Greater Employment Forum Annual General Meeting

Thursday 11 February 2021 at 11.30am approx (or on the rising of the sides from the previous meeting) Virtual MS Teams Meeting

Employers’ Side: Virtual MS Teams Meeting 10.45am

Union Side: Virtual MS Teams Meeting 10.45am

Contact Officer: Debbie Williams

Telephone: 020 7934 9964 Email: [email protected] Agenda item

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR 2020-21 The positions of Chair and Vice-Chair should alternate between the two sides on an annual basis. This year it is the turn of the Trade Union Side.

4. CONFIRMATION OF GLEF MEMBERSHIP 2020-21 Attached

5. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 FEBRUARY Attached 2020 AND TAKE ANY MATTERS ARISING

6. APPRENTICESHIPS UPDATE – Tim Gallagher, Principal Policy Officer, Attached to present this item

7. AND NHS COLLABORATIVE WORKING Attached

8. LONDON PENSIONS CIV UPDATE Attached

9. RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC SECTOR EXIT PAYMENTS - £95K CAP Attached 10. GMB DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARTER – Nell Andrew, GMB to talk/ present this item

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

12. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: Thursday 15 July 2021 (AGM) Group meetings: 10am Joint Meeting: 11.30am

Helen Reynolds Steve Davies Union Side Co-Secretary Employers’ Secretary 1st Floor, Congress House, Great Russell Street, 59½ Southwark Street LONDON WC1B 3LS LONDON SE 1 OAL 1

Item 4

GREATER LONDON EMPLOYMENT FORUM MEMBERS 2020-21

Borough Rep Party Deputy Barking & Dagenham Sade Bright Lab Irma Freeborn Barnet Daniel Thomas Con D. Longstaff Bexley Steven Hall Con Nick O'Hare Brent Margaret McLennan Lab Shama Tatler Bromley Pauline Tunnicliffe Con Stephen Wells Camden Danny Beales Lab Alison Kelly Croydon Callton Young Lab Patsy Cummings Ealing Jasbir Anand Lab Enfield Nesil Caliskan Lab Mary Maguire Greenwich Chris Kirby Lab Hackney Carole Williams Lab Philip Glanville Hammersmith & Fulham Zarar Qayyum Lab Haringey Matthew White Lab Dhiren Basu Harrow Adam Swerksy Lab Havering Robert Benham Con Viddy Persuad Hillingdon Douglas Mills Con Hounslow Katherine Dunn Lab Islington Satnam Gill Lab Asima Shaikh Kensington & Chelsea Catherine Faulks Con Kingston upon Tim Cobbett LD Andreas Kirsh Lambeth Andy Wilson Lab Jacqui Dyer Lewisham Amanda de Ryk Lab Kevin Bonavia Merton Caroline Cooper-Marbiah Lab Marsie Skeet Newham Terry Paul Lab Rokhsana Fiaz Redbridge Kam Rai Lab Jas Athwal Richmond upon Thames Richard Baker LD Southwark Rebecca Lury Lab Sutton Richard Clifton LD Sunita Gordon Tower Hamlets Mayor John Biggs Lab Candida Ronald Waltham Forest Clyde Loakes Lab Simon Miller Wandsworth Guy Senior Con Westminster Rachel Robathan Con Tim Mitchell Edward Lord, OBE, JP Ind

UNISON

April Ashley Sean Fox Maggie Griffin Gloria Hanson Mary Lancaster Jackie Lewis Simon Steptoe Clara Mason Andrea Holden Neville McDermott Sonya Howard

2

Karen Lynn Danny Judge Gabrielle Lawler Henry Roberts/Adejare Oyewole (Joint Subs) Julie Woods (in attendance)

UNITE

Onay Kasab Gary Cummins Danny Hoggan Susan Matthews Kath Smith Jane Gosnell Pam McGuffie Mick Callanan

GMB

Penny Robinson George Sharkey Madeline Daley Kehinde Akintunde Donna Spicer Sonya Davis Vaughan West I other TBC

