social exclusion. In Glasgow, we should not make any apologies for seeking the opportunity of relocation of jobs in our area.
At the same time, the Executive must practise what it preaches. It preaches to other prospective employers that they should recruit in areas of high unemployment, and we have seen that in the new deal programme. The Executive must take up that theory, and the City Park development fits in with that.
As I said, there are lessons to be learned from the process that has been followed. I share some of the concerns that SNH staff have raised about the way in which they were consulted. I know that several members from the Edinburgh area will raise that issue today. In Glasgow, although we welcome the relocation of jobs, we do not want to see that having a detrimental effect on other areas. The process is complex and if the Executive is to deliver its theory of relocation, and if we are to achieve the long-term aim of a much more open and transparent Scotland in which various departments are delivered to various parts of the country, difficult decisions such as the one on SNH will have to be taken, as Des McNulty said. However, that must be done in full consultation with union representatives and we must also consider investing in the process.
Fergus Ewing has now left the chamber, but I take issue with his suggestion that the policy will have a significant cost to the Executive. If we are serious about delivering the policy, we have to invest in it to make it work. If we are to create a much more effective devolved Scotland, in which employment opportunities are devolved to various areas, such as my constituency, we have to invest in at least the initial stages of the process and ensure that the opportunities exist in all our various communities.
I welcome the policy and I welcome the fact that the minister visited City Park in my constituency—I make no apologies for being parochial about that. We face serious social and economic challenges and, for once, we have a serious opportunity to deal with them. I ask the Executive to put its policy in the front line and to take the opportunity to make a real difference in areas such as Glasgow Springburn.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which we must consider in terms of the reach that our Parliament has and the human scale. Staff heartache has been caused and apparent ministerial muddle has been found, but we have an excellent report and a response that shows some kind of way ahead.
On the human scale, I want to home in on the care for staff. When I was a youngster applying for a job in the civil service, I had to answer the question of what was more important: what I worked at or where I worked. Everyone would like to have a balance between the two; however, the civil service was interested in my saying that what I worked at was more important. Part of our expectation of public service is the expectation that people will meet the needs of our country's geography and of the social inclusion that is a criterion for the Parliament's and the Government's work in the partnership programme.
So, how will we get back to a situation in which being required to work in another part of the country is part of people's thinking about public service? In private business, people can be told to move at the drop of a hat. Nevertheless, I agree with the recommendation that, in the context of a strategy that allows us to make policy decisions that could remove headquarters, sections of departments and parts of quangos from Edinburgh, we must consider staff rights carefully and make contingency plans for people who are not prepared to move.
Matching the needs of our geography is quite difficult. I will talk in particular about the far north mainland of Scotland to show members the problems that we have there. Previous Tory Government policies centralised our local government. Health services were also centralised and taken out of Caithness and Sutherland. During that process in the mid-1990s, 250 well-paid jobs were lost to the east Caithness area. Wick has a population of about 7,500 and the centralisation of local government and health services cost the area a lot of quality jobs. It is up to us to find ways to replace those jobs by redistributing civil service jobs and to do justice to areas that have been badly dealt with in the past.
The committee's report considers the series of criteria that are required for relocation. I had the pleasure of sitting on the committee for the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill and one of Alloa's key arguments was that it would have a good rail link that would allow it to attract Government jobs to the area. I ask members to think about the people of Caithness and Sutherland and other parts of the country who need that kind of infrastructure. There is no mention in current Government plans of the development of railways to the far north, but there should be. Any relocation policy affects other Government departments and their policies have to be in sync. We have to have transport plans that take into account this important relocation policy.
Earlier in the year, I asked Andy Kerr some questions about the use of videoconferencing. The point about setting up headquarters in various parts of the country is that the practice of videoconferencing is quite widespread. It is done from Government offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, Inverness, Dundee and Aberdeen. Indeed, the Highlands and Islands university network has videoconferencing. Recently, I was told that there is an increase in the number of offices being set up for videoconferencing in Inverurie, Portree and Inverness. The use of videoconferencing has increased year on year during the past five years.
The indication is that the technology that we now have makes it entirely possible and easy for people to shift their jobs. However, clearly the way in which decentralisation and relocation have been handled leaves a lot to be desired. We should consider the policy very carefully. If Scotland gets full federal financial freedom—or even full financial freedom—jobs might well be relocated from London, and the last place that they should come to is Edinburgh. It would be a good idea for us to put some plans in place to help the rest of Scotland to benefit without the problems that we have experienced in relocating from the centre of Edinburgh. Objections to relocation on the basis that it causes problems for employees and their families must be taken into account, but the policy that we have must allow us to help people to realise that they will serve in all of Scotland. If Ireland can shift approximately 50 per cent of its civil service jobs over several years, we need to make a bigger plan than we have at present to show that Scotland is as committed to the out-of-the-way or remoter areas.
I commend the committee's report and the Government's response, but I want there to be some substance to a policy that recognises the argument that places such as Wick deserve to get help and to get it quickly.
In common with my colleague Ted Brocklebank, who opened the debate for the Conservative party, I welcome today's debate and the Finance Committee's report. It is perhaps apt that we debate relocation today, given that the Parliament itself has recently relocated to its new home. I hope that future job relocations will be somewhat more successful than ours and will take a little less time to put into effect.
At the outset, let me say that the Conservatives are in favour of the principle of job dispersal. It is entirely right and fair that the whole of Scotland should benefit from public service jobs. Relocation can act as a catalyst for areas in which regeneration or development is not occurring. That is why our 2003 manifesto contained a commitment to job dispersal.
However, I fear that the Executive fails to realise how important the issue is to the people whose jobs are being moved. It has failed in its duty to carry out job relocation in an open, sensible and sensitive manner. That point is made crystal clear in paragraph 89 of the committee report, which states:
"the Committee believes that the full potential of relocation is not being realised, because of flaws in the Executive's existing approach."
No one would disagree that that is a damning statement about the Executive's record. The report goes on to say, in paragraph 90:
"Given the serious objections expressed about the Scottish Natural Heritage decision, there is a perception that the current debate on relocation is crisis-led, rather than being strategic or about what is best for Scotland."
The SNH saga, which several members have mentioned, perhaps summarises the problems that we face with job relocation. We must make decisions that make economic sense, that benefit all parts of Scotland and, most important, that take into account the role and function of the jobs being relocated and the people who will be affected thereby.
In many ways, the impact on individuals is the key issue, as Rob Gibson mentioned. I can best illustrate it by recounting an anecdote about a recent conversation that I had with someone who worked for a large public sector body in Edinburgh—I will not say which—that was up for relocation. She told me, "Look, I have a senior role in the organisation. Given my background and training, if the job were to move far away, I could not find another job in Edinburgh in which I would fulfil the same function. But I cannot move. I am married and my husband is a partner in an Edinburgh legal firm. We have kids who are settled in school. We have family networks in the area. It is simply impossible for me to up sticks and move my family 150 miles. I could just about manage the relocation if it was to a place that was within commuting distance of Edinburgh, such as somewhere in the central belt, or the Borders, Perthshire, Tayside or Fife. However, I simply cannot cope with relocating 150 miles away."
That human aspect is important not just because it affects those who work for the organisation, but because it means that organisations such as SNH—when, or if, it moves to Inverness—will lose all the people who are qualified to do those jobs. How will those people be replaced?
