25th October 2026
Scotland's public finances are under pressure, and the Scottish Government is looking for ways to reduce spending. Against that background, reports that around 800 public-sector employees are costing taxpayers £27.6 million a year while waiting for new jobs have raised questions about how efficiently public money is being used.
The figures were reported by The Sunday Times on 25 October. They concern employees whose original jobs have disappeared but who remain on full pay while waiting to be redeployed elsewhere. The reported annual cost covers public-sector organisations across Scotland, not just the Scottish Government itself. The figures should therefore not be confused with a separate bill for civil servants working in the Scottish Government. (The Sunday Times report)
The issue is not simply whether public servants should be protected from losing their jobs. It is whether a policy designed to protect employees has, in some cases, become too expensive and difficult to manage.
How did this situation arise?
The Scottish Government has maintained a policy of avoiding compulsory redundancies in the public sector since 2007. When departments reorganise, budgets change or particular jobs disappear, employers are expected to look for alternative positions, retraining opportunities and other ways of retaining staff.
There are understandable reasons for such an approach. Experienced employees have valuable knowledge, and losing them can create additional recruitment and training costs. A worker whose post disappears in one department may be well suited to a vacancy elsewhere. Redeployment can also help public services manage change without the disruption and anxiety that compulsory redundancies can bring.
But the policy creates a problem when suitable vacancies cannot be found.
A person may remain on the payroll for months or years, even though their former role has ceased to exist. The Sunday Times reported that at least 255 of the approximately 800 employees in the wider group had been without permanent roles for more than a year, while 49 had waited at least five years.
Such cases raise questions about workforce planning, management accountability and the effectiveness of the redeployment process.
The Scottish Government's own figures
The wider £27.6 million annual cost is not the same as the cost associated with civil servants in the central Scottish Government.
In September, Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser highlighted a group of 32 Scottish Government civil servants on what is known as a priority movers list. Their annual salaries were estimated at between £2 million and £2.4 million, before additional employer costs.
These employees were reported to be waiting for suitable alternative posts after their previous jobs had effectively disappeared. The example illustrates how a policy operating across the public sector can create costs even within the Government responsible for setting it.
However, the £2.4 million figure should not be added to the £27.6 million as if the two represented entirely separate groups. The smaller figure relates to a specific group within the wider debate.
The Scottish Government has also pointed to reductions in its core civil service workforce. In evidence to Holyrood in September, Public Services Reform Minister Ivan McKee said the core civil service had fallen by more than 11 per cent over four years, through measures including recruitment controls and not replacing employees who leave.
That is relevant evidence of action to reduce staffing, but it does not by itself answer questions about how long individual employees remain without permanent roles.
Why not simply make them redundant?
At first sight, compulsory redundancy might appear to be the obvious solution. If a job has disappeared and no alternative work is available, why should the taxpayer continue paying the salary?
The difficulty is that redundancy is not cost-free. Employees may be entitled to substantial payments, particularly after many years of service. There may also be pension implications, legal considerations and the risk of losing skills that could prove useful elsewhere.
A proper financial assessment would compare the immediate cost of redundancy with the future cost of retaining an employee. It would also examine whether a suitable alternative role could realistically be found.
Some cases may be resolved through retraining, voluntary severance or a move to another public body. Others may prove much more difficult, particularly where senior employees have specialised experience or contractual terms that limit the range of suitable alternative positions.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to justify an arrangement indefinitely if no meaningful prospect of redeployment exists. The longer the wait, the more important it becomes to explain what has been attempted and why it has not succeeded.
A difficult choice for public services
The question is becoming more pressing as Scotland plans changes to public services and seeks to reduce expenditure.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission reported in September that the Scottish Government's workforce had grown during 2025-26, despite plans to reduce the devolved public-sector workforce by an average of 0.5 per cent a year between 2025-26 and 2029-30. The Government also has substantial planned efficiency savings to deliver. These figures underline the challenge of achieving reform while controlling staffing costs.
The proposed restructuring of health boards adds another complication. Changes to management structures could leave some senior posts duplicated or unnecessary. If compulsory redundancies are ruled out in every circumstance, organisations may find it harder to realise savings promptly.
On the other hand, cutting posts without proper planning can damage services, increase workloads for remaining employees and leave public bodies struggling to recruit when demand rises again.
There is also a question of fairness. Public-sector employees deserve reasonable protection when organisational changes remove their jobs. But taxpayers, including people working in private businesses who have no comparable guarantee of continued employment, are entitled to expect public money to be spent productively.
Neither consideration should be ignored.
Time for clearer rules and accountability
The answer need not be to abandon protection against compulsory redundancies altogether. A more transparent system could require public bodies to review each case regularly, set clear deadlines for finding alternative work and report how much is being spent on employees awaiting redeployment.
Managers should be expected to demonstrate that they have genuinely explored vacancies and retraining, including opportunities across different public bodies where appropriate. Where no realistic alternative exists after a reasonable period, voluntary severance and, in exceptional cases, compulsory redundancy could be considered under clear and fair rules.
The Scottish Government should also publish consistent information showing how many employees are affected, how long they have been waiting, what the annual costs are and how many ultimately return to permanent roles.
The reported £27.6 million annual bill deserves proper scrutiny, but it is not necessarily an amount that could be saved immediately by making every affected employee redundant. The true savings would depend on redundancy payments, future staffing requirements and the number of people who could be redeployed successfully.
Protecting public servants from arbitrary job losses is a legitimate policy. Protecting a system that allows people to remain without permanent roles for years is a different matter.
The public deserves to know whether the current arrangements strike the right balance, and what action will be taken when redeployment repeatedly fails. Fair treatment for employees and responsible management of taxpayers' money should not be competing objectives. A well-run public service ought to be able to pursue both.