3

Item 5

GREATER LONDON EMPLOYMENT FORUM JOINT MEETING

Minutes of the Greater London Employment Forum held on 20 February 2020 at London Councils offices

ATTENDANCE

Employers’ Side Cllr Sade Bright London of Barking & Dagenham Cllr David Longstaff Cllr Alison Kelly Cllr Manju Shalhul-Hameed London Borough of Croydon Cllr Christine Grice Royal Borough of Greenwich Cllr Carole Williams London Borough of Hackney Cllr Zarar Qayyum London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Cllr Tricia Clarke London Borough of Islington Cllr Catherine Faulks Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Cllr Malcolm Self Royal Borough of Cllr Andy Wilson London Borough of Lambeth Cllr Mark Allison Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz Mayor John Biggs London Borough of Tower Hamlets Cllr Richard Baker (Sub) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Cllr Richard Clifton Cllr Guy Senior London Borough of Wandsworth Cllr Melvyn Caplan

Union Side Helen Reynolds UNISON Sean Fox UNISON Clara Mason UNISON Mary Lancaster UNISON Maggie Griffin UNISON Gloria Hanson UNISON Jackie Lewis UNISON Andrea Holden UNISON Jennifer Kingaby (Sub) UNISON Julie Woods UNISON Myra Wale UNISON Gary Cummins Unite Danny Hoggan Unite Henry Mott (Sub) Unite Jonathon Coles GMB Wendy Whittington GMB Peter Murphy GMB Donna Spicer GMB Vaughan West GMB

4

In Attendance Mehboob Khan Political Advisor to the Labour Group, London Councils Jade Appleton Political Advisor to the Conservative Group, London Councils Daniel Houghton Political Advisor to the Liberal Democrat Group, London Councils Steve Davies London Councils Debbie Williams London Councils

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies were received from Cllr Daniel Thomas (Barnet), Cllr Margaret McLennan (Brent), Cllr Daniel Beales (Camden), Cllr Simon Hall (Croydon), Cllr Kaushika Amin (Haringey), Cllr Candice Atterton (Hounslow), Cllr Amanda de Ryk (Lewisham), Cllr Jas Athwal (Redbridge), Cllr Geoff Acton (Richmond), April Ashley (UNISON), Danny Judge (UNISON), Onay Kasab (Unite), Susan Matthews (Unite), Kath Smith (Unison), Pam McGuffie (Unite), Penny Robinson (GMB) and George Sharkey (GMB).

2. Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

3. Minutes of the Last Meeting Including Matters Arising

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2019 were noted as a correct record.

Matters Arising

Item 6 – London Pensions Collective Investment Vehicle (CIV) Update Sean Fox (UNISON) enquired whether:

1. The review of CIV took place in 2019; and 2. If it did then the Unions have not been informed so would like to know if they have been granted a seat on the Board.

The Chair responded that he understands that the review has taken place as this has been discussed at Leaders Committee. As the Union’s will be aware CIV no longer sits within London Council, they are now a stand-alone organisation.

The Chair offered to raise the matter at a future Leaders Committee.

Steve Davies, Regional Employers’ Side Secretary offered to find out the latest state of play and report back to colleagues in June.

Item 7 – Apprenticeships (Page 7) Jackie Lewis (UNISON) highlighted that the Union’s had requested for Apprenticeships to be a standing item on the GLEF agenda and requested that more detail be reported, this item is missing from the agenda today.

The Unions would like there to be regular updates on age profiles, different roles and diversity. We are also keen for information as the picture on type of apprenticeships is changing with increasing numbers of people taking up higher level apprenticeships, therefore we would like

5

more information about the level of apprenticeship and type of apprenticeship e.g. social work apprenticeship and numbers of staff taking up these opportunities.

With the social worker apprenticeships there is an opportunity for existing staff who currently do not have qualifications to be upskilled.

The Unions want to gain a picture of what are doing with higher level apprenticeships.

