§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether it remains his policy to disperse 3,000 staff of the Property Services Agency to Teesside between 1983–84 and 1984–85; what has been the reaction expressed to him by the Civil Service trades unions to this proposal; what reply he has given; what is the expected administrative cost of the move; what savings are expected; and how these are calculated;
(2) whether he will outline the benefits in administrative efficiency and service to the public which he envisages will flow from his policy of dispersing 3,000 civil servants in the Property Services Agency to Teesside; and whether he will make a statement;
(3) what anxieties have been expresesd to him by civil servants over the age of 50 years in the Property Services Agency at the effect on their personal lives and circumstances of dispersal to Teesside; what action he is taking to meet this concern, following his correspondence with the hon. Member for Melton on this subject; and whether he will give an assurance that everything possible will be done to avoid compulsory transfer for those who do not wish to go, and without detriment to their careers.
§ Mr. MarksIt remains the Government's policy, as part of the programme announced in July 1974, to disperse 3,000 jobs in the Property Services Agency's headquarters to Cleveland. About half these jobs are expected to be filled by local recruitment. The departmental Staff Side have expressed their opposition to the move, but they have been assured that they will be kept informed of the planning and they are being given every 561W opportunity to express their views on the details as they emerge. I am aware that concern has been expressed by staff at all age levels who do not wish to go to Cleveland about the consequences, and everything possible will be done to avoid compulsory transfers.
It is too soon to make a reliable estimate of the total cost of the PSA dispersal. There will be some long-term savings, for example, on accommodation given up in London and elsewhere and on payments of London weighting allowances. But the principal aim of the Government's dispersal policy is to create new job opportunities in such areas as Cleveland where unemployment remains much higher than in the South-East. No one pretends that in helping to achieve this there will not be some loss of efficiency at least in the short-term but every effort will be made to keep it to the minimum.