JUST 1200 high-earning public-sector staff shared £224 million in pay-offs worth on average £187,000 each, the spending watchdog has found.
Bodies such as the Scottish Government, councils, the NHS, police and fire services spent £561m on redundancy and early retirement packages for more than 14,000 staff in the past two years, according to the Accounts Commission.
The majority of packages averaged less than £50,000, but 8.3% averaged in excess of £100,000 and accounted for more than 40% of the total expenditure, the Commission found.
Early release can save money but the commission wants more transparency about their costs and conditions.
A former chief executive West Dunbartonshire Council was hired for five years but given a pension for nearly nine years' service, the commission said.
Concerns have also been raised about retired staff returning to their post, such as Strathclyde Fire and Rescue chief fire officer Brian Sweeney.
The commission said employers must ensure packages do not cost more in the long run, do not deprive the organisation of vital staff and do not unfairly deprive staff of employment rights.
The issue is particularly relevant with the merger of police and fire services and colleges.
Direct public-sector employment has dropped by 40,000 since 2009, with early departures accounting for about half and the rest retiring through age and health, or moving to other jobs.
The report states: "In the two years 2010/11 and 2011/12, more than 14,000 public-sector staff accepted some form of early retirement or redundancy, at an initial overall cost of £561m."
The commission said that, while early departures can be cost effective, there is a price to pay with some organisations unaware of the true costs to revenue budgets or to pension funds.
It added: "Dumfries and Galloway Council has recently announced an intention to place restrictions on the future recruitment of individuals who have accepted any form of early departure. Early departure schemes are an important tool for public organisations.
"They are not a way of rewarding staff and should not be seen as an entitlement."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article