“Managing early departures from the Scottish public sector”
We are considering the section 23 report, “Managing early departures from the Scottish public sector”, which is a joint Auditor General and Accounts Commission report. We have with us the Auditor General for Scotland and Mr Baillie, the chair of the Accounts Commission, along with Fraser McKinlay, Tommy Yule and Gordon Neill, who are all from Audit Scotland. Welcome to you all.
Our joint report is a bit unusual for us. It is very much intended to remind organisations of the principles of good practice for managing early departures. It also provides information on the extent to which Scotland’s devolved public sector uses early departures and gives some examples of current practice.
Thank you. Mr Baillie, did you want to say something?
No, I have nothing to add.
I was quite shocked at the average cost of early departures, but probably more shocked that the number of staff who are employed by the Scottish public sector has fallen by 40,000 since 2009. Should we presume that a percentage of those jobs have been filled since? Is that the net reduction in the number of staff in the public sector?
The figure of 40,000 is a net reduction. As we explain in the report, the complication is that the figure includes staff who have transferred to arm’s-length bodies as part of the process. We have not been able to get accurate enough information to break out those figures, but there is a net reduction.
Given that there are 40,000 fewer employees, most people out there would ask how that has impacted on public services. Have we been able to deliver the same quality of public service with 40,000 fewer employees?
Answering that is very much the purpose of the work that is under way on reshaping the public sector workforce. We have taken a snapshot, based on information that is in the public domain for the first time about early departures, as a chance to restate the principles. We know that some organisations have taken a short-term approach—some of them have had to do so—to reducing staff, where that has been relatively easy to do. However, it is obviously important that that is part of a wider strategic approach that involves looking ahead at issues such as what staff will be needed and changes to the shape of the workforce. The approaches that are taken to get there will be different from the sort of moves that can be made to make such short-term savings.
I presume that no person or persons would be allowed to leave if they were key to the delivery of a quality service. Therefore, can we presume that there were 40,000 surplus staff and that we can continue to provide a quality public service with 40,000 fewer staff?
The extent to which individual people who express an interest in early severance are critical to service delivery should be absolutely central to the business plan that is considered in making a decision on whether they are allowed to leave. I ask Fraser McKinlay to pick up on the broader point about what we know about who has gone and from where.
I was going to make a similar point about the importance of having a clear policy in the first place and clear business cases for individuals. As we say in the report, the variation in that across the public sector is striking in some places. Some bodies have taken a fairly targeted approach, whereas others have taken more of a blanket approach. We are clear that bodies need to try to understand the potential impact on service delivery. As Caroline Gardner says, that is a key part of the work that we are currently doing and on which we will report in the autumn.
Exhibit 2, which is on page 11, shows that, in one year—the report is looking at 2010-11 and 2011-12—8.4 per cent of staff left central Government, 3.7 per cent left local authorities, 2.1 per cent left police and fire bodies and 0.5 per cent left the NHS. Are those changes based on the provision of a quality service and value for money, or are they based on budget pressures, efficiency savings or, indeed, the protected budget for the NHS? What I am probably trying to ask is: could more savings be made in the NHS? The figure of 0.5 per cent for the NHS is considerably different from that of 8.4 per cent for central Government. Why is there such a range?
We think that a range of factors comes into play. I suspect that the fact that the Government has made a commitment to protect the NHS budget in real terms has affected the number of staff who are leaving in that sector—it is a smaller number proportionately. There is a focus on reducing the costs of other central Government spending heads to balance out the impact of NHS protection.
Is it safe to assume that, if central Government can lose 8.4 per cent of staff in one year and continue to provide a high-quality public service, those efficiencies could be made right across the public sector, or did central Government have a surplus of staff in the first place?
I am not sure that it is safe to make that assumption. Different organisations are starting in different places, and the report is a snapshot looking at two financial years, 2010-11 and 2011-12. That is why we are stepping back to look at the strategic approach that is being taken more generally.
Mary Scanlon quoted figures for local authorities over a 12 or 14-year span. In local authorities, the full-time equivalents are now about 235,000, and the figure peaked a few years back at 260,000. However, if we go back over the period that Mary Scanlon is talking about, the figure then was about 235,000, so it has gone up and come back down again.
When did it go up from 235,000? The workforce is now 273,000.