4. Mayor’s Good Work Standard – Rachel Williamson,

Rachel Williamson, Economic Development Team, Greater London Authority (GLA) and informed colleagues:

 This is an update since the launch of the Mayor’s Good Work Standard (GWS) which was launched 200 days ago.  The GWS is the Mayor’s benchmark for improving good work practice.  The Standard is for any employer of any size.  The GLA provide guidance and support to organisations.  Looking to build a community of employers to share information.  The GWS was a manifesto promise of the Mayor to raise employment standards in London and introduce fair pay – London Living Wage (LLW), fair deal for parents to return to work etc.  The GLA family are accredited to the Standard.  The GWS has been developed in conjunction with the trade unions and stakeholders.  The GWS started pilot testing in 2019. 49 employers have met the benchmark and 120 currently going through the process which covers 194,000 employees. Six London boroughs have signed up and there are others in the pipeline.  Speaking to early adaptors of the Standard the themes are showing they are good employers who promote good work in their communities. Small employers are using the guidance to access support.  Seeing more employers improving their practices over time. More organisations are paying the LLW following their involvement.  Wealth of materials available on the GLA website and guidance on how to sign up to the Standard. Organisations initially go through a foundation stage and are asked to provide evidence to become accredited.  There is a team in place who provide support to organisations wanting to become accredited.  We are working with councils promoting the Standard to their wider communities.  This is an employer facing initiative which includes signposting to the unions.

Mary Lancaster (UNISON) enquired whether it was public information on which employers are accredited and who makes up the Panel? Are the trade unions involved?

Rachel responded that information of which organisations are accredited can be found on the London.gov.uk website. In terms of trade union involvement on the panel David Wood and Ben Johnson are involved but no there is currently not any trade union on the panel but would welcome a discussion with the unions.

Danny Hoggan (Unite) informed colleagues that he had looked at and started to complete the application to become accredited as a small organisation and noticed that there were only a few questions around trade union recognition. Would I meet the benchmark if I did not recognise 6

trade unions? In relation to contracted out services was the Mayor in a position to support companies who have sexual harassment cases against them (e.g. Woolwich Ferry case)?

Rachel responded that there are a mix of companies who do and do not recognise trade unions, organisations do not need 100% recognition but a majority do. You do not have to recognise trade unions to get accreditation.

Helen Reynolds, Joint Side Secretary (UNISON) enquired once an employer is accredited how are they reviewed to make sure they are keeping up with the Standard? Is there a route for employees to raise concerns who work within an accredited company?

Helen continued, ‘when employers are accredited is there a point where they are asked to provide information on what their terms and conditions are and if they choose to slash these conditions after accreditation how do you know?’

Rachel responded that there is an expectation that any issues will flag up concerns and the employer will be revised by either rectifying or removing their accreditation. The accreditation lasts for four years at which point organisations are reviewed.

Gary Cummins (Unite) stated that in Lewisham the approach is that applying for the accreditation is a piece of work delegated to the HR department who tick boxes to see if they reach the Standard. There are no conversations with staff or the unions to see if they agree the organisation reaches the Standard.

This feels the same as the Investors in People Standard, staff did not feel engaged, but the council was awarded IIP status.

There is an assumption for employers that this is a legal requirement. Would like more information on what the minimum and maximum requirements are for annual leave along with a range of other terms and conditions.

The trade unions want to see actual figures and would welcome discussions with the GLA. We need to begin the dialogue with the GLA.

Rachel responded that there are examples of how people have approached gathering the information required through their corporate structure. We do know that people are completing the process differently.

In terms of legal requirements these will be at the Foundation stage before they get questioned about the application for Standard or Excellence accreditation.

This is a GWS. Some employers find it challenging but the Standard is in reach for all organisations. We would welcome further discussions on figures, numbers and good practice.

Cllr Tricia Clarke (Islington) stated that it is helpful to involve the trade unions at an early stage and thinks they should be on the Panel.

Rachel responded that the conversation is ongoing.

Helen Reynolds (UNISON) stated that it would be helpful if local authorities include the trade unions when they apply for the accreditation.

