Agenda item

To review the Council’s pay schemes, as per the Constitution.

13.1     The Committee received a report on Staff Remuneration as part of its review of the Council’s pay schemes, as per the Constitution. The Committee observed that Executive Directors and other senior staff, including the Head of Human Resources and the Chief Executive, were not present at the meeting. The Committee elected to discuss the topic of remuneration with a view to having questions answered at the Committee’s next meeting.

13.2     The Committee noted that Westminster City Council’s Gender Pay Gap was increasing year-on-year, with a relatively low proportion of women in senior roles. Kumbirai Dzumbunu explained that this was due to an increase in women in posts paid at Bands 1-3, the lower-paid bands in the Council.

13.3     The Committee queried the number of contractors on rates over £600 per diem, and observed that most of these were in the Finance and Resources department. The Committee requested more information and asked whether these contractors were delivering discrete task-and-finish pieces of work or whether they were working on ongoing projects. Kumbirai Dzumbunu stated that the highest-paid contractors were due to finish their work by March 2022, that they worked two days per week, and that one was working for a bi-borough service.

13.4     The Committee asked whether Council staff was returning to the office at that time, and whether the organisation was encouraging staff to return to the office. Bernie Flaherty stated that in some areas up to 60% of staff were office-based, and that there was considerable communication with staff in a variety of different formats to encourage staff to come back to the City and serve residents.

13.5     The Committee asked about the robustness of management structures and processes, as well as recruitment, in light of the findings of the Business and Children’s Policy and Scrutiny Committee at its extraordinary meeting on 27 October 2021 to scrutinise the Marble Arch Mound and the Westminster City Council Internal Review. The Committee noted that those findings had indicated that the highest-paid member of staff in the Council did not have the requisite skills to perform the role for which he had been hired (delivery of the Oxford Street District programme including the Marble Arch project).

13.6     The Committee also noted the commitment of senior leadership to ensure that Westminster City Council’s workforce was representative of the City, and requested information about how this representativeness was defined and the labour market from which staff was recruited.

13.7     The Committee queried how career trajectories were managed within the organisation, how staff were selected for promotion and how this was checked.

13.8     Referring again to the Marble Arch Mound findings, the Committee asked what skills mapping was conducted by the Council to ensure the appropriate skills utilisation in posts, The Committee considered that a person’s ability to “sell themselves” well at interview may not be an indicator of ability to carry out a role, and that those with specific ability and operational skills may not necessarily sell themselves well.

13.9     The Committee asked whether the Council made the most of existing staff resource, posing the question of whether it was appropriate to hire contractors if existing staff could be upskilled to fulfil those needs. There was a further query by the Committee as to the measurement and profile of skills gaps within the organisation, particularly within the current context and changes to the labour market. The Committee requested more information on this.

13.10   The Committee also requested information about the Council’s use of training and apprenticeship schemes, such as the national apprenticeship scheme and the National Graduate Development Programme. Information was also requested as to how they were managed in the organisation, the costs and benefits of the schemes, and in which areas people were being trained.

13.11   The Committee queried the methodology used to calculate the ethnicity pay gap, noting that a pay gap reported across the organisation as a whole may not be as useful as a pay gap reported by pay band, which could reflect wider demographic changes over time. The Committee referred to Simpson’s paradox and highlighted the importance of ensuring veracity in pay gap reporting, in order to develop accurate plans and policies aimed at addressing those gaps. The Committee requested pay gap reporting by band or by grouping, noting the potential risk of false conclusions, and queried conclusions from the calculations, which in fact indicated that there was potentially a pay gap based on hierarchy. The Committee requested information by grade and by function. Bernie Flaherty noted the complexity and stated that there would be a revised report produced for the Committee’s next meeting.

13.12   The Committee requested a more comprehensive report including answers to questions asked. The presence of the Head of HR and the rest of the Executive Leadership Team was requested at the subsequent meeting for more complete discussion of the issues raised. The Committee suggested that input from Pedro Wrobel (Executive Director for Innovation and Change) and the Strategy and Intelligence team would be useful to review the analysis. The Committee deferred the report to its February meeting.

13.13   RESOLVED: That the Committee receive a revised report on staff remuneration from People Services to discuss with ELT at the February Audit and Performance Committee meeting.