I do not doubt the example that Murdo Fraser has given, but does he accept that he has simply described the kernel of the relocation issue? Mr Fraser may not have made this argument specifically, but the logic of his argument is that we should have a policy of not relocating jobs outwith a certain area.
I accept the minister's point. I am not arguing against relocation, but I say that it must be done sensitively and in a way that takes account of the human factors. Of course, the public sector in Scotland has grown like Topsy over the past five years, and when we are setting up new agencies it is far easier to locate them outwith Edinburgh, because that does not involve relocating people, as happens with existing agencies.
Another point on which I want to dwell is the need for all parts of Scotland to benefit from job relocation. Both Perth and Kinross and Angus have a below-average share of public sector jobs. On top of that, no public sector jobs have been transferred from Edinburgh to either of those areas, although many other areas have benefited. I find it difficult to understand why Perth and Kinross has not benefited from any job dispersal, for example, given that it offers a mixture of beautiful rural countryside and the greater range of facilities that are available in the city of Perth. Furthermore, Perth and Kinross is close to the central belt as well as being on the doorstep to the Highlands. Surely it is a prime location for civil service jobs. Many of the difficulties associated with the SNH relocation would have been solved if the decision had been made to go to Perth—which was considered—rather than Inverness, for the simple reason that Perth is commutable from Edinburgh for the people with family and roots here, to whom I referred a moment ago.
Perhaps Perth and Kinross has been unsuccessful because of an apparent lack of transparency in the Executive's policy. I have discussed that important issue with Perth and Kinross Council, and the committee's report touches on it. The Executive must be more open and transparent when it welcomes bids for jobs that are to be relocated. That is essential, so that when councils invest resources in making bids they are not wasting time, money and effort.
Discussions that I have had with Perth and Kinross Council show me that time and resources are being invested in bids on the smallest amount of information. Essentially, the council is shooting in the dark. It believes that the information that the Executive makes available is insufficient and that councils cannot create a specific and better-tailored proposal for relocation of jobs. When making a bid, councils are wasting their time guessing. It is impossible for bids for relocation to be completed satisfactorily, as not all the criteria are known. I ask the minister to address that specific issue when winding up and to seek to improve the information that is available to councils and enterprise agencies, so that they can make proper bids that are more likely to be successful.
It is fair to say that the committee's inquiry started with a degree of controversy over the location of a Government building and has ended with slight delay in the production of a final report. Such is the nature of parliamentary inquiries. Indeed, this inquiry has similarities with a certain other inquiry, the report on which was published today. However, I note the apology of the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services for the delay in the Executive's response and am pleased that the chamber has accepted it.
The core of the committee's work was a thoughtful, mature and constructive look at the way in which the Executive's relocation policy has operated until now and, crucially, how it should operate in the future. The committee's reporters, Dr Murray and Mr Ewing, worked hard to bring about consensus. That is reflected in the tone, as well as the conclusions, of the report and is to be warmly commended. The first paragraph of the Executive's response states:
"the Committee's report will help shape Executive policy on relocation, for the future."
That is an endorsement of a constructive, if sometimes critical, relationship between the Finance Committee and the Executive.
The committee found that Scottish Executive policy is fundamentally correct and is providing benefits to parts of Scotland. Successful relocations have taken place, especially in places where traditionally the civil service would not have located jobs or carried out core functions. The committee was keen to see its report in the context of the Executive's on-going and developing policy. As the convener stated, our attention has been focused on the mechanism for bringing benefits to all parts of Scotland outside Edinburgh.
I will pick at random one case study that the committee considered in its inquiry: the successful relocation of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency to Tweedbank in my constituency. It has provided local employment for nearly 200 people and stable local economic spend through the wage bill.
On what basis does the member believe that the relocation has been successful? Does he believe that it has been successful in moving people out of Edinburgh, given that ultimately only seven people moved, or does he believe that it was successful simply because it created jobs in the Borders?
If Mr Brocklebank will forgive me, I will touch on that issue in a moment. He makes an important point, and I know that in the committee he challenged the claim that the relocation has been a success. However, I think that in the round it has been successful for the Borders economy and, crucially, for the agency itself. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency has now established a strong reputation for delivering public services from a more rural setting, through dedicated, loyal and productive staff who are sourced locally. That is the issue that the member was highlighting. It is interesting that since the relocation, turnover of staff at the agency has been lower than the average for the civil service and productivity has been higher. The life-cycle costs to the agency are also lower. Relocation has yielded not only economic and social successes, but better, more efficient government.
The success of the relocation was reviewed by both the local agencies that worked together to bring it about: Scottish Borders Council and Scottish Enterprise Borders. It is important that the convener mentioned the requirement for relocation policy to be part of local economic strategies, which was clearly the case in the Borders. The success of the agency and, importantly, the benefits that it has brought to the local economy make it a model relocation, and it is one of the case studies that the committee examined as part of its inquiry.
I know that Mr Brocklebank and others were keen to determine the right balance between moving an agency and its staff and moving an agency and hiring new staff. If those responsible for the policy are serious about addressing the impact of relocation on local economies and societies, I should point out that the reality is that it is important to create new jobs in new areas, not simply to move existing staff. I know that that is difficult for the former host area—in this case, Edinburgh—but, as the deputy minister mentioned in response to Mr Fraser, we have to tackle the issue.
I was interested in remarks that the convener made during our inquiry about the potential for a critical mass of relocation. For example, a critical mass could be created in the Borders after it has established a reputation for successful relocations. I know that the deputy minister has visited Hawick in my colleague Euan Robson's constituency. The Minister for Finance and Public Services, Mr Kerr, has visited Selkirk and Walkerburn in my constituency, where he saw how a relocation could have a potentially dramatic effect on a very small rather than a very large settlement. The committee considered the benefits of such smaller-scale relocations in its inquiry and, frankly, I am not persuaded that relocations should be made from city to city. Indeed, in its report, the committee recommends that the Executive should review its trigger mechanisms to allow for departments or teams within departments and agencies to be relocated to villages and towns.
Finally, I will briefly raise two concerns, the first of which relates to the cost of the policy. During our inquiry, I asked the deputy minister for information about that matter. I am heartened by the comment in the Executive's response that work on compiling costs is being undertaken and I wish to see those figures as soon as we can.
Richard Lochhead raised my second concern earlier in the debate. The Executive is putting through a very positive relocation policy at the same time as the repercussions of the Gershon review and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on the potential centralisation of jobs in UK Government departments and executive agencies are becoming clear. My constituents should not be expected to tell the difference between different levels of government and, therefore, to excuse the fact that, shortly after the successful relocation of Scottish Public Pensions Agency jobs to Galashiels, there is uncertainty and doubt about the future of Inland Revenue jobs in the very same town. The Executive is clearly assertive in its discussions with the Treasury and I warmly welcome the deputy minister's response to Mr Lochhead's intervention. We would have hoped that discussions with the Cabinet Office would have been taken up by the Scotland Office. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be taking place and so we must turn to the Executive.
I very much welcome the chance to debate the Finance Committee's report, which deals with the important issue of what happens when two worthy principles come into conflict. In such a case, the problem is the tension between ensuring that all of Scotland is involved in the country's governance and ensuring that our Executive is scrupulous in applying good employment practices.