I think that the figure for 1999 was about 235,000 or 240,000.
And even with 10,000 departures in one year—
Well, it is two years—
So the figure was up at 283,000?
If we go by full-time equivalents, it was about 260,000 about five years ago.
Are there 48,000 more employees in local government since devolution?
No. I am saying that, in 1999, the figure was about 235,000 to 240,000, and it has come back down to that level. The figure peaked about five years ago.
It peaked at 283,000?
Yes, the equivalent figure is 260,000 full-time equivalents. It is now back where it was.
It still went up by a huge amount.
I would like clarification on paragraphs 2 and 3, on page 4 of the report, because £280 million a year is a huge amount of money. Paragraph 2 states that 14,000 staff accepted early retirement in the years covered by the report, and paragraph 3 states:
On your first point, the savings that we expect to see in business cases would include instances of posts being backfilled on a lower salary, and we would expect only the marginal saving to be included in that business case. Generally speaking, that is how it is done. The report states that there is some inconsistency about the costs that are included in the business cases. Our auditors are picking up on that and will focus on it even more in the coming audit year to ensure that there is greater consistency about what is included in the up-front costs.
Just to be clear, is your evidence about the savings based on the business plans that were put forward by the councils for those departures?
Yes; there is evidence in individual bodies that the departures lead to savings.
Is that the only evidence?
Yes.
You say in paragraph 6 that the quality of the business cases varies.
Indeed—but, although the quality varies, there is still evidence that pay bills are coming down in public bodies. Our auditors are satisfied with the evidence that, thanks to the monitoring that is being done in the public sector, reporting is done on what is happening as a result of people going and on the savings that are being delivered. It could be better, but we are pretty confident that some savings are being delivered.
Caroline Gardner mentioned our report that will come out in the autumn. That report will examine the very issue that Mr Beattie is talking about: the extent to which savings are monitored and whether they should be monitored more closely.
Paragraph 32 on page 15 comments on early departure schemes and how they can reduce organisations’ efficiency in some cases if they are not well managed. Have you seen any evidence of that to date, or is it too early?
It is too early to say. The report is deliberately a snapshot based on the disclosures that were required for the 2011-12 financial statements for the first time. In our wider work on workforce planning, we are considering whether people are taking a strategic approach—assessing what they need their workforce to look like in five years’ time and how much money they will have to spend in five years’ time, with a process being undertaken to fit the two together—or whether they are taking a more opportunistic approach by looking for opportunities to cut costs now, without enough focus on what the impact might be on service quality or demand. That relates to the question that Mrs Scanlon asked earlier. It is important that savings are made, but that must be done in a way that does not lead to longer-term costs because gaps become apparent, or because it becomes necessary to refill posts that had been deleted under an early severance scheme.
My apologies for being late, convener.
I do not think that we have that figure. The report is drawn from the annual accounts, and that is not disclosed in those accounts.
How would we find out about that?
That is mentioned by auditors in their annual reports where they have concerns about it. As we say in our report, there can be good reasons for compromise agreements, as long as they are not used either to suppress information that is properly dealt with through whistleblowing approaches, or to hide the cost of settlements from the public.
I understand that, but how would we find out? How would the committee get that information?
At the moment, it is not required to report compromise agreements anywhere.
Should it be?
That is a question for the committee to have a view on. I suspect that that could be drawn out through freedom of information requests, if appropriate. If we felt that there was a problem with such agreements more generally, we could collect that information through our audit access powers.
Do you accept that we found out about the manipulation of waiting lists in NHS Lothian only because of a whistleblower? The public concern is clear. If compromise agreements are being used and you cannot tell me how many are being used among the 14,000 people who have left the various public bodies—such that we have no idea how extensively they are being used—it could be a very serious issue.
Potentially it could be, but we have found no evidence that it is. We have focused on the general picture as it stands at the moment. The team might have a bit more to say about the examples on which we have commented in our report. In the NHS in particular, further guidance has been given out to health boards about the use of compromise agreements and the circumstances in which they should not be used.
I wonder why that additional guidance was provided. That suggests that compromise agreements were systemic or endemic across the public sector. I do not know whether it was Government guidance or whose guidance it was, but more guidance had to be produced.
