Apologies were received from Cllr Counter.
Absent without apologies: Cllr Mann

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27th October 2009 were submitted and signed.

The Head of Human Resources presented his report and clarified aspects of the proposed Market Factor Supplement Policy.

He explained that the review of the previous procedure had been prompted by the introduction of the Shared Services initiative and the difficulty in recruiting staff. It had become apparent that the existing procedure gave guidance on how to allocate a market factor supplement but did not contain details of the review process. In addition, there was a need for a harmonised version across both Watford and Three Rivers to cover Shared Service staff.

The Officer reported that the review process had been updated and market factor payments would, in future, be reviewed annually. He advised that the report had been submitted for consultation to the Three Rivers Council Management Board and also to Unison at both Three Rivers and Watford councils. He added that the Leadership team had also considered the policy and their comments had been incorporated.

The Head of Strategic Finance had advised that the proposed changes would add no extra costs within the budget; the Head of Legal and Democratic Services had stated that legal implications had been included in the policy.

The Committee then discussed the report.

One Member asked whether the policy was needed to compete with London salaries and to attract staff to Watford.

The Head of Human Resources replied that this was the case in some services and quoted the Planning Section as a specific example. He added that the Market Supplement Factor was already in existence for posts where it had proved difficult to recruit staff.

In reply to a further question from the Member, the officer stated that market factor supplements had been allocated to roles which were considered to be difficult to fill after the recent Job Evaluation process.

A Member asked if staff would start to work at the Council with a Market Factor in place which would then be reduced at a later date.

The Head of Human Resources said that if an advertised post were not filled, then adding a Market Factor Supplement would be appropriate. When the post was subsequently reviewed the Council would, in accordance with the policy, look at external data to consider the Market Factor at that time. If the situation had changed, then the supplement would be altered and if appropriate could be removed. He stressed that the policy was an attempt to react to current market forces and would be liable to change.

The Member asked about the views of Unison on this issue.

The Officer responded that Unison had agreed with policy details but had advised that individuals should be offered the right to appeal. Unison had also recommended that the Council present evidence for removing or reducing a previously approved supplement and that the policy should be applied to all levels of staff. Unison also requested that on appeal, any member could be accompanied by Unison at that meeting. All these points had been addressed in the revised policy

In reply to a question from a Member, the Head of Human Resources stated that there were two components within the proposed payments and that only the supplement would be removed or reduced; the basic salary would remain the same.

The Member asked whether the arrangement in question was in use in other councils.

The Officer affirmed that this was the case. He advised that the proposed policy was more detailed than those of some councils but less detailed than others and that this method was regarded as an acceptable practice.

The Chair stated that the use of evidence to support use and subsequent review of the Market Factor Supplement was reassuring.

A Member asked whether the Council had taken steps to train existing staff rather than recruiting new personnel.

The Head of Human Resources advised that it was hoped to address this through apprenticeship schemes. He added that Talent Management and Succession Planning was within the Service Plan for 2010/2011.

The Portfolio Holder explained that training existing staff was important. He added that it should be remembered that if, after training, no suitable position were available, staff would move to another authority or would find it more lucrative to work as a consultant. He advised that the appraisal system was now progressing well and this would impact on the retention of existing staff in the future.

One Member asked whether graduation schemes had been considered.

The Officer advised that there were no current plans for this although there were schemes in which Watford could participate. He pointed out that graduate schemes were costly but added that further analysis of this subject would be beneficial.

In reply to a question from another Member, the Officer stated that Hertfordshire County Council was represented at some seminars which he had attended. He added that the County Council would have more provision for graduate schemes than small councils such as Watford or Three Rivers.

The Portfolio Holder stated that it was possible that placements for training in larger authorities could be considered.