I am happy to support the Executive's job dispersal policy, but, as the report points out, the Executive does not have a clear strategy to achieve that policy. The report also makes it clear that a location review is usually triggered
"When the Scottish Executive establishes a new unit or Agency"
and goes on to say:
"Where a significant property break point is reached - for example, the termination of an existing lease - a location review takes place and options outside Edinburgh are considered."
The establishment of a new unit is likely to be less controversial in that respect. However, in the case of a lease coming to an end, such an approach seems less planned than reactive.
Like many other members, I must mention SNH. Relocating that agency to the Highlands has a certain logic, but in this case an essentially good idea was not handled well. SNH is already a highly devolved organisation; when I looked at its website this morning, I discovered that it has nearly 40 area offices or microsites throughout the country. It would have been possible to disperse more of the organisation from the centre by relocating posts gradually as vacancies arose. Indeed, it is worth asking whether, in this age of electronic communication, a large headquarters is always necessary. Instead, we should consider how intelligent use of technology could help to fulfil the vision of spreading our governance institutions more widely around the country. The Executive needs policies on distributed working—not just the wholesale relocation of existing structures or entire departments—and on remote or home working to reduce staff commuting.
However, in the SNH case, one of the triggers that the report mentions started the process, which was abrupt for SNH staff and represented quite a personal upheaval for the individuals involved. I know that from contacts that my colleagues Robin Harper and Mark Ballard have had with SNH people in Edinburgh.
I know that Inverness will welcome SNH, even if, as seems likely, it ends up having to build new premises on a site outwith the city centre, which is not the sustainable, accessible situation that it or I would have liked. I am sure that the staff who relocate will enjoy life in the north. It would be a pity if Inverness was now seen as a place to which people were ordered to go.
It seems odd, from a Highland perspective, that a move from overheated Edinburgh to overheated Inverness was chosen. Other places in the north would surely have better fitted the socioeconomic criteria.
Surely it is not just Inverness that will benefit from the SNH relocation, but the whole travel-to-work area around Inverness, which is considerable. That area includes some of the most deprived communities in the Highlands.
That is a fair point, but we should encourage the location of jobs out in those communities rather than people having to travel to Inverness for work. We should look at different ways of working. That is what I mean by considering devolving or dispersing jobs much further out from the centre, even if there were an office in Inverness. Do people always have to come to Inverness to work? Could not some of that work be done in their localities? We must take a more intelligent, knowledge-based approach.
I agree with the report's comments that, in view of the scale and distance of the SNH relocation, much more should have been done to explain the Executive's motives and decisions. On criteria for location reviews, I am pleased that socioeconomic factors and sustainable transport links are taken into account. I would like that to be taken further and for the Executive to ensure that, when an organisation moves, sustainability is improved in terms of greater energy efficiency, lower CO2 emissions, less production of waste, more reuse and recycling, fewer road miles travelled both in commuting and during work, and more locally sourced materials. The relocation unit, the establishment of which the report recommends, could assess those criteria.
The Executive's job dispersal policy claims to have the objectives of making Government more accessible and responsive, and of assisting socioeconomically needy areas, as well as of taking organisations out of the "pressures"—the Executive's word—of Edinburgh. I am not sure about the latter point, but it takes more than relocation to make an organisation transparent or responsive, especially if the relocation process itself has been neither. Transparency and responsiveness are to do with the culture of an organisation and I feel that that will be helped more by good employment practice than by badly handled moves.
In terms of the effect on the area that is relocated to, I agree fully with the report's request for information on how many created or relocated jobs have been filled by local people. It will be very interesting to know that.
The Finance Committee recommends a new approach to relocation that takes a far more strategic and realistic look at the policy's potential and which is underpinned by greater openness, consistency and transparency in decision making. I endorse that recommendation warmly and support the report's recommendations on how that should be carried out—with, as I said earlier, the addition of more stringent environmental criteria.
I support the idea that departments or non-departmental public bodies that have not relocated in five years should prepare a report on the viability of relocation or decentralisation. After all, if every department has to do it, that should avoid any paranoia in an individual department. I also support the setting up of a relocation unit to assess such reports. In the spirit of the policy, may I suggest that that new unit be located in the Highlands?
I very much welcome this debate and I feel bound to make connections between the debate that is taking place in the chamber and the debate that is taking place about the chamber. Partly there are issues about some of the ways in which decisions are taken, how advice is offered to ministers and systems within the civil service. I am glad that that issue is now being looked at in some depth. However, there is also an issue about how we approach difficult issues and how we deal with things when they go wrong.
There is a question about whether we are simply going to have those outside the decision-making process seeking constantly to blame and criticise, and those inside the decision-making process seeking constantly to defend and entrench; or whether we are all going to come together and really and truly try to learn some lessons. I think that that is the approach that the committee has taken on the subject and I very much hope that it is the approach with which we can move forward on the issue from here on in.
I have followed the debate on relocation with interest for some considerable time. Tavish Scott reminded us that today is the fifth anniversary of the first policy statement on the issue from the then First Minister. I remember that statement well. I remember it because I had agitated for it, I had asked for it and I had been involved in developing it. During the summer of 1999, as Minister for Health and Community Care, I was faced with having to take the first major location decision of the new Scottish Executive—on the location of the new Food Standards Agency Scotland—and I did not want to take that decision in a vacuum. I wanted to take it within a strategic policy context and I knew that the Executive was committed to dispersal, so it seemed sensible that we should marry together both that individual decision and the development of the strategic policy. That is why Donald Dewar made the statement that he made on 15 September 1999.
The original statement was clear; it was a pragmatic approach and a sensitive one. It stressed important issues, such as the need to consider the impact of relocation on operational effectiveness, the cost of relocation and, crucially, the impact on staff. Increasingly, I developed concerns about the way in which the policy was being implemented over the months and years that followed, because I did not think that enough attention was being paid to those criteria. When I was still in the Executive, I was concerned that a blanket approach was being adopted, with insufficient consideration and differentiation being given to different organisations, their needs, their staff and their stage of development. Rather, there was a rolling programme of review, triggered in a very blunt way by lease-break points and the like.
I was concerned then, and I was even more concerned in the years that followed when I moved to the back benches, not least because a number of my constituents worked for SNH. The more that I looked at the SNH decision-making process and at the way in which that relocation was handled, the more concerned I became, not about the policy but about its implementation. I truly believe that, if ever there was a classic example of bad implementation of good policy, it is the relocation of Scottish Natural Heritage. The fact that the move was pushed through by the Executive, using not one but two ministerial directions, really does speak volumes. I truly hope, for everybody's sake, that the Executive will learn lessons from that experience and will never repeat those mistakes.
Some people have suggested or inferred that the debate about SNH was all about staff being resistant to moving or even simply not liking Inverness, but it was about much more than that. The Finance Committee effectively examined serious deficiencies in the decision-making process and real financial concerns about the move, and it is important that we do not lose sight of that.
My plea, quite simply, is that ministers look long and hard at how they handle future relocation policies, that they try to return to a more pragmatic approach and to develop a better managed approach, and that they try to be more sensitive to the human dimension. As I said, it is not just a question of individuals being resistant to change, although nobody likes to be faced with change, but all of us, faced with such a situation, would have considerations to deal with in relation to our partners' employment, our children's schools and so on. If those are the issues that we are dealing with, we must deal with them as an exercise in dealing with people, not just as pins on a map. I am concerned that, all too often when we debate relocation issues, it becomes an exercise in horse trading about which bit of the country will get the next batch of jobs that is on the go. We have to do better than that.