The guidance was produced in response to public concerns at the time, rather than to evidence problems in the use of compromise agreements. The team might be able to help me out with more information on that.
I will speak to the team that is working on the reshaping the workforce performance audit to check how easy or difficult it will be for us to get that information. We can consider how to gather that information about compromise agreements. Our concerns, as auditors, have on occasion been more to do with the way in which public money is being withheld, and with the transparency of that, rather than with whistleblowing in the sense that Mr Scott is getting at.
I completely accept that point, and paragraph 58 makes it very clear. My point is that I do not know—it strikes me that you do not know, either—how extensive that practice is.
Sure.
If you can come back to the committee on that, it would be extraordinarily helpful.
There are two questions that relate to Scottish Enterprise in that regard. The first concerns the scheme itself. It is certainly true that the scheme that Scottish Enterprise was operating last year was more generous than the general civil service scheme. The Scottish Government had approved the scheme, while giving Scottish Enterprise a steer that it should seek to reduce its contractual obligations to members of staff. As with much of this issue, some aspects of the policy go back a long way to the point at which the schemes were introduced or to when individual people were appointed and contracts with them were entered into.
What was the number and cost of departures from Scottish Enterprise, broadly speaking, over those two years?
The appendices to the report give a bit of information about that, in particular appendix 2, on “Proportion of staff taking early departure”, and appendix 3, on “Average cost of early departure packages”. For Scottish Enterprise, the average cost was a little over £100,000 last year, and the proportion of staff who were going was actually lower because of the size of the organisation. I think that there has been a small number of higher-cost packages, which ties into the targeted approach that was taken.
I am very grateful for that advice. Why did Scottish Enterprise run a scheme that was clearly so advantageous to those who were leaving in comparison with other parts of the public sector? Why was it allowed to get away with that?
That is not a question that I can answer for you. The scheme was in line with the general contract entitlements of staff in Scottish Enterprise and it had been approved by the Scottish Government.
So it would be legitimate to ask accountable officers and others why that happened and how the plan was agreed.
That is a matter for the committee.
In response to the points that Mary Scanlon raised, Caroline Gardner mentioned that staff had been transferred to arm’s-length external organisations. If 40,000 staff have gone, and a number of them went from local authorities to ALEOs, there must be a way for us to find out how many have been transferred. That would mean, given that ALEOs are just a semi-detached arm of local government, that we would have a much more accurate figure.
We are doing work right now to try to get a much closer handle on the very point that you raise. I will clarify what I said earlier. In 1999, there were about 235,000 full-time equivalents. That figure was the same at the time of the report’s publication. The figure went up and came down again. That masks the number of people who have gone to ALEOs during that time, which I guess is what is behind your question to some extent.
Yes.
The short answer is that we are working on that to see whether we can get full and better particulars, if you like, on the ALEO side, because the Accounts Commission is concerned about the governance of ALEOs.
Does that include the early pay-offs to ALEOs? Lots of public money is being spent. The report does not include that semi-detached arm of local authorities.
You are right in saying that the figures in the report do not include ALEOs.
Will the future report include such figures?
I will have to check that and get back to you. The first stage is to find out the scale of the transfers from local authorities to ALEOs and then take it from there.
Paragraph 4, on page 7 of the report, says:
That is what the report does—it sets out the principles that people should apply. It is clear that the costs that should be disclosed in the accounts under the new requirement are the immediate costs to the employer, the capital cost of added years or the strain on the fund where that is incurred.
As Caroline Gardner said, we promote the principles of good practice. It is difficult for us to be prescriptive about some of the details—for example, what payback period should be used or whether organisations should use incentives such as added years—because each organisation’s circumstances vary and they are under different pressures. It is difficult to make precise suggestions, such as whether two added years is appropriate or that the payback period should be up to three years. That all depends on the organisation.
Is there a way to suggest—perhaps this is in the report but I have missed it—how that should be and that an organisation must justify its position if it is outwith that norm, so that there is a uniformity of process?
As I said, it is difficult to come up with a single, simple figure. However, every early departure should be supported by a business case and each business case should have full cost transparency, in terms of both the immediate and long-term costs.
