| Description | The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, commissioned a Review of public sector Asset Management which, in the first instance, should focus only on the Scottish Government estate. The aim was to consider the current status and quality of the management of our buildings and land. In doing so the Review has sought to establish the facts and identify the anomalies, weaknesses and opportunities to bring about the more efficient and effective use of of our estate. |
|---|
| ISBN | (Web Only) |
|---|
| Official Print Publication Date | |
|---|
| Website Publication Date | January 28, 2008 |
|---|
Introduction
1. Purpose of the Review
1.1 In August 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, commissioned a Review of public sector Asset Management which, in the first instance, should focus only on the Scottish Government estate. The aim was to consider the current status and quality of the management of our buildings and land. In doing so the Review has sought to establish the facts and identify the anomalies, weaknesses and opportunities to bring about the more efficient and effective use of our estate. This 'short, sharp' Review was led by Jim Mackinnon, Scottish Government's Chief Planner, who was tasked to report by 31 December 2007 with key conclusions and recommendations.
1.2 The primary aim of the Review are two-fold:
· To clarify precisely what the Scottish Government estate consists of, and who has control of and influence over asset management and accommodation decisions, estate management and financial accountability in relation to assets across the government estate.
· To recommend actions to achieve management improvements and inform future policy direction for the government estate.
2. Scope of the Review
2.1 This Review should be seen in the context of the Public Service Reform agenda - the drive to continuously improve the use of all public resources. The scope of the Review is the Scottish Government estate - that is the buildings and adjacent land owned, leased, managed or occupied in the name of Scottish Ministers or in the name of an individual public body. This necessarily includes those of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), agencies and other associated bodies.
2.2 In addition to the 'core' estate, the Scottish Government estate currently covers 144 NDPBs, 17 agencies, 2 non-Ministerial departments and a number of other associated bodies. However, the Review has not covered all these bodies. The bodies not covered by this Review are as follows :
· Bodies that have no property or land assets;
· Scottish Water - whose assets and the management of these assets are heavily regulated and which has special legal status;
· NHS Scotland public bodies - the assets of Health NDPBs (including the Health Boards) are the subject of parallel work of the same nature already being undertaken by the Health Department; and
· The Highland and Lowland estates, the Agricultural Research Institutes, Forestry Commission Scotland and the Crofters Commission manage estates of predominantly 'bare' land, which raises issues quite different from those concerning a predominantly 'built' estate.
2.3 This Review has concluded that the way we manage, use and resource our estate has implications across many other areas of policy development, including :
· The increasingly tight fiscal regime and need to maximise efficiencies,
· The drive to promote the sharing of services across the public sector,
· The need for sustainable development/green agenda,
· Location policy,
· The drive to simplify the public sector landscape, public bodies policy and the Crerar Review,
· 'Joint Futures' - the NHS/Local Government joint working initiative,
· Regeneration policy,
· The demand for affordable housing,
· Community ownership of assets.
3. Approach and Evidence Base
3.1 The Asset Management Review team, with advice and support from Property Advice Division, the Office of Chief Economic Advisor's Analytical Services and others, designed a two-part questionnaire. The aim was to collect both qualitative data on the arrangements for asset management planning, and quantitative data on each and every asset, in order to calculate the current size, value, condition, use and other information relevant to the government estate, as well as the estimated extent of surplus assets. A copy of the questionnaire is attached at Annex A.
3.2 Both parts of the questionnaire were issued on 12 and 13 September 2007 and respondents were given 4 weeks to respond. Following some extensions to this deadline, a 100% response rate has now been achieved, although work is still on-going to refine the data from one large organisation.
3.3 Part One of the questionnaire aimed to encapsulate the current management arrangements for all the buildings and land within each recipient's estate. It asked a mixture of closed (yes/no) and open questions (text description required) and one question requiring the ranking of criteria. The open text responses received are necessarily subjective in that they represent the views of one person within the recipient organisation. These were collated and reviewed to identify themes. The messages emerging were then examined further to identify areas of consensus where possible.
3.4 Part Two of the questionnaire collected standard factual data for each and every asset. In order to minimise the burden on responding organisations, the data already held by Property Advice Division on the 'e-PIMS' system was entered into each Part Two prior to issue. Recipient organisations were invited to check and update the information provided on each of their assets and to enter details of any asset not previously included on the e-PIMS database. The data was then interrogated to provide key metrics for each asset, each responding organisation and for the estate as a whole, in order to help determine how efficiently and effectively the estate is managed.
3.5 Some bodies that form constituent parts of a larger organisation responded as part of the overall response for that organisation. One organisation submitted separate individual responses for different parts of their estate, and two provided one response covering both organisations sharing the same premises.
A Summary Table of the results of the factual data from the questionnaire is attached at Annex C