I note the point that relocation and job dispersal need not necessarily involve a move of hundreds of miles, and I very much endorse Des McNulty's comments in that regard. There is a lot to be said for looking at how relocations can be done, with jobs going to areas in and around Edinburgh and the Lothians and in the ever-increasing travel-to-work area. I am pleased that VisitScotland has recently moved from the city centre out to Leith. What about areas such as Craigmillar, Wester Hailes and Pilton? Let us think about the economic and social benefits of relocating Government jobs to those areas and about the signals that that would send. What about East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian, Falkirk, Fife and a host of other areas? The advantage of relocating jobs to such areas is that it would be easier to retain existing trained staff, because they would not have so far to travel.
Although, even as an Edinburgh member, I genuinely support the principle of job dispersal and have done since the inception of the Parliament, I say please let us not be too complacent about the Edinburgh economy. Let us remember that this city and its economic success are crucial to the rest of the country—the figures bear that out. Let us remember that Edinburgh is the seat of Government in Scotland and that it is the capital. I am sure that there must be a critical mass needed to support that and I hope that the minister will give us assurances that he will not go one dispersal too far. I hope that, in the future, ministers will try harder to find the right fit for the right organisation, in the right location, for the right reasons and at the right time.
Following the release today of the Fraser report, I am sure that many people will clamour for the relocation of one particular civil servant. Perhaps it is fortunate for Sir Muir Russell that he has not found himself being relocated to Botany bay.
The Scottish Socialist Party is fully behind the principle of relocation. In fact, the civil service headquarters in these islands are based in the south-east of Scotland, the south-east of England, the south-east of Wales and in the south-east of Ireland, in Dublin. I lived in London for eight years and was involved in many debates in the civil service unions about the implications of moving jobs out of London. Many civil service jobs have moved from London to Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow and Liverpool. I supported the policy, but was involved in ensuring the protection of the rights of staff who were relocated. That has been part of the debate this afternoon in relation to Edinburgh.
As a Lothians list MSP, I have no problem with the principle of relocation and I see clearly the advantages for deprived areas of Scotland of having civil service or public sector jobs deployed and decentralised throughout the country. I also see the advantages for an overheated Edinburgh economy, although it is worth highlighting, as Susan Deacon did, that there are areas of socioeconomic deprivation here in Edinburgh and in the Lothians. Nonetheless, I believe that the decentralisation of jobs from Edinburgh will cool the overheated economy and that the effect on house prices and the quality of life for all will be clear.
In today's debate, the policy of relocating public sector jobs must be seen in the context of the chancellor's announcement that 100,000 jobs are to go from the public service in Britain. It is therefore fair to say that the choice that worries public servants throughout Scotland is perhaps the relocation to the local job centre and facing former colleagues across the counter as they sign on the unemployment register. That is probably far more frightening than a trip up the A9 to Inverness. That puts the discussion about relocation in context and begs fairly pointed questions about whether there will be any jobs to relocate in first place and whether there will be opportunities to redeploy staff from one agency to another if the other agencies have disappeared. That is the context of the debate and it is worthy of thought.
Des McNulty, rightly, made the point that the debate is about fairness for employees as well as decentralisation of Government jobs. I believe that in every relocation the staff must retain the right to refuse to be relocated if they so wish. They must be given the opportunity to transfer to another department or to take voluntary redundancy.
Often staff—this is true of SNH staff in particular—have been presented with Hobson's choice. Consider the First Minister's now infamous promise to SNH staff that there would be "no need for redundancies" and that they would be "transferred to other areas." The figures are stark. Out of 270 staff, 40 have agreed to move to Inverness and 200 have put in for redundancy because no transfer was forthcoming. The prospect in front of them was clearly compulsory redundancy. That is a broken promise by the First Minister.
As for experience elsewhere, I am glad that the committee had the chance to go to Ireland, but a similar study of relocation programmes in the past 20 years in London and in Scotland shows that few existing staff opt to follow posts on relocation. Offers of redeployment are few and must be seriously questioned in the current climate. Experience shows that many people, when faced with the choice to relocate, choose to leave the service altogether, which means that their skills are lost to the public service.
SNH staff are examining all the options. The decisions on whether to move to Inverness, become redundant or go elsewhere will not be made until the end of October, so the member's figures are a bit premature.
I look forward to debating the figures with the member.
I will touch on one figure that Fergus Ewing has mentioned before in a comparison with Ireland, where employees were offered little assistance to redeploy themselves outside government. The Government there highlighted the savings that were to be made from house prices outside Dublin, but in departments that were relocated outside Dublin, the turnover between staff who worked in the departments in Dublin and those who work in the relocated offices has been 90 per cent. The process of decentralisation has also involved high staff turnover. That shows clearly that staff concerns were not considered thoroughly. As Fergus Ewing probably recognises, significant loss of customer and user satisfaction with service quality has resulted from dislocation, decentralisation and falling morale.
Will the member give way?
I have no time left to take Fergus Ewing's intervention.
I say yes to relocation, but it is not without its difficulties in practice. The Finance Committee is right to insist on greater transparency in the decision-making process, clearer policy goals, a clearer relocation strategy and—above all—closer involvement of staff and unions throughout the policy's development.
You must wind up now.
Thank you very much. I am right on time.
I congratulate all the Finance Committee members on a comprehensive, readable and—I hope—understandable report. It reflects well on the Parliament's committee processes.
I will talk a little about the factors that the Executive is using to determine where jobs might be relocated to. There are four. Socioeconomic issues that contribute 50 per cent; business efficiency and improvement contribute 20 per cent; sustainable transport links contribute 15 per cent—I am not absolutely clear that I know what they are, but perhaps we will hear later; and suitable accommodation contributes 15 per cent. I focus on those factors because they open up a bit of a can of worms. I welcome the fact that the Executive will be more open about the factors that are used in future relocations—that is a useful step forward.
I will talk a little about my area and Aberdeenshire generally. Aberdeenshire Council expects population decline in my area in the years to come. The unemployment rate in my constituency is about three fifths of the Scottish average, so one might think that we were doing much better than the Scottish average. Unfortunately, when many people lose their jobs, they leave the area or work away from home. Members will know of fishermen who are working off the west coast of Africa. My constituents have lots of get up and go, but that affects the numbers.
The rate of self-employment is another important consideration when examining the numbers, because in my constituency it is more than twice the Scottish average. When people drop out of that way of earning a living, they are not reflected in the figures. Average earnings in my constituency are just slightly under the Scottish average, so it looks as if we are doing reasonably well, but the median figure is substantially below the Scottish average. In other words, the figure as an average is distorted by the fact that a relatively large number of people have very large earnings. Therefore, there is genuine difficulty with many of the factors that are used to identify a socioeconomically deprived area.
Of course, in The Press & Journal today, a Labour MP is complaining about the transfer of 100 jobs from Aberdeen to Greenock. I say good luck to Greenock; that is fine. Over the past five years, there have been transfers of 95 jobs into Aberdeen with the Food Standards Agency Scotland and the Common Services Agency, so in many ways we are back to where we started. People will come to the north-east and will relocate to parts of Scotland in general. For example, there are vast numbers of people with Geordie accents in Peterhead because of recruitments that took place 15 or 20 years ago. Those people now do not want to leave the area—they are embedded in it—and that is great.
