HC Deb 12 November 1992 vol 213 cc979-80
4. Mr. Ian Bruce

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payback period his Department demands for civil servant relocation projects; and what plans he has to bring these into line with those pertaining in private industry.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell)

In common with private industry, we require relocation proposals to offer good value for money.

Mr. Bruce

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not appear to know that the answer that I received from the Ministry of Defence about a week ago was that there was a 25-year pay-back period on relocation whereas private industry has a three-year pay-back.

My hon. Friend will see an announcement at 4 o'clock which will add to the relocation out of my constituency. A total of 2,300 jobs will be moving. The Treasury has approved some of these moves, at a cost of £60,000 per move. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at the matter with renewed vigour?

Mr. Dorrell

Of course, I understand the considerable impact that the proposals will have on my hon. Friend's constituency. He will know that the proposals are being announced, subject to discussion with the trade unions. Of course, we shall take those discussions seriously.

It is not correct to imply that there is a firm rule or a piece of algebra that exempts decision makers from the necessity to make a judgment. We do not define a piece of algebra. We ask people to apply a wide range of tests so that when proposals to relocate staff from one part of the country to another are put into effect, they can insist that good value for money is delivered to the taxpayer, taking all taxpayers into account.