Council
20 – 21 May 2003
8a
To consider
Accommodation Strategy and Relocation of Work
Issue
1.
The acquisition of accommodation in London and Manchester; and the
relocation of work.
Recommendation
2.
To receive this report on the accommodation strategy and relocation of work
(paragraphs 12 – 21).
Further information
3.
Finlay Scott
020 7915 3563 [email protected]
Background.
4.
On 11 September 2002, the FEC reported to Council their conclusion:
a.
That the accommodation strategy should no longer be based on relocating
to a single site purchased in London.
b.
That we are committed to Manchester as a component of our medium and
long-term strategy.
5.
On 5-6 November 2002, Council agreed:
a.
That there should continue to be a significant GMC presence in London.
b. That there should be an appropriate relocation of work from London,
mainly to Manchester.
c.
That a statement of best practice principles should be adopted.
6.
Council agreed two principles - to retain those functions in London that are best
undertaken in London; and to consider relocating those functions which do not need
to be in London for the effective functioning of the GMC.
7.
Each director reviewed their directorate's work against the two principles and
consulted with their colleagues. Among other things, those consultations underlined
that, in addition to questions about accommodation, other significant factors are
changing the ways in which we work.
8.
On 26 February 2003, we reported to Council the provisional conclusions that
had been reached on the relocation of work from London to Manchester. Council
noted that the ASWG, the FEC and the PAC, under delegated authority, would take
forward further work, with reports to Council.
9.
We have four directorates : Policy and Corporate Affairs; Resources;
Registration and Education and Fitness to Practise.
10. We have 285 permanent staff in London and 45 permanent staff in Manchester.
In addition we have a number of temporary staff in London.
11.
The ASWG has reached the following provisional conclusions:
a.
We are probably at or near a peak in terms of numbers of staff and
hearings.
b.
It will probably be easier to expand space if necessary, rather than
contract. We should be very cautious about taking excess space; and it may be
better to err on the side of too little space initially, rather than too much.
2
c.
In Manchester, we should include the space for hearings in the initial
requirement but we should be prepared subsequently to move hearings to a
separate building.
d.
In London, we should not at this stage commit to including hearings in the
new central London space. We should keep in mind the possibility of retaining
44 Hallam Street for the short term and relocating hearings from there only
when the overall picture is clearer and more stable.
Discussion
Accommodation
12. A summary of the current position on accommodation, in London and
Manchester, is at Annex A. Key points are:
a.
In Manchester, the ASWG has identified a shortlist of buildings, within
which the ASWG is concentrating on two possibilities.
b.
In Manchester, we are working on the basis that we will acquire about
15 000 sq ft of temporary accommodation, other than Barnett House.
c.
The ASWG is compiling a shortlist of options within central London.
13. On 27 March 2003, and on 3 April 2003, respectively, the PAC and FEC
endorsed the steps being taken by the ASWG.
Location of work
14. A summary of conclusions on location of work is at Annex B. Key points are:
a.
Policy and Corporate Affairs Directorate will remain in London.
b.
Fitness to Practise Directorate and Registration Directorate will be
distributed across London and Manchester.
c.
Resources Directorate will be based in London and Manchester, to
support the remainder of the organisation.
d.
Hearings will be held in London and Manchester with about 50% in each
location.
e.
On an indicative basis, there would be about 150 staff in London and
about 220 in Manchester.
15. On 27 March 2003, and on 3 April 2003, respectively, the PAC and FEC
endorsed the proposed relocation of work from London to Manchester.
3
Next steps
16. Understandably, staff in London remain unsettled and many have stressed the
need for firm decisions and a reduction in uncertainty both in relation to the work that
will be relocated and the timing of relocation. Following this meeting, we will report
the outcomes to all staff.
17. One of the principles agreed by Council in November 2002 was that we would
do all we reasonably can to avoid compulsory redundancy. To support this, we have
developed a voluntary redundancy policy which will be made available to all staff,
regardless of whether their post may be relocated to Manchester.
18. The aim is to begin the phased transfer of work to Manchester from
Summer 2003. In the first instance, additional staff recruited in Manchester will be
housed through more intensive use of the existing temporary space in Barnett
House.
19. It has been agreed that there should be a joint FEC and PAC meeting for the
purpose of selecting a specific building in Manchester. We currently expect updated
proposals from the developer by the end of May 2003. The joint FEC and PAC
meeting has been scheduled for 12 June 2003. The decision will be reported to
Council on 9-10 July 2003 for endorsement.
20. The ASWG has begun the detailed evaluation of accommodation in London. In
evaluating accommodation in London and Manchester we will take fully into account
factors other than the financial case, including the needs of disabled staff, members,
associates and visitors. We will also take into account accessibility generally, and the
need for good levels of personal security, including out of hours security, in
accordance with relevant legislation and good practice. We will be inviting members
and associates to contribute to this process.
21. We are preparing to adapt part of the first floor of 178 Great Portland Street for
use as the PLAB assessment centre. This should be ready for service in
September 2003.
Recommendation: To receive this report on the accommodation strategy and
on relocation of work.
Resource implications
22. There will be transitional costs associated with the acquisition of new
accommodation. The ASWG’s approach is consistent with the resource position
outlined in the Council paper for 5-6 November 2002. Our current, provisional,
assessment is that actual transitional costs in 2003 will be lower than budget; and
that total transitional costs will be lower than assumed in the business case.
Charitable law
23. The approach described in this paper is consistent with our responsibilities as a
charity.
4
Equality
24. Impact assessments on accommodation and relocation of work were
completed and considered by the PAC and FEC.
5