7

Jackie Lewis (UNISON) stated that it is not clear from the report what the differences are to signing-up. On page 13 of the report under ‘Workplace Being’ it says, ‘sign up and adhere to the London Healthy Workplace Charter’. Have they not got their own Charter?

The unions would like a separate report specifically on the London Healthy Workplace Charter. Lambeth has signed-up, but it was not difficult to extract what they actually say when signing-up, so this is the same issue as signing up to the GWS.

Rachel responded that the London Healthy Workplace award goes into much more detail. For organisations who have this in place we passport this for organisations who want to go further in terms of wellbeing. This was an opportunity to highlight all different schemes in one place.

A copy of Rachel’s presentation is attached.

Microsoft PowerPoint Presenta

5. Menopause - Support Arrangements – Helen Reynolds and Myra Wale (UNISON)

Helen Reynolds and Myra Wale’s presentation covered:

 Why we need to talk about menopause in the workplace  Why menopause is an issue for UNISON  The practical considerations  Possible symptoms and impact on work  Menopause is an equality issue  Menopause is a health and safety issue  The benefits from negotiating a workplace menopause policy  Getting started  A word about menopause cafes  Developing and communicating a strategy

Myra Wale, Area Organiser (UNISON) informed colleagues that she has been working with Kensington & Chelsea who are running menopause cafes which foster an environment where colleagues can engage and have discussions.

The cafes were agreed under the Wellbeing and Adoption Policy and provide a confidential space for people to attend and speak. The cafes are run every two months.

We worked with women on changing terminology such as ‘hot desk’ to ‘cold desk’.

Line managers sometimes felt uncomfortable having discussions, so we now have an in-house champion who attends meetings.

Staff can leave a card on their desk to let colleagues know that they have gone outside for some fresh air.

Uniforms have been changed and for front-facing staff rotas have been put in place for toilet breaks.

8

Staff need to feel confident and be respected.

The Chair stated that this is an issue which has been raised at lots of officer meetings over the last year or so and they are sharing good practice.

Cllr Catherine Faults (Kensington & Chelsea) informed colleagues that they are leading the way and doing this in other areas like dementia.

Steve Davies, Employers’ Side Secretary highlighted that the report covers what boroughs are doing and reiterated what the Chair said that discussions have been taking place at the OD, HR policy and Heads of HR network meetings. As a region London are ahead of the game compared to other regions around the country.

Jackie Lewis (UNISON) stated that this is the law, they have legal obligations to support staff, so employers should have already been doing this. The big thing is to talk, this is not a taboo subject.

The language used is incredibly important and how it is presented. This is not just women of a certain age. There is specific reference guidance on UNISON’s website about the language and addresses the issue of who the menopause affects. Would like to urge people developing policies to have a look at the wording on the website.

Cllr Sade Bright (Barking & Dagenham) informed colleagues that Barking & Dagenham has produced written guidance on the menopause in the workplace which has been published on our website since 2018. We also hold workshops, events, celebrated World Menopause Day in both 2018 and 2019 and will also be celebrating again this year. There is a wealth of materials and we also have a women’s menopausal support group which also covers support for men.

Cllr Carole Williams (Hackney) thanked union colleagues for the work they have done and for including trans staff in their guidance. This is incredibly important and really appreciate Jackie Lewis highlighting inclusive language and continually talking.

A copy of the presentation is attached.

Microsoft PowerPoint Presenta

6. EU Settled Status Scheme

The Chair highlighted the report and stated that we need to keep supporting our workforce and keep communicating.

Gary Cummins (Unite) stated that it was useful to have an update, but it raises flags. Whilst we appreciate that authorities are working to get the best outcome for their workforce this is not something for them to just pass to their legal teams to deal with. They are not specialists in this area. It is simple and complex wording which is the factor.

Authorities need to seek advice from the appropriate law experts.

The Chair responded that the Employers’ Side appreciate and respect the comments made.

9

Steve Davies, Employers’