Agenda item

Cllr Carlin introduced the report, as summarised below.

• Reducing agency staff was a key priority of the council. However, in the pre-election period, there was a proposed increase in funding for the Matrix Contract - which at the time was up for renewal.
•  Cllr Carlin highlighted that the Matrix contract renewal should be seen as part of the overall workforce strategy - and in context of the actions taken to reduce the number of agency workers, including monthly performance monitoring of agency staff and quarterly meetings with directors to discuss making staff permanent.
• Although this approach had driven down numbers of agency staff, she noted that there were specific work areas where being made permanent was not an incentive. 
• A specific effort was being made to make permanent those agency staff who have been with the council for more than a year.
• However, converting the highest paid agency staff to permanent may not be cheaper for the council.   Pension arrangements are 23.5% for permanent staff whereas only 3% for agency staff.
• Previously spending on agency staff was £45 million, whereas now costs are £40million and are being driven down further.

The floor was open to questions from the Committee.

• Cllr White noted that the council had a drive to reduce agency workers – but the Matrix contract was being extended for an increased amount. He asked whether this was because efforts to reduce agency staff had been unsuccessful or were there other factors involved. Cllr Carlin responded that additional costs within the contract were because of unforeseen factors, such as the migration of staff from Homes For Haringey. In addition, post 2021 there had been an increase in salaries and extra costs associated with that. Furthermore, the council had migrated all agency workers on to Matrix contracts to reduce overheads. Cllr Carlin also noted that the focused drive to reduce agency staff has only recently been driven and overseen by the CEO and corporate centre. Now, every agency worker must be signed off by a director. This has resulted in a culture shift within the organisation- which is beginning to bear fruit.

• A question was asked by Cllr Connor about the difference in cost between retaining staff as agency and putting all agency members on a permanent payroll. Dan Paul responded that there was no easy answer to this. Some agency staff are employed on council pay scales whereas others are not. The Committee should also consider that permanent staff members are entitled to more pension contributions and agency margin rates may also vary by tenure.

• Cllr Connor then asked when migration occurred from Homes For Haringey, if there had been an opportunity to put Homes for Haringey agency staff on permanent contracts. Mr. Paul responded that there had not been an opportunity at the point of migration, however all agency staff employed by Homes for Haringey had been migrated onto the Matrix contract therefore increasing the contract value.

• Cllr Connor asked why it is difficult to compare the number of agency staff with other boroughs. Mr. Paul responded that boroughs are varied sizes and also outsource different council services. Although this means the council is employing fewer agency workers through outsourcing, the council service is still being delivered by agency staff.

• Cllr Carlin added that in order to build a collaborative and stable workforce it was favourable that most staff would be permanent. However, she recognised that some agency workers would prefer to remain so rather than become permanent. She added that there would always be a degree of flexibility needed as short-term workers are still needed.

• Cllr Gunes asked for clarification on the total cost of the contract. It was clarified that the most it could extended by would be £30million - although it would depend on the number and cost of the agency workers hired. This would make the total cost of the contract £40 million. Cllr Gunes commented that although efforts were being made to address the issue of agency workers, she had been in the council for ten years and had numerous discussions on this, for her progress had not been made, however she appreciated the efforts around this. Cllr Carlin responded that the reduction of agency staff is now a corporate priority, and this approach differs to past efforts.

• Discussion then turned to the number and costs of consultants. Cllr Gunes enquired why we still need high-cost consultants. Cllr Carlin stated that the council was still reducing the number of consultants in the same way that all agency staff was being reduced.  Mr Paul also clarified that the numbers given in the report – did not just include consultants but any agency worker paid over £500 per day. He stipulated that this could also include specialist workers – working in IT, Digital and Regeneration, whose specialist skills were needed and are in high demand.

• Cllr Buxton then raised the issue of the imminent insourcing of Haringey’s leisure services. He asked whether we could expect an increase in the number of agency staff on the books because of this. Mr. Paul affirmed that would be the case, although he didn’t know numbers, he felt that the numbers wouldn’t be substantial. He stated that after migration it would be up to the council to decide whether to keep them on as permanent staff or not.

• Discussion turned to whether there was an incentive for agency staff to turn permanent and whether the usual route for the recruitment of permanent staff would be cheaper for the council. In reply, Cllr Carlin said the council intended to build a committed, collaborative workforce and that wasn’t possible with temporary staff.  Mr. Paul added that temporary staff were incentivised through’ part carrot part stick’. If an agency worker isn’t interested in staying, then there would be an evaluation as to whether they possess skills that the organisation can’t replace. He reiterated that this would be on a case-by-case basis.

• Cllr Worrell then asked whether this contract encompassed all agency staff – and there were no separate contracts elsewhere. Mr. Paul affirmed this was the case.

• Discussions then turned to costs again. Cllr Worrel highlighted that it was stated hiring staff as agency was cheaper and although she understood that the move to permanent would be better for the organisation and the worker – cost also had to be considered. Cllr Carlin responded that for lower paid workers it was not cheaper to bring them in as permanent staff but for higher paid workers it was considerably cheaper also in terms of benefits. Permanent staffing was advantageous for the stability of the organisation.

• Cllr Worrell asked if there were any set targets in relation to the reduction of agency staff numbers.  Mr. Paul replied that although there were no targets set out per se, his department was continually measuring and reducing agency staff as a percentage of the whole workforce.