Fergus Ewing made some useful comments about putting into the public domain letters and e-mails that are part of decision making. I point out that the Executive published a code of conduct for procurement in public agencies that makes it very clear that contracts are expected to be in the public domain. If that is the case, we should apply similar standards to relocation. I hope that we will hear that that will be done.
We must be aware that the day of the central office—of concentrations of labour in administrative functions—will end at some point in the future. I do not know when that will be, but we already have the technology to enable, for example, a remote-working office to be located in Barra, which I visited a few years ago. It is quite small, but four people in an office there perform work for people who are well distant. I also know of a gentleman who works for BT's development lab at Martlesham in Ipswich and who is based on the west coast of Lewis; he is doing some tremendous stuff down a fat communications point. I have been involved in joint projects with people in Australia and India that have relied on teleconferencing.
Teleconferencing is going to change a lot. I have seen an experimental system that is so realistic that, when one sits across the desk, one forgets very quickly that one is not in the same room as the other person. I had the experience of someone turning away from me because they were sneezing. They were actually 50 miles away, but the system was so realistic that they did not realise that they were not sitting in the same room as me. I have also seen three-dimensional television work in an experimental way. Teleconferencing will move away from gimmicky ideas and, in perhaps 20 or 30 years, its realism will change the face of how we work. I hope that people will therefore be able to choose where they stay, because not everyone—I say this as a country loon—believes that cities are the epitome of civilisation. Indeed, I take an entirely contrary view on that.
Fergus Ewing talked about cost and there are two important aspects to that. Compensation for loss and recompense for inconvenience are proper, but bribery disnae work in the long term, and we have to reconsider it.
It is a privilege to speak on the relocation of civil service jobs. I am not a member of the Finance Committee, but I pay tribute to it for the work that it has undertaken on the matter, because, in the evidence taking, the committee got to the heart of many of the issues. Des McNulty set those in context for us at the beginning of the debate.
I am firmly in favour of the dispersal of jobs and I congratulate the Executive for taking the bold steps that it has to try to spread the benefits of devolution throughout Scotland. There are some things that we still need to sort out and we have faced some problems and difficulties along the way. The policy has not been universally popular and it is important to acknowledge that the Executive has stuck with it.
Members may be aware that the consultative steering group recommended in its report that some committees of this Parliament should have a permanent base outwith Edinburgh, so that alongside the dispersal of civil service functions would be some dispersal of parliamentary functions. I was interested in Stewart Stevenson's points on teleconferencing. It may be that at some future point, in the audit that Fergus Ewing spoke about, we can audit our own backroom functions. Given the new technology that is available, some of those might be managed outside Edinburgh. It is worth at least looking into that.
The committee's report suggested the setting up of a central relocation unit within the Scottish Executive, which would determine the suitability of departments and agencies for relocation. That is a good idea. We would have a more strategic overview, in light of which audits could be undertaken.
For areas of Scotland with above-average unemployment and fragile and seasonal economies, such as my own constituency, public sector jobs can be a lifeline. Add to that the fact that for qualified women with family responsibilities in more rural communities a civil service career might, for the very first time, be a possibility as a result of the relocation policy.
I recall that in the early days of this Parliament Allan Wilson, my colleague from Cunninghame North, and I spoke in a number of members' business debates on unemployment in North Ayrshire. We highlighted the fact that for local communities and potential investors, locating an agency is not just about the actual number of jobs. In fact, it is a vote of confidence in an area, which sends out signals to the local community, investors, businesses, colleges and others. At that time we spoke about the possibility of the Food Standards Agency Scotland coming to Ayrshire. Unfortunately, we did not secure that.
Since then, North Ayrshire has narrowly lost out on the Scottish Public Pensions Agency jobs by coming a close second to Galashiels. The Finance Committee in its report, and Jeremy Purvis, referred to the success of that agency, and I congratulate him and the area on making a success of it, but it was of some disappointment to us in North Ayrshire that Galashiels had an unemployment rate of 2.5 per cent while my constituency had an unemployment rate of 6.3 per cent. While I recognise that the Executive must match the location to requirements, I agree with the committee that greater transparency in the decision-making process is required. In addition, when an area loses out as narrowly as we did, it is important that the measures that need to be put in place for any future bid are clearly understood.
Having said all that, it would be remiss of me not to welcome the Executive's commitment to setting up the Accountant in Bankruptcy jobs in Ayrshire. My own constituency, as the minister knows, is competing to host the agency. By the summer of 2005 we will have a purpose-built site, should it be required, that has first-class transport links and is adjacent to James Watt College of Further and Higher Education. It would be helpful if the minister could advise as to when a decision is likely to be made on that. The jobs were advertised in January or February, but staff still do not know where in Ayrshire they are likely to be located.
Does Irene Oldfather agree that Ayrshire is back on the map in terms of its accessibility to the rest of the network, given the extension of the M77, particularly in my constituency, and that jobs that relocate anywhere in Ayrshire are of benefit to the whole of Ayrshire?
You are well into your last minute.
I am happy to agree with Margaret Jamieson's points. In our early bids, transport infrastructure was raised as a deficiency. The Executive has been able to address that.
In my last minute I want briefly to raise one point on the relocation of European agencies. The committee helpfully suggested that an audit should be carried out and that a unit should be established within the Scottish Executive. It would be appropriate if such a unit considered the potential for attracting European civil service job dispersal to Scotland. I realise that a UK bid is necessary, but in the same way that local authorities know the strengths of their areas, we could make a strong case for the kinds of agencies that we feel could come here, given the strengths of our people and our nation.
Mr Raffan, I can give you three minutes.
I am grateful, Madam Presiding Officer. I will shoot straight in: I am in favour of public sector job dispersal; I am in favour of motherhood and apple pie, too. The matter is pretty obvious.
I welcome the First Minister's initiative to extend the existing relocation policy through the small-unit relocation programme. Such relocations would involve 10 to 15 jobs that can be carried out in more remote areas that need economic stimulus. Last year, Perth and Kinross Council, which is in my region, submitted bids for Pitlochry and Coupar Angus and I would be grateful if the minister could let me know about the progress of those bids. I do not expect that in his wind-up speech, but perhaps he could do so by a note.
The Finance Committee's report is good and I support the point about the need for clearer criteria. As I said in an intervention on Mr McNulty, bidders require more detailed information on proposed relocations, the jobs that are being relocated and the type of job vacancies—so that they can work with further education colleges, local enterprise companies and so on to fill the vacancies—and other requirements, such as those for information technology. To provide greater transparency, we need regular updates from the Executive on the progress of relocations; bidders must be kept informed on the progress of particular submissions; short lists must be published; and unsuccessful bidders deserve feedback on why a bid did not succeed.
In his wind-up speech, perhaps the minister will say whether there has been any change to the scoring or weighting system. At present, business efficiency counts for 20 per cent, sustainable transport links count for 15 per cent, property availability and suitability for 15 per cent and socioeconomic factors for 50 per cent. If, as I understand it, the methodology is under review, it is important that we know the current state of the review and that any changes are communicated to potential bidders.