Gordon Neill’s point is mentioned in paragraph 48:
I recognise—
I am sorry for interrupting but, with Mr Dornan’s forbearance, I will follow up on that. I find it astonishing that it is up to the organisation to decide what payback period it uses to calculate the saving. That seems to be about the accounts rather than anything else, and there are requirements that are rather stronger than good principles when it comes to accounting. Organisations cannot present their accounts as and how they feel might suit their case, yet Gordon Neill seems to be saying that all that can be done is to identify good practice. Is there not accounting legislation on transparency? It seems astonishing to me that the organisation can decide whether the payback period that it will apply will be one year, two years or six years. That just seems nonsensical. I am not an accountant, but it just seems strange to me and I think to Mr Dornan.
The payback period is a useful shorthand that helps people making decisions to focus on the numbers in play: the costs up front and the savings. The business case should be based on a net present value calculation of the costs and savings over a period of time. Our concern is that, although the payback period is helpful as a rule of thumb, it is not the full answer and that, in any case, the longer the period over which you assume savings, the harder it becomes to be clear that they have been achieved in practice, because so many other things will change at the same time.
In general, the schemes that we looked at and what organisations reported showed payback periods of between one and three years. That was for the schemes overall, so the period might be longer for individual circumstances. We do not have any information on that, but it might be that other factors were being considered. For example, if an organisation were looking to restructure, it might take that into consideration and accept a longer payback period; if it were looking to make quick savings, it might go the other way. It depends on the factors affecting each organisation.
I am not sure that Mr Dornan and I are asking about the business case for the saving; we are asking about how the information is presented transparently. I will let Mr Dornan back in.
Just on that very point, which is maybe the crux of the matter, if the period had to be between one and three years and an exceptional case had to be made for it being outwith that, that might go some way towards what we are looking for.
Just as in the private sector when codes are developed—for example, the Cadbury report and all the things that followed from that—there might be scope for a parliamentary committee to take evidence on the issue more generally and come up with guidelines that it might wish to issue. Perhaps that is a way to deal with the matter.
The Auditor General made the point earlier that it was difficult for us during the audit to see the savings that organisations were achieving. There is not as much transparency or public reporting on the savings as there is on the costs. The payback periods are directly linked to that, and it can be quite challenging to link information that we have or do not have on savings to the payback periods.
I think that we share your pain on that, which is why Mr Dornan and I are so concerned about it.
If you were to undertake a broader study of this, it seems to all of us—I am sure that I speak for everyone—that it should look at the terms of appointment as well. Sometimes by the time that you get to early departures, the pass has been sold and you are locked into a position.
Absolutely.
The report mentions that as well.
I was struck by what Mary Scanlon said earlier about the low percentage of early departures in the NHS compared with the percentage in other areas. I am glad that we see that low percentage, because it is obviously connected to the protection of the NHS budget and the above-inflation increases in it. However, that is not my reason for referring to the NHS; I do so because the NHS is becoming increasingly clearer in terms of its workforce and workload management tools, with even a bed management tool now being developed. The NHS is focusing more on the demands on it and on having a medium and long-term strategy to restructure its services to deliver on the demands. Of course, staffing is the largest fixed cost, so it is a significant part of that. Whether there are more nurses in the community or more acute beds, there are always knock-on consequences for staffing.
I will try to answer that from the other end, and you can tell me whether I have answered your question correctly. One of our concerns is that not enough long-term planning is done in local authorities, whether that planning concerns finance or workforce strategy. We keep raising that point. As you suggest, if you start from the point of having a workforce strategy, you know whether you will have the right people in the right place at the right time. Not enough of that is done. That leads us to assume that at least part of what is going on is that people are being invited to take early departure if they are so minded. Fraser McKinlay might want to elaborate on that.
The picture is varied across councils. Some councils offer early departure widely and see who takes it up, and redesign services based on that. Others have worked the other way, and have started by saying that they want to redesign the service and work in a more targeted fashion. Across the 32 councils, there is a great deal of variation in how much the policy is used—the appendices in the back of our report give you a sense of the difference in that regard and of how they are going about the process. That reflects the diverse nature of local authorities. They are much more diverse than, for example, the national health service, where a more whole-system approach tends to be taken.
More importantly, I suppose, what would best practice be? It seems a little counterintuitive to say, “Who in this local authority would like to leave?” and for the local authority to then move the deckchairs around the ship to suit whatever situation has arisen once people have made their decisions, based on whatever criteria have been laid down. Is there a best-practice approach to this? Should local authorities be looking to see how they can address head count and restructure the service to ensure that it is truly more efficient, or should they conduct a fishing exercise of staff first? What is the most appropriate way to go about it?
