• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

FINANCE COMMITTEE Tuesday 2 March 2004 (Morning) Session 2 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2004. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 2 March 2004 Col. PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS RELOCATION INQUIRY........................................................................................... 1113 BUDGET PROCESS 2005-06.................................................................................................................. 1120 ITEM IN PRIVATE .................................................................................................................................. 1128 FINANCE COMMITTEE 8th Meeting 2004, Session 2 CONVENER *Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) DEPU TY CONVENER *Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Ms Wendy Alexander (Pais ley North) (Lab) *Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) *Kate Maclean (Dundee West) (Lab) *Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) *Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab) *Jeremy Purvis (Tw eeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) *John Sw inburne (Central Scotland) (SSCUP) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP) Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab) Dav id Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con) Iain Smith (North East Fife) (LD) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Ross Burnside (Scottish Parliament Information Centre) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Susan Duffy SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Jane Sutherland ASSISTANT CLERK Emma Berry LOC ATION Committee Room 2 1113 2 MARCH 2004 1114 Scottish Parliament everyone had the same aspiration—to move people out from centres—but that in every case that proved to be much more difficult than had Finance Committee been expected. Ross Burnside: I do not have much to add to Tuesday 2 March 2004 that. The members who are going to Ireland might want to meet Opposition members and unions to (Morning) follow up on some of the criticisms that are raised in the paper, which were taken largely from press [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 10:00] articles. It is important to get a balanced perspective and to consider the pros and cons of Public Sector Jobs Relocation the Irish model. Inquiry Jim Mather (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): I am keen to explore whether there is any The Convener (De s McNulty): I open the experience from the case-study countries to Finance Committee’s eighth meeting in 2004 and suggest that there is a higher level of staff welcome the press and public. As usual, I remind retention when organisations move to more rural people to turn off their pagers and mobile phones. settings. Do such benefits accrue to movements in We have received no apologies from members in the longer term? respect of today’s meeting. Ross Burnside: The only thing that I can point The first item on our agenda is consideration of to on that question is the report that was produced a briefing paper that has been produced by the by Experian Business Strategies Ltd, the Scottish Parliament information centre to help us consultants who will, I believe, come to give with our inquiry into relocation of public sector evidence at some point. Experian did a study on jobs. Members will remember that we agreed our previous UK relocations and considered staff approach to the inquiry at our meeting on 3 retention and turnover, and found that it is easier February, and that we asked SPICe to produce to keep lower-grade staff. some background research, particularly on The paper is self-explanatory; everything that I relocation policies in other countries. Ross have been able to find is in it. When the committee Burnside, who prepared the paper, is here. I notice gets Experian along, it might be worth probing it that he has a bottle of water from Sidcup with him. on the point. Ross Burnside (Scottish Parliament Jim Mather: Can I take one more bite at the Information Centre): It is straight out of the tap. cherry? When we have seen relocations take The Convener: Ross Burnside can answer any place, as Ted Brocklebank pointed out, there has questions of clarification. I open the meeting to historically been a desire to hit target levels, but members who wish to raise issues from the paper. there has always been underperformance. Are there any indications that the advent of new Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) technology such as broadband and, even better, (Con): The paper is very good; it goes into some slick video communications might enable detail about what various countries do and how relocations to go to a totally different level? they have handled public sector jobs relocation. I found it interesting that in almost every case— Ross Burnside: My guess, based on previous whether it is the United Kingdom, Ireland or evidence, would be that that would be the case, elsewhere—the aspirations of the country, in but I am not sure. It probably makes sense to say respect of how many jobs it wanted to disperse, that that will be the case in the future. were never quite fulfilled. Some of the figures are Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and quite interesting. Under the Flemming review, Lauderdale) (LD): The paper is useful—a couple 95,000 posts were recommended for relocation of things come out of it and there is also but it turned out that only 22,000 were relocated. something that the committee should take forward. Under the Hardman review, 78,000 posts were First, we should develop some of the aspects of considered but only 10,000 were relocated. It is the Irish experience and consider the criticisms of interesting that when we consider the Irish it. We got an interesting impression of that from experience, despite all that we have heard about the witnesses last week, and we will be able to how successful it was, we see that there was a lot test it in a forthcoming meeting. of criticism of what went on and that the voluntary aspect did not work as well as we have been led My second point arises from the comment on to believe. From what I have read, it looks as page 17 of the briefing about though Ireland will not meet its target, although it “the recent report ranking Edinburgh as a candidate is early days. It is interesting for us to consider that location for some of the 20,000 jobs” 1115 2 MARCH 2004 1116 that the UK government plans to disperse. I do not relocation policies in specific instances, but the think that the committee has considered that in scope for Government and Executive agencies to much detail, but it is an interesting aspect. If our spread jobs about more than they do at present. inquiry considers the dispersal of UK Government As Jim Mather said, the use of different forms of jobs out of London and the south-east due to technology and different methods of working could overheating in that area, some people will lobby make that more possible than it has been. for those jobs to be dispersed to Edinburgh, but Fergus Ewing (Inverness Ea st, Nairn and the Executive takes the view that Edinburgh is Lochaber) (SNP): I was very interested to read overheating and that jobs should be relocated Ross Burnside’s briefing paper—I am always from there. There is a domino effect in relocation interested in reading SPICe briefing papers— and it should be part of our work to consider how which is very useful. I thank Ross for his effort. that is managed by the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office. The paper includes a section on criticisms of the policy in Ireland. However, one could argue that We should consider—the briefing does not there are many plus points or advantages in the address the matter because of the remit that the Irish model. I want to run through those and to ask committee set itself—agencies that operate in whether Ross Burnside agrees that the Irish policy Scotland and have considerable devolution in their has an advantage over the Scottish Executive’s operating practices. They may be UK Government policy, which certainly appears to be the case. departments—for example, the Department for The Convener: With respect, I do not think that Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence and it is for Ross to agree that—he is providing us with the Inland Revenue. I am interested in the current advice. Ultimately, the decision about whether to practices of such agencies in Scotland: if they are agree or disagree is a matter for the committee. relocating or centralising jobs because of cost efficiencies or other factors, does that run counter Fergus Ewing: Perhaps I could just ask for to the Scottish Executive’s work? That concern is Ross’s comments, convener, on the plus points of not within the scope of our inquiry, but it would be the Irish policy, because the paper has a section useful for us to consider it. In the end, it might marked “criticisms of the Irish policy”, but there is equate to the same number of jobs and might no section marked “advantages of the Irish policy.” affect the rural areas to which we want the The first point, to which I think the paper alludes, is Government to relocate jobs. That might involve a that the Irish policy is based on the principle that further desk exercise by the committee, which those who relocate will be volunteers rather than would be to get in touch with the agencies to conscripts.

Load more

  15

Copy Link