Finance Committee, 28 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Official Report 334KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Scottish Natural Heritage<br />(Relocation of Headquarters) (PE670)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of petition PE670, from the Public and Commercial Services Union, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the Scottish Executive's decision to relocate the headquarters of Scottish Natural Heritage to Inverness. Members have a note from the clerk that details the options that the committee needs to consider in relation to the petition. They also have a copy of the petition, a letter on relocation issues written to the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services on behalf of the committee on 17 September, and his reply of 13 October. We also have the Scottish Parliament information centre's briefing note, which the committee requested after our discussion on the relocation at our meeting on 9 September. Members will have received by e-mail on 27 October copies of the correspondence between the Public Petitions Committee and Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

As stated in the clerk's note, and in line with recommendations from the Conveners Group, the committee needs to agree whether to accept the referral of the petition, to refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee for further consideration or to agree that the petition should not be considered. Before I invite comments from members I point out that we will have two options if the committee decides to accept the referral: we could ask the deputy minister to give evidence to the committee immediately on the basis of the information that we already have; alternatively, we could decide to appoint a couple of reporters to do additional work to clarify the issues and, when that work is complete and in the context of wider consideration of relocation, we could invite the minister or deputy minister to provide evidence. I invite comments from members.

We should agree to accept the referral because many questions need to be answered. We had a discussion a few weeks ago, towards the beginning of the session, about the relocation of such jobs; everyone was concerned that the Scottish Executive's criteria were not being adhered to. We should accept the referral, appoint reporters and leave the question until we have done more research into what has happened rather than deal with the issue in isolation. We will then get far more information.

As Kate Maclean argues, we should certainly accept the referral. I speak as the local member for Inverness, who advocated relocation of specific departments of Scottish Natural Heritage to my constituency. We should also seek to bring in the ministers who were responsible for the decision; we must question them because if we do not, we will not get the answers that we seek. We should not necessarily just bring in Tavish Scott, although he could perhaps sit in as well.

I reread the report by DTZ Pieda Consulting Ltd—the company from which the previous witness, Peter Wood, comes—during the recess. It ruled out Inverness from the short leet of five locations—I was not happy about that decision, but that is what the report, on which the Executive spent a lot of money, said. When asked to comment on the SNH decision, Tavish Scott stated in the annex to his letter that the DTZ report was taken into account. How can that possibly be? The DTZ report was ignored, so perhaps he means that he took it into account by ignoring its recommendations entirely and by not telling anyone the reasons why he did so.

I hope that we will hear from the ministers who were responsible for taking the decision. I think that those would have been the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department ministers, Mr Finnie and Mr Wilson, although other ministerial fingerprints are said to be on the decision.

DTZ Pieda's estimate of the cost of the relocation of SNH to Inverness was that it would be about £20 million. Since that estimate was made, it appears that the Scottish Executive has accepted that the cost has risen to about £30 million. We heard recently that SNH has commissioned a further consultant's report. According to press reports, that further consultant's report says that the cost is £40 million. Earlier in the meeting, I was very tempted to ask Mr Wood whether he was happy with the fact that his company's estimate appears to be out by a factor of 100 per cent—good manners prevented me from raising the point.

If the cost has risen from £20 million to £30 million and now to £40 million, we need the Executive to tell us, as part of its response to the policy question, at what point the aim of dispersing public sector jobs, which we all support, becomes something that cannot be justified in practice on the basis of costs, which are about £200,000 per job in this case. I raise the point in order to set the scene and to suggest that we invite SNH to share with us a copy of the consultant's report that it commissioned. If SNH is unwilling to do that, we should ask it to share with us a summary of the report's recommendations. Before we question the minister, we should find out what is the best estimate of the cost. Is it £30 million or has it risen to £40 million? If the figure is £40 million, or approaching that amount, does the Executive think that its policy on relocating jobs is worth £200,000 a shot?

I am sorry that I have gone on at some length on the matter. However, having read all of the papers and thought about the subject over the recess, I think that the way ahead is very clear. Before inviting the ministers who took the decision to explain why they took it we need further information.