As John Baillie said, good practice is to be clear about what your workforce planning strategy is in the long term, and that should be linked to the needs of the service and the way in which you want to deliver the service in future. However, you do not need to do all that before going to the early departures procedure; you can do some of that at the same time, if you like. It does not need to be an entirely sequential thing. However, we would expect to see a plan or a strategy that says, “This is where we need to get to, for the following reasons.” Of course, how someone gets to that point might differ depending on circumstances, how much money needs to be saved, and the timescale that is involved.
I think that I am a little clearer on that.
I will move to the general, as you suggest. Perhaps it is a communication issue as much as anything else. One would expect councils to fully explain the offer to whatever group of staff it is put to. That way, at least expectations would be managed among certain groups. If that was fully explained in the first place, the rest would seem to follow from it, would it not?
In a sense, there is a link to Tavish Scott’s question about whether targeting schemes is a good or bad thing. If the aim of the exercise that any public body goes through is to reduce the number of senior managers, it may be entirely appropriate—subject to the business cases for individuals—to allow senior managers to go, while maintaining employment in social work, teaching, or wherever else staff are required to deliver the service. We are looking for public bodies to have both a very clear strategy for the way in which the workforce needs to change over time and a policy that is consistent on the principles for how people will be treated as part of that.
Perhaps I should not have mentioned the example of the senior director. I did not intend to focus on that particular decision; my point was more about how staff expectations regarding early departure are handled.
I will pick up with our panel the point of the estimated savings. The Auditor General said that there is evidence that early departures are leading to long-term savings. Are there any figures to back that up?
I will ask Tommy Yule to come in on the detail. In answer to the specific question on timing, it depends on when people leave. In accounting terms, you can, if you like, book the up-front cost at the point at which the decision is made. The person might not leave the organisation for a year or two after that, so there can be a time lag until you see the savings come through. We are clear that the business case should be very clear about that. That is why you would not necessarily see the savings from one year to the next.
Again, it depends on the individual scheme. In the NHS, most of the organisations claim to achieve that saving within a year, although the NHS does not tend to offer added years, so it does not have that element of cost. In other organisations, it depends on how long a person has worked and what their salary is. There is an example in the report that tried to set out the various costs that can be incurred. For example, if organisations offered four added years or six and two thirds added years, those costs would also have to be met, which leads to the longer payback period.
Sort of. What is the nature of the evidence? Is it numeric? What is the evidence to say that we are making the savings that we must be making? Is it that, if there is a one-off cost of £280 million that is not incurred in year 2, that is a saving?
Good practice is that each application is supported by a business case. Those business cases should set out the savings, and they have been looked at within individual organisations. In their reports, organisations state what savings they claim to have made and say over what payback period that is. Some of those have been looked at and some have not, but that is the evidence.
There is sometimes a difference between the public reporting, the reporting to boards and members and what is actually there when you get underneath it. There have been occasions, for some of the case study sites and through our routine audit work—we have used some examples in this report—when we have looked at a high-level report that has gone to elected members and our auditors have asked to see the workings. When we do that, it gives us reassurance that there is tracking and evidence that people have gone and that savings are being made.
You mentioned that 40 per cent of the costs were for 8 per cent of the departures. Tavish Scott asked about the numbers involved for Scottish Enterprise and you mentioned appendix 2, which gives only a proportion of Scottish Enterprise staff. The other organisation with an average cost of early departures of over £100,000 was the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. How many people were involved in the early departure scheme at Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish funding council?
Over the two years that we looked at, there were only three departures from the Scottish funding council, with a total cost of £340,000. The Scottish funding council’s accounts highlight that it targeted senior managers as part of a restructuring process. In Scottish Enterprise, 47 people left over the two years at a cost of just under £5.2 million.
So 47 people received £5.2 million.
Not quite. That was the total cost; it is not that those people got that money. There is a bit of a difference.
