Thursday 23 January 2014
The States of Guernsey's Voluntary Severance Programme will enable the States to save almost £1.8million per year.
In May 2013 the Policy Council agreed to implement a Voluntary Severance Programme (VSP). The aim was to deliver financial savings, the opportunity for restructuring to improve public services and the opportunity to improve capability. The aim of the programme was to pay back within 3 years through a sustainable reduction in posts, that aim will actually be met in 29 months.
Deputy Allister Langlois, the Policy Council's lead on employment matters said:
"This programme was put in place to make savings through reducing posts without reducing the ability of departments to deliver services. Those objectives have been met, and the programme has delivered significant benefits to the organisation.
"The reduction in posts has been achieved speedily and efficiently enabling some areas to make significant structural staff changes; such structural changes would usually require considerable effort in a consultation process along with the associated costs."
Summary of results
- 246 employees applied; this represents less than 5% of those eligible to apply
- 68 were finally accepted for severance this represented 27.7% of those applicants who applied
- Total annual benefits of the scheme: £1,793,083
- Total cost of the scheme: £4,349,020
- Average payment: £63,956
- The payback period is 29 months
Breakdown by department
- Education: 22
- Home: 12
- Housing: 11
- Health and Social Services; 10
- All other Departments and Committees: 13
- Breakdown by employment type
- Established staff: 29
- Teaching staff: 17
- Public Service Employees: 13
- Other: 9
Further information
Questions and answers
Q: Why did the States embark on this programme?
A: In May 2013 the Policy Council agreed to implement a Voluntary Severance Programme (VSP). The aim was to deliver financial savings, the opportunity for restructuring to improve public services and the opportunity to improve capability. The aim of the programme was to pay back within 3 years through a sustainable reduction in posts, that aim will actually be met in 29 months.
Q: Why has it taken so long?
A: Getting this right was of greater importance than the speed in which it was undertaken. Staff could apply for VS between 1 July and 30 September 2013, then based on the applications, their Departments considered the opportunities for restructuring and reorganisation. Once Policy Council approved the proposals, employees were contacted. Those personal conversations took time and required sensitive handling.
Q: Can we have a further breakdown of the numbers?
A: This would not be appropriate, it is an employment matter and important that individuals cannot be identified.
Q: If the maximum payment was 100 weeks pay, which is less than two years, why is the payback time not less than two years?
A: The programme gave an opportunity for reorganisation and restructuring. To illustrate, three people may have accepted VS and through reconfiguration of work and reorganisation it may have been necessary to create one new post, perhaps at a different level. There is a net benefit but it is not the total cost of all three individuals, in this example.
One of the stated aims of the programme was to provide an opportunity to improve capability, or skills, and therefore in a number of cases it was identified that a person would have to be replaced fully but the skill set the organisation required was different. This is the reason that the target payback was a maximum of 36 months.
Q: Are you surprised at the number of applicants?
A: No, less than 5% is neither high nor low. To put the figure into perspective we recruit approximately 450 to 500 staff a year due to natural turnover
Q: If one of the stated aims of the programme was to improve capability and some people were replaced by someone with a different skill set, was this not just an expensive way of removing under performers that should have been dealt with differently?
A: No, this is not the case. Over time the needs of a post may change and different skills and capabilities are needed going forward. This is not a performance issue but a capability matter in a changing environment. In making these decisions the organisation was ever mindful of spending taxpayer's money wisely.
Q: What were some of the reasons for applications being rejected?
A: They ranged from the position being still required and the incumbent having the skills needed going forward, to the cost effectiveness of paying VS, for instance, if someone is close to retirement and the cost of VS is greater than the cost of continued employment.
Q: Has this programme been successful?
A: Yes it has and it is a good example of how by working across the whole organisation we are able to maximise opportunities. That would not necessarily be possible for an individual department.
Q: Will you do this again?
A: We do not have plans at this stage for a States wide programme however voluntary severance will always be offered first if we are looking at reorganisation that may lead to redundancy. This is simply good employment practice.
Contact details
Mary Putra
Corporate Communications Manager
Policy Council
Tel: 01481 717063
e-mail: pressroom@gov.gg