As members have said, many areas could benefit from job relocation. Alloa, Kirkcaldy and Perth, which are in my region of Mid Scotland and Fife, have been mentioned. Arguably, Perth in particular has been overlooked—the Food Standards Agency Scotland went to Aberdeen, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care went to Dundee and Scottish Water went to Dunfermline. The obvious place for SNH to relocate to was Battleby, north of Perth, given that SNH's major office outside Edinburgh is located there. Perth has a high quality of life, good health care, excellent schools and magnificent countryside.
I, too, have discussed the matter with Perth and Kinross Council, which is excellent and energetic—I am sure that my Tory colleague Murdo Fraser would agree—now that we have dumped the Tories from it. The council is led by the convener of the enterprise infrastructure, Councillor Alan Livingstone, who is a bundle of energy. It is Perth's turn. One of its current bids, which are for the new Scottish further and higher education funding body, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and architecture and design Scotland, deserves to succeed. I hope that the minister will take that on board.
Madam Presiding Officer, I am glad to be within your time limit and not to have earned your wrath.
That was a six-minute speech in three minutes.
I was one of the reporters on the committee's inquiry, which was an interesting experience. I thank the clerks—Susan Duffy, Emma Berry and, previously, Jane Sutherland—and also Ross Burnside from the Scottish Parliament information centre for all their hard work and invaluable support for the committee. I also thank the witnesses and the employees in the various agencies and departments who responded to our online survey. The responses were helpful to us in producing the report. I also thank the representatives of the Irish Government for their hospitable co-operation with our inquiry. They were on a week's holiday to celebrate St Patrick's day—they could not believe that we were going back to Scotland before St Patrick's day—but they were willing to come in during their holidays to try to give us the information that we wanted. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will have a chance to reciprocate that at some time.
Many members have spoken about the SNH relocation to Inverness, but it will probably not surprise members that I did not come to the inquiry with that focus. I was more concerned about why Dumfries and Galloway has not been successful in bidding for relocations; indeed, the area has lost jobs in the past five years. In the public sector, we have lost jobs from the Ministry of Defence and from what was West of Scotland Water and we are to lose jobs from a public company, British Nuclear Fuels, when Chapelcross closes down. My concern was why we were not being successful. To echo what Susan Deacon said, I wanted to know what was going wrong with the policy. I wanted the Finance Committee to assess how matters could be improved and how the policy could be made to work better.
The problems seem to be to do with how the criteria are operated, which militates against Dumfries and Galloway, as it does against a number of other areas. From the analysis of the consultants' reports that we looked at, Dumfries and Galloway and many other places always seem to be discarded from consideration at the first sift by the consultants who are employed to compile shortlists of possible relocation sites. I do not think that ministers had some sort of prejudice against those areas; it was just that they never seemed to get on to the shortlist for consideration.
How some of the Executive's criteria were applied by some consultants was very strange. One Edinburgh-based consultant assessed Dumfries as having no suitable buildings and as not being an area with any disadvantage. That is certainly not the Dumfries and Galloway that I live in, and I am not quite sure how that idea came about.
We did not get the Executive's response in time, but I am grateful for it and for its tone. The Executive acknowledged that
"any over-prescriptive methodology may exclude specific areas from consideration in reviews."
The Executive agreed that transparency for all stakeholders, and especially for the staff concerned, was very important. Maureen Macmillan, Paul Martin and John Swinburne made the same point. Part of the problem might be that the relocation policy has evolved since 1999, and that there has not been much discussion about how the various criteria are applied.
Colin Fox made a number of allegations about the Irish policy. He must have been referring to previous relocations, as the Irish policy is very new and has not started to apply yet. The Irish are considering how staff may transfer between departments or between agencies and departments if they are unable to be relocated. It is worth examining that point.
The lack of transparency under the current policy makes things difficult for ministers. It makes it difficult for them to rebuff the type of allegations that Ted Brocklebank and others are making: that Inverness was chosen for the relocation of SNH for political reasons. If it was chosen for political reasons, why was SNH not sent to Stirling or Dumfries, which are Labour marginal constituencies? Why make its new location an SNP marginal when there are some perfectly good Labour marginals around?
The committee's suggestions for a strategy linking relocation to economic development have been mentioned by Des McNulty and others. I am not suggesting that we want the same system as Ireland, but I am saying that we can learn things from Ireland. In particular, we were impressed with the idea of a strategic overview, with something like a relocation unit that could monitor or evaluate policy and could consider how large and small-scale relocations are working. Such a unit could also examine the balance between people and posts.
A number of members have said that relocation can be about bringing jobs to areas of high unemployment. In areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, it is not so much jobs that are needed as people. We have a shortage of people in Dumfries and Galloway. In particular, we have a shortage of health workers, teachers and social workers. It is possibly by joining together packages with public service jobs that we might be able to bring more people into areas with demographic problems. Jeremy Purvis's constituency in the Borders has similar issues to mine. It is important that the policy is carried out strategically and, as Des McNulty said, within the context of economic regeneration. There has to be an analysis of those areas of Scotland that require such regeneration and input.
We will return to relocation issues. I am grateful for the minister's offer to come back to the committee and discuss the matter further. If people would like me to go back to Ireland to find out how they are getting on there, I would be very happy to do so. We need to bear it in mind that there is no relocation without tears. Relocation will always be difficult but, the more we keep people involved and informed and the more transparent and rigorous the policy is, the more easily people will be able to accept the decisions that need to be made.
I, too, welcome the debate and the Finance Committee's report. It is inevitable in such a debate that members will make a pitch for their own communities and constituents. I will come to that.
However, I was struck by Susan Deacon's contribution this afternoon, as I was by her contribution last week. Ms Deacon is in a unique position to lead a debate about how the back office of Scotland, if we can call it that, is run; it is important that we have that debate. Devolution was not and should not be about changing just the front-of-house operation; it has to be about changing how things are done behind the scenes as well.
Way back in 1999 I was one of the first members to raise the prospect of relocating existing jobs, or, equally important, newly created jobs and agencies outwith central-belt locations. In my previous, corporate life I saw how that could work as I was employed by a company that was centred in London, but was able to have major corporate functions in Oswestry, which I assure members is in deepest Wales, or in Thurso, in the north of Scotland. There is no reason why such things cannot be done in Government if there is the will to do them.
The committee report identifies the fact that instead of deciding on clear policy objectives, which surely should be to locate jobs to the areas where they will make the most difference, the Scottish Executive went down its usual route of having consultants, advisers and goobledegook formulas. Of course, having a policy is only part of it; implementing it is another. As Mr Scott conceded during his evidence, decisions were inherently political—an issue that many members have raised. I believe that the committee was kind to say that it could find no rationale for the SNH move to Inverness; it was obviously political, with so many Labour and Liberal Democrat interests in that area in the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections. It is just a pity for other parts of Scotland that their Labour representatives do not seem to have the same clout as their Highland counterparts. That is why I believe—and, until I find evidence to the contrary, will continue to believe—that some areas are disadvantaged.
Will the member give way?
I will come to the member in a moment.
I was going to say that usually in the south of Scotland we get a string of promises from the First Minister down about reviews, consultations, further analysis and jam tomorrow and we are quite critical of Mr Scott. However, I was pleased to receive a letter from my good friend, the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council, which Mr Scott mentioned, which stated:
"Tavish Scott has given a solid commitment that a ‘name plate' will be relocated to Dumfries, with smaller relocations in Newton Stewart or Stranraer."