I must first declare an interest, which is that I signed the petition.

The SPICe briefing note is very helpful. It provides background information and shows that a number of anomalies are involved. As the briefing note says, a common factor in some but not all the relocations that have been announced is that the new location is the

"Highest ranked location after business analysis."

It would be helpful for the reporters to provide an analysis of the subject.

The letter from Allan Wilson displays a degree of hubris. I want to raise questions about a number of areas. Although I am relaxed about the format that we take, our role is to scrutinise the entire relocation policy. Within that role, we should scrutinise the specifics of the SNH decision, which is the most glaring anomaly of all.

We should approach a combination of ministers to ascertain the overall policy and the specific issues that relate to SNH. I would like us to have a mechanism whereby we can raise issues on the petition and ask other questions that arise from the correspondence. I also support the proposal for reporters to undertake work on the overall policy so that we can shape policy in future.

We need an opportunity to go into the matter in more detail. The most perturbing aspect of Allan Wilson's letter was where he said:

"In considering the project plan, the Executive will be taking as flexible an approach as possible. However, there is no scope for reversing the overall decision".

It is apparent that, whatever we think, the decision cannot be overturned.

I am interested by the possibility that we might have the scope to expand our inquiries and get the question of relocations on to a more realistic and sustainable basis in the long term. Technology now allows the transfer not only of entire entities but of parts of departments, partial entities and so forth. It would be exceedingly useful to take the chance to ventilate and debate the situation at some length.

Once a mechanism is established whereby parts of Government departments can be relocated to other parts of the country to balance coverage more appropriately, we could create a role model that could be taken out to the private sector. Banks, life companies and other major employers could emulate the role model by taking advantage of new technology and the lower costs that can be accrued in more remote parts of Scotland.

One of the points that occurred to me after reading the briefing note was that, apart from the relocation of a Scottish Executive department to Glasgow, there has been no relocation anywhere else than Falkirk. The question is not just about considering more remote locations in Scotland; it is obvious that substantial areas of the west and south of Scotland are considered remote in the context of relocation. We need to look at such issues.

There is a general issue to do with the way in which the criteria for relocation work. The same areas tend to come up every time and always score highly. There is another issue as to how jobs can be dispersed more widely. The point that Jim Mather made about relocating parts of departments is pertinent in that regard.

I think that there is support for the idea that we appoint a couple of reporters to go away and do some further work on the subject to prepare us to take the issues forward. The reporters could look at the broader issues and at some of the specifics that relate to SNH. Do members agree to take that approach? Do members also agree that the reporters should conduct the exercise fairly speedily?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask for volunteers who would be willing to undertake this short-term exercise.

One volunteer present and correct.

I would be happy to volunteer.

We have two volunteers: Elaine Murray and Fergus Ewing. Do members agree to appoint those two members?

Members indicated agreement.

What about the other issues that are involved?

The suggestion is that the reporters go away and do the preliminary work. Their report could include recommendations about the evidence that needs to be collected and the questions that need to be put to the ministers. I think that that is the appropriate way in which to proceed.

That is the appropriate way to proceed. However, we know about a report that apparently says that the cost of the SNH relocation has risen to £40 million. The reporters will be slightly hampered without that information. We do not know what the best estimate of the relocation is and whether the estimate of £40 million is robust. Surely we should write to SNH now to ask whether it is willing to share the information with us. The information would inform the work that Dr Elaine Murray and I have agreed to undertake.

It is perfectly possible for the committee to write letters in support of the inquiries that the reporters are to undertake. We need to discuss how clerical support could be provided. The main point is for the reporters' work to come back to the committee in order to inform how we progress the issue.

Are you saying, "No, we are not writing to SNH" or "Yes, we are writing to SNH"? If we write now, we can get the information, but if we wait for a month, we will lose momentum.

I am quite happy to write to SNH to ask for information that is relevant to the issue.

Thank you.