Okay. We have compared the situation in local authorities to the situation in the NHS. I would like to hear your thoughts on the cost to local authorities compared to the cost to central Government. The average cost to local authorities of an early departure was £37,000 and the average cost to central Government was £43,000. Does that tell us that local authorities are more efficient in dealing with such issues, or were the people who left local authorities under the early departure scheme lower paid than those who left the Scottish Government?
The first thing to note is that the numbers in local government are much bigger in absolute terms. However, there is no doubt that, in central Government, there is an explicit policy of reducing the number of senior managers by 25 per cent. Central Government has also undergone a significant amount of restructuring, with mergers and a commitment from the Government to reduce the number of public bodies. As that restructuring proceeds, the people who leave tend to be those in more senior positions, so we would expect the figure to be a bit higher.
I agree with what has been said.
I agree with Fraser McKinlay’s comments.
It depends on the profile of the workforce at the point of the early departure scheme. The workforce could be more mature and, therefore, more expensive. There are various factors, and you should not read too much into a comparison of one sector with another without going into the profile of the working population in each case.
I have a couple of other questions to finish off.
What we pick up there is the general risk rather than specific risks that we have seen coming through the audited accounts over the past few years. When the Accounts Commission first produced its “Bye now, pay later?” guidance back in 1997, there were examples of councils making decisions about early retirement, in particular, that did not take account of the cost of the strain on the fund or the cost of added years. We have not found big examples of that happening now, although there is a bit of inconsistency in the way in which that is reported, as we highlight in the report. It is a theoretical risk, which is why the principles that we set out are so important. Those costs are likely to be much more significant than the short-term cost of the payment that the person receives.
So the risk that you identify is based on past examples of problems.
It is an audit risk, if I can put it that way. It is one of those hypothetical risks that we are aware of that our audit work is intended to keep an eye on.
Okay.
It is certainly our view, as we say in paragraph 43, that there should be controls to prevent that from happening, although there are rare instances in which there might be a business case for it to happen. I will ask Fraser McKinlay to pick that up, because he has thought long and hard about the issue, specifically in the context of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, as controller of audit.
Just before I bring in Fraser McKinlay, who would be responsible for exercising such control?
I am not sure that any single person or body would be. Audit cannot make that a requirement. We can set good-practice principles, as we have done in the report, but for central Government bodies, for example, I think that it would have to be the Scottish Government that did that. The same would apply with the national health service. For local government, I guess that individual local authorities would have to reach agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There is not a single place in which that would happen.
There are also employment law considerations in banning people from reapplying for jobs and reappointing people to posts that they have left. As Caroline Gardner said, it is not a straightforward policy area.
This comment happens to be about that case, but you can extrapolate from it to cases more broadly. The proper governance that is needed was not in place in that case, and another deficiency was a lack of proper options appraisal. The business case is important, but people should develop it having considered all the options. When a local authority or another part of the public sector is going to do something, it is important that it considers all the choices that it has available and decides where it wants to go. At that point, it can start to narrow it down into a business case.
When you say that the organisation should consider all the options, you mean that it should consider all the options for the organisation and decide which would be best for it. Is the problem in some instances that what people consider is what is the best option for the member of staff involved?
That is the essence of my concern. The options should be considered to determine what is best for the organisation and what is in the public interest or of public benefit. People can then go on from there.
In October, you will publish your joint report “Reshaping Scotland’s public sector workforce”. I want to check something, given the questions that my colleagues and I have asked today. In appendix 4 of “Managing early departures from the Scottish public sector”, which is on the principles of good practice, you state:
We are planning to pick up the principles of good practice more directly through the audits of the 230 or so bodies that, between us, we audit across the public sector. Our auditors will be looking to see the scale of early departures from the bodies that they audit and then doing some work to look at how far the principles are being applied. If there are concerns about bodies that fall within my remit, the way in which they will come back to the committee is through my section 22 reporting powers.
Can we look forward to a more thorough and in-depth study on the two specific issues, with more information being made available, in the report that you will bring to us in October?
That is not the focus of the workforce planning report, in which we will step back a bit to look at the points that you raised earlier about whether organisations are taking a strategic approach. However, on the basis of this morning’s conversation, we will look at whether we can keep an eye on information about the extent to which early departures are happening and the extent to which the good-practice principles are being applied and report to you either on a case-by-case basis or across the piece.
That ends this session. I thank all our witnesses. The committee will now move into private session.
Previous
Annual Report