That is excellent news and I am surprised that the minister did not make more of it in his opening statement. Perhaps he will do so in his closing remarks, because that is the sort of solid commitment that we need, rather than the wishy-washy promises that we have had in the past. On this occasion I agree with Elaine Murray: Dumfries and Galloway is an area that has lost Government jobs through the closure of the West Freugh airbase near Stranraer, for example, and is crying out for a relocation.
There are few levers that Government genuinely has within its control to make a difference. Unlike Mr Sheridan and probably Mr Fox, I do not believe that the Executive can control the global corporate environment, oil prices or consumer behaviour—nor should it—but the Executive does have a number of levers that could make a difference. The provision of well-paid jobs in areas of Scotland such as Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders—which Jeremy Purvis has mentioned—and Clydebank, to which I notice that Mr McNulty referred during the Finance Committee's evidence taking, could make a difference. Those areas have some of the lowest household incomes in the United Kingdom and well-paid jobs there really would make a difference.
The jobs make a difference on a number of levels, not just by the fact of their arrival with the new entity, but by the fact that they create the opportunity of jobs for a spouse or partner. It is becoming an increasingly serious issue within rural Scotland that it has become difficult to recruit professionals because there is no well-paid employment for their spouses or partners. The relocation of Government jobs to an area such as Dumfries and Galloway also offers the opportunity to recruit health professionals, social workers and others that the area needs. Further, it offers the opportunity to provide employment to those who are attending worthy institutions such as the Crichton campus. There is no point in training people to a high level and not having work for them to do.
The policy of relocation was a good idea but, like so much in the past five years, it has been hopelessly mishandled. Instead of resulting in a positive outcome, it has led to the familiar feeling of neglect across rural Scotland. It is time for the Scottish Executive to up its game and, no doubt, we will hear from Mr Scott that it has done so.
Nearly every member who has spoken today has made some reference to their local area and it is perhaps unfortunate that I am the third speaker in a row from the south-west of Scotland. I will not labour the points that Elaine Murray and David Mundell made, but I will mention the advantages that the south-west of Scotland has in terms of quality of life, education provision and so on. In fact, for unionists, the area is near England and, for Scottish nationalists, it is in Scotland, so it has the best of both worlds.
I am glad that Mr Morgan referred to members from the south-west, as that gives me the opportunity to congratulate Mr Mundell on his personal policy of relocating himself from here to Westminster. That seems to be contrary to the Executive's policy, which favours more remote areas.
I will leave it to others to talk about that.
Despite the advantages of the south-west that I have mentioned, the last time I asked a parliamentary question about the net number of jobs that are coming to the area as a result of the relocation policy, the answer was zero. However, Elaine Murray made the valid point that the situation is worse than that, because we have lost Ministry of Defence jobs and water industry jobs, Moreover, the Forestry Commission is constantly centralising its district offices. The area has had a net loss of jobs.
The problem with the Executive's current approach, as the Finance Committee identified, is the lack of transparency. Not only is there no relocation, but people on the council do not understand why that is the case. Of course, that allows people such as David Mundell to make accusations. Furthermore, the council cannot tell whether the area will get any relocations in the future or whether the situation will simply continue as it is.
I should point out that people in areas such as Dumfries and Galloway are not necessarily looking for huge transfers on the scale of the SNH relocation. In many of the areas that would like some jobs to come their way, the local housing market and schools simply could not cope with the number of people who work in a large headquarters. Many small areas would like small units—perhaps two dozen or 50 people—to be relocated there. Earlier, Maureen Macmillan was a bit disparaging about small relocations, but in many places such relocations are worth their weight in gold.
I was not being disparaging about small relocations to small places. There is a role for that. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has internal relocations to more remote parts—
I get the point. We will try to avoid small relocations to big places, then.
It strikes me that the trigger mechanisms of some of the current location reviews—units being merged or property break points being reached—tend to work against the relocation of small units within organisations. I think that that is the point that Jeremy Purvis made. One of the trigger mechanisms is the end of a lease. However, as the Finance Committee's report pointed out, many civil service departments are situated in their own buildings, which means that that point will never be reached. Therefore, we need to be more flexible. For example, if the lease on department A's building is coming up for renewal, perhaps department B could be relocated and department A could move into department B's old building.
In passing, I wonder why we are following the bad example of firms that employ consultants to tell them what to do when they have to make a difficult decision. That is even more inappropriate when we are told that, at the end of the day, the decision that has to be made is a political one and that it is quite likely that the consultants' decision will be overturned. It is time that the Government was directly responsible and answerable for its decisions and not somebody else's decisions.
It was alleged that there were political reasons for the relocation of SNH. Elaine Murray asked why, if that was the case, SNH was not moved to Dumfries, which is a marginal Labour seat, but I would have thought that she would take that as a compliment on the strength of her candidature.
The issue is not easy. It is ironic that the more acceptable relocations are, the less the benefit to the community in the short term and the medium term. Murdo Fraser said that it would have been good if SNH had moved to Perth, because it is within commutable distance of Edinburgh. If SNH's office had moved to Perth and everybody had travelled up and down the M90, all that would have happened is that Perth would have gained some more rateable value. The point was well made by one member—I think that it was Murdo Fraser again—that, of the many jobs that we have created since devolution, the vast majority are in Edinburgh. It is time that we created more jobs elsewhere.
A common question at hustings meetings during an election campaign is: "What are you going to do to create jobs in this area?" As politicians, we cannot say, "I will create jobs," but we can say, "I will create the economic conditions that will deliver jobs." In the case of civil service and Government jobs, however, we can say that we will create jobs in a particular area, which is why the success of the relocation policy is vital and not just an optional extra. The Irish seem to be on the way to being notably successful. Whether we follow their model or some other model, we need to get the policy working soon.
I will respond to what has been a wide-ranging and intense debate, as shown by the fact that so many members sought to speak in it—indeed, it was oversubscribed. Few colleagues missed the opportunity to make a pitch for their area or constituency. That is fair and entirely as it should be. In some ways, one is reminded of the maiden speeches that are made in the House of Commons.
If anything, the debate has illustrated how difficult relocation is and how difficult the decisions about it are. I will pick up on a number of points. We will use the Lyons review of civil service relocation in the United Kingdom as a whole to ensure that Scotland benefits from the process. We will ensure that we secure jobs for East Kilbride and Aberdeen; we have already made initial progress on that. More work will be done to keep the pressure on our colleagues in London to secure more jobs for Scotland. Irene Oldfather mentioned the European perspective. That policy area is of direct interest; it has been raised with us by the Finance Committee and by individual members, and we are pursuing it. It is an area of relocation policy around which the Parliament as a whole can coalesce.
In opening for the committee, Des McNulty made a number of detailed points. He talked about the balance of irreconcilable policy options. In many ways, that is exactly the issue in relation to relocation policy; it is difficult to ensure that we strike the right balance between the many concerns that were raised about staff and the socioeconomic requirements of communities throughout Scotland.
