Item 2 is evidence on the financial memorandum to the Creative Scotland Bill. We agreed to adopt level 2 scrutiny, which involves seeking written evidence from affected organisations and individuals and taking oral evidence from Scottish Government officials. I welcome Greig Chalmers, who is the head of the Scottish Government's creative Scotland and broadcasting unit, and Yvonne Georgeson, who is the bill's project manager. You have said that you do not wish to make an opening statement, so we will move to questions.
As the convener said, our purpose is to scrutinise the financial memorandum. The memorandum is relatively brief—that might raise concerns that we will cover in questions.
We made that estimate towards the end of February, when we prepared the financial memorandum. It was a shared judgment between us in the Government and our colleagues in the transition team at the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen. As members can imagine, a range of possible one-off costs might arise. Between us, we thought that that was a reasonable estimate for the one-off costs. Work on the costings continues, led by our transition director, Anne Bonnar. As yet, I do not have a new estimate to offer the committee, but we are continuing to work on that.
I will come on to the current work that is being undertaken in relation to the figures. Going back to the original figure of £700,000 in the financial memorandum, you said that it was arrived at as a result of a shared judgment. Was the figure based on discussions between relevant parties, or were any costing models built to arrive at it?
The figure was based on discussion between ourselves, the transition director and the executive teams of the two organisations. We looked at the types of cost that might arise as the two organisations are combined—professional fees provided to auditors for carrying out due diligence; costs that might arise through new staff recruitment; and costs that might, at some point in the future, arise through staff training. We were asked to offer an estimate for the purposes of the financial memorandum, and we took what we thought to be a reasonable mid-point in the range of possibilities. From that, we offered up a figure of £700,000 for the financial memorandum.
How did you arrive at the decision that the costs incurred would be equal in both years?
The figure is obviously an estimate—I do not expect the costs to be equal in both years partly because if the Parliament passes the bill, the body will already be established in the second year. At the time, we thought that £700,000 was a reasonable estimate for the costs in both years. I am not trying to say that that will be the exact figure. As the transition director acknowledged, and as we acknowledge, there is a range of possibilities, including the possibility of movement in either direction.
Okay. You indicated that the figure was arrived at as a result of discussions between relevant officials and, as you said, it has been offered up to us. You also said earlier that work on the transition is on-going. Are any detailed figures available to back up the figure in the financial memorandum of £700,000?
Not at the moment. Needless to say, that is one of the transition team's important tasks. In the next few months, it will seek to offer the joint board of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen a more detailed implementation plan.
Do you accept that it is a shortcoming of the financial memorandum that detailed costings were not available when it was drawn up and that, at this point in time, we still have no detailed cost models to back up the figure of £700,000?
Certainly, we would have preferred to be in a position to offer detailed costings. We are working with the partner organisations to bring about their merger and we sought, in providing evidence for the financial memorandum, an estimate that was as reasonable and well-informed as we could find and which we hoped would meet the expectations in the standing orders.
We all appreciate the fact that it can be difficult to come to a specific figure at an early stage. You mentioned—if I picked you up correctly—that £700,000 was the mid-point of the range of estimates that you came up with for the various potential outcomes. What were the upper and lower ends of that range, and the associated probabilities?
The costs that would be associated with any voluntary redundancies that might be part of the merger process would make the process more expensive. If the scale of those redundancies was more extensive than might be thought necessary just now, the transition costs would certainly be taken above the £700,000 figure.
I will move on to the staffing situation. Is it your expectation that all staff from the two existing bodies will move to the new organisation?
Yes.
Are redundancies, either voluntary or compulsory, expected?
The Government's policy is that there will be no compulsory redundancies. We are at too early a stage for me to give you a detailed answer about voluntary redundancies. It is possible that they will form part of the merger scheme, but that will depend partly on the structure of the new organisation and where existing roles might fit into it. It is possible that voluntary redundancies will be part of the process.
Will you clarify the answer that you gave to Derek Brownlee? Were voluntary redundancy costs included in the upper end of the range of estimates?
Our present estimate is that the process is expected to cost £700,000 per annum in the next two financial years. If there are considerably more voluntary redundancies than we think are likely, the costs will increase.
Just to be clear, does the figure of £700,000 per year include an element for voluntary redundancies?
Yes.
Okay.
You will forgive me if I do not talk about the employment situation of any specific individuals, as that would not be appropriate.
I understand the sensitivities.
The new organisation will obviously not need two chief executives but, needless to say, the individuals concerned have employment rights, which we will respect. All the individuals concerned acknowledge that, at some point, there will need to be a rationalisation of senior staffing arrangements.
That will obviously have a cost implication. Does the £700,000 estimate make provision for that?
There would be a cost implication if there were redundancies. I cannot tell you at this point whether the chief executives or finance directors, having had their employment transferred to the new body, would be content to take on a slightly different role. If they were content to do that, redundancy would not arise—indeed, it may not need to arise at all.
I will try to clarify it. I appreciate that you do not want to discuss specific posts, but I think that we have established that there might be a rationalisation of senior staff posts. The cost of voluntary redundancies for senior staff would be greater than the cost of redundancies for staff further down the line. You said earlier that the £700,000 was the mid-point of the estimates. Was the potential cost of redundancies for senior staff included in the £700,000?
Yes, in general terms. That was our estimate of the overall cost.
What do you mean by "in general terms"? Was a figure put on the potential cost of such redundancies? Was that cost included in another figure?
A figure was not put on the cost that might arise from a person now occupying a chief executive role becoming redundant. We considered the broader impact of voluntary redundancies across the organisation.
So a figure was included for voluntary redundancies, but there was no specific costing for potential redundancies for senior staff.
As yet, we have not had to cost voluntary redundancies for different strata in the organisation. In that sense, we have not come to an estimate of the cost of voluntary redundancy for a chief executive; nor, for that matter, have we come to an estimate of the cost of voluntary redundancy for different groups of staff in the two organisations. The determining factor is what the new organisation will look like and how the transition will work.
Is it fair to say that you have included a figure for potential voluntary redundancy costs, but it is just a general figure and there is not a lot of detail behind it yet?
Yes.
You have said that the estimate is £700,000. The actual cost could well be anything from £100,000 to £1 million—not just for one year, but per annum. Will you confirm that the cost could be £2 million, rather than just two lots of £700,000?
We have offered an estimate for this financial year and the next financial year. In the sense that costs could fall in both years, I concur with what you are saying.
So the cost could be £2 million over the two years, if it reaches the higher end of the estimate range.
If the cost is £1 million in each year, it could be £2 million. You asked us for an estimate, which is the figure in the financial memorandum.
The estimate of £700,000 is not detailed at all.
That is correct.
It is vague. The cost could well be massively more than the figure that we have been given.
The Government wishes to establish creative Scotland as soon as possible. A legislative opportunity has become available, and the Creative Scotland Bill has been introduced. Work is on-going to make the merger of the existing bodies a reality.
The reality of the merger is that it is going to cost far more than the estimate. It is the most unreliable estimate that I have seen in my life.
It may or may not cost more than the estimate.
But the cost could go up to £1 million per annum. You did not tell us that the range was between £100,000 and £1 million without having some idea that, if the figure went above £700,000, it could go up to £1 million. That would be a massive increase, would it not? Is the figure of £700,000 meaningful, or is it just nonsense?
If I understand the standing orders correctly, what is sought from us is an estimate that is based on a reasonable range of possibilities. That is what we have attempted to offer.
It seems as if you have stuck your thumb in the air and plucked out a figure. I find it amazing that you say that the work is "at an early stage". I was convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee two years ago, when all parties agreed to the creation of the new organisation. I find it amazing that we are where we are regarding what is not a substantially difficult exercise.
The standing orders say:
We have attempted to offer the committee that best estimate of the costs, such as we can consider them at the moment; we have also attempted to offer, in general terms, an estimate of when they will occur. Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the financial memorandum clarify that we do not expect costs to be imposed
You have not told us about any of the assumptions underlying that estimate, nor have you given us an explanation of what the range of costs could be. Would you buy something from a shopkeeper who treated you in that way when you asked for a price?
I am not sure that I—
Can you understand our difficulty? This is a financial memorandum to a bill that does not follow the rules that are laid down for financial memoranda. It is one of the vaguest things that I have heard in my life.
I hope that I can be slightly helpful. Am I right in thinking that the difficulty in getting a firm figure for the costs lies in the fact that some of the big decisions are still to be made on the final structure and location of the body? Until those decisions are made—which will require consultation with staff members and decisions by Parliament—it will be impossible for you to come up with a set figure without damaging the process that you must still go through. Is that correct?
That is generally correct. We understand that an important part of the process that has yet to be gone through is for the joint board of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen to consider a proposal on what the new organisation will look like. Until that is considered and agreed—notwithstanding, of course, any amendments that the Parliament might make—it is difficult to settle on a detailed estimate.
The committee is trying to ensure that there is as much scrutiny of financial matters, and as much accuracy, as possible. I am told that we cannot send the financial memorandum back so that you can think again and get it organised, but we have a right to ask for additional information and I wish to exercise that right.
I can certainly attempt to do that, but I would not wish to offer the committee a sense of certainty about the costings, the staff structure, the number of staff and the staff training costs involved in the new organisation if I was not in a position to do so—and I may not be for a little while. To answer your question in principle and as directly as possible, we would certainly wish to try to provide such information as we could as quickly as we could.
Would it be helpful if, at least initially, we received that information in a private paper? I can understand that some of the costings would make assumptions that, if the information was in the public domain, might impact on individuals and their jobs. I would be concerned if we were asking for information that would enable someone to say, "If they do that, I will be out of a job—my job will not be there." We are talking about two organisations coming together, which is a difficult process. It would not help us, the new organisation or the trade unions involved in any discussions if we put such information in the public domain.
The committee always respects the need for privacy when privacy is justified. Joe FitzPatrick makes a fair point.
The trade unions' submissions understandably focus on the staff perspective and the uncertainty around redundancy. I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue but, in order to give us an idea of the parameters within which we are working, can you tell us what the staff complement is, and what the staff budget is, for each organisation? It is important for us to understand what the starting position is in each organisation so that we can take a view on the reasonableness or otherwise of any provision for voluntary redundancy.
The Scottish Arts Council has 93 staff and Scottish Screen has 30 staff. I do not have to hand the staff running costs, but I can provide those to the committee from the respective operating plans. As you would expect for grant-distributing bodies, the running costs in both organisations are a relatively small proportion of the overall grant in aid.
Joe FitzPatrick makes a fair point about maintaining privacy, but the situation is the same for this bill as it is for every bill that we deal with as it progresses through the committee and through Parliament: we need to know the Scottish Government's expectations and intentions. There may be a margin of error, but although I accept Joe FitzPatrick's point about privacy, I see no reason at all why we should not be furnished with that information.
I think that we have been assured of assistance when the information is at hand.
No, thank you.
I think that you can see that the committee is not at all happy. I hope that future financial memoranda will, when possible, be much more accurate, to allow Parliament to have accurate financial information before it. Otherwise, we will not be fulfilling our financial obligations.