A number of members asked for better information on relocation criteria for councils, local enterprise companies, other agencies and private sector developers who are interested in attracting relocating bodies. Mr Raffan referred to a one-page letter to local authorities, but that letter has a four-page annex that includes core criteria, a list of potential bodies to be relocated, information on the requirements of those bodies and the number of staff that they have in place. I take the point that we can always examine how best to review current practice, but there is an awful lot more out there than some members gave us credit for this afternoon. We will examine the point about feedback that was made by Mr Raffan and others in relation to the process.
As for SNH, in opening for their respective parties, Fergus Ewing and Ted Brocklebank perhaps missed the point. Susan Deacon reflected on the difficulty of the decisions in a way that I found more persuasive.
Mr Ewing also mentioned the Irish example. I will quote his words back at him—in full, rather than selectively, as Mr Brocklebank is prone to do in the chamber. On 4 May, he said in the committee exchanges that we had at that time:
"I think that you accept that I am not suggesting that we should replicate the Irish policy here. That would be wrong-headed and impossible".—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 4 May 2004; c 1331.]
I think that we all share that view. It is important to reflect on that when we hear that Ireland is the paragon of all virtues in relation to these matters.
Mr Mundell also quoted me selectively and just got it wrong—but that is Mr Mundell's requirement these days. He said that I said that the matter was inherently political. I said nothing of the sort. I said that it was ultimately political, just as every decision of Government is. The fact is that a due process has been followed. All Government decisions are made in that way, as they were under the Administration that I presume Mr Mundell supported. Mr Raffan mentioned Mr Mundell's desire to relocate to London. He may want to relocate, but the fact is that he ain't going to—it ain't going to happen.
Mr Fraser talked about the Conservative commitment to relocation. I can find no reference pre-1997, in the Scottish Office days, to any Tory policy on relocation. There was no such thing as a relocation policy in the Conservative days, so I do not think that that point carries any weight. However, Mr Fraser raised an important point—as did Colin Fox, Susan Deacon and many others—in relation to staff sensitivity and staff handling as relocation goes on.
Maureen Macmillan talked about the transferability of staff from non-departmental public bodies and Government agencies to the civil service. We are aware of a pilot scheme in England involving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Countryside Agency. We will look carefully at that and what it means and ensure that we take it into account in coming to our position.
Many other issues have been raised. I share Irene Oldfather's concern about the length of time that it took for the decision to be made. I will pursue that. Alasdair Morgan was quite right about the positive impact that the small units initiative can have, which is why I said what I did to George Lyon in response to the issue that he raised in that context.
The arguments that Maureen Macmillan, Paul Martin and Jeremy Purvis made about the benefits of relocation bear some scrutiny. Relocation is right for business efficiency in many cases, in terms of economic benefits and pushing the benefits of devolution around Scotland. That is why we will work with the committee and take forward the policy in that way.
Today, we have heard many constructive speeches that have endorsed, enhanced and augmented the committee's report. Having listened intently to the debate, I am hopeful that we have triggered a greater passion for the subject on the part of the Executive. The issue is important and members of the committee have been excited about its potential to rebalance the economy and retain and attract quality people to our public services. We welcome the minister's commitment to work with the committee on relocation and hope that that will result in a full audit of civil service jobs and regional needs.
However, I would have thought that an Executive that is committed to reversing low-level growth and population decline—especially the decline in the number of economically active people in rural areas—would have been even more positive in its plans for relocation. The Executive has produced a formal response but, sadly, not a strategy. I accept that its response is a serious declaration of intent with specific administrative actions, but I repeat the committee's call for a more structured and complete approach. We need more commitments like the one in the response, which is to
"make sure Scotland benefits from UK relocations flowing from the Lyons Review".
Nevertheless, we worry that the Gershon review may also result in more centralisation, which could negate any such gains.
The committee and the country will want concrete, practical steps to be taken that are likely to make a major difference in balancing the economic activity across the country, making Scotland more competitive and making our economic development agencies more focused and better armed to produce good results.
Paragraph 9 of the Executive's response contains an offer to
"come back to the Committee with developed ideas on a number of measures which could be taken to develop the relocation policy in a wider context."
That is somewhat lacking in urgency and fervour. Even the agreement in paragraph 13 of the Executive's response that
"relocation policy should be driven by objectives and targets"
does not give as much comfort as it should, because that commitment does not merit a mention in the Executive's conclusion at paragraph 17.
We are left with the feeling that, at present, relocation in Scotland is a top-down process triggered by external events and that it is sometimes very expensive, as we have heard today. Perhaps that is not surprising. Historically, relocations have been determined behind closed doors and decisions such as that to relocate SNH have subsequently not been fully and properly explained. As members of some parties have perceived today, those decisions were made for less than economically strategic reasons.
Present policy is driven largely by property considerations. Staff are forced to make difficult and stressful decisions. Many people are simply told that they are moving and that is that. Inevitably, that leads to tensions and, in the case of SNH, outright opposition. However, we note that relocations have happened in other parts of Scotland, although relocation is not yet a pervasive, Scotland-wide phenomenon whose effects are felt throughout the country.
The report shows—and I reiterate—the contrast with Ireland's evolving and open approach, which is based on a voluntary model. The approach was produced after widespread pre-consultation that facilitated the movement of people, sub-departments, and departmental functions out of the Dublin area. Irish policy is not without its difficulties and the choice of which parts of Ireland to go to is a political hot potato. However, today we have seen that that would also be the case in Scotland, as it would in any country.
The Irish model is better than the Scottish Executive approach, which has been ad hoc, defective, costly and paternalistic by comparison. The Irish model is compelling and worthy of study. We should take advantage of the fact that that model is on our doorstep, in a friendly nation that is happy to run an open book with us. We need to make sure that we stick with the Irish as they try, test and evolve the policy. I believe that we can learn a lot from the Irish model, especially as it appears to be working, overcoming the difficulties and building on the momentum. In short, it is simple stuff that works. In evolving the policy, the Irish are being totally open with us. On 30 July, the Irish decentralisation implementation group produced a report that is remarkable in its passion, momentum and genuine openness. Some 3,000 people are volunteering to move and to take advantage of the opportunity.
The Irish report communicates the urgency and pragmatism of a country that has seen its population grow by almost 20 per cent in less than 20 years. This year, Ireland's population reached 4 million. That is 80 per cent of Scotland's population. Indeed, the Irish are closing on us fast, especially in terms of the number of economically active people.
The recent Irish report notes the problems and risks and is up front in encouraging departments and agencies to incorporate risk assessment of the process in their individual implementation plans. It sets targets for departments and sets expectations in the target host areas that are to benefit from the relocation, in order to encourage and delegate momentum to and from the receiving areas.
That mature approach is paying off tangibly. There are no relocation or redundancy costs and there are property advantages. In tackling the pockets of resistance that undoubtedly exist, the report points to the many advantages beyond the material, social and economic boost that the target areas get. Those benefits could be enjoyed in Scotland. The advantages include freeing organisations from an over-reliance on precedent and the way things have always been, accelerating the use of new technology and thereby boosting productivity, challenging old orthodoxies and simplifying processes and procedures. Often, the policy leads to money being saved and people having enhanced working conditions. As well as ease of commute, individual civil and public servants can benefit from a raft of other disposable-income advantages.
That is not all that we would like to see in the Executive's relocation strategy, but such an approach could and should form part of a future Scottish strategy. Such a strategy should focus both on meeting efficiency and productivity gains and on promoting a quality of working life that motivates and retains quality people in our public services so that we can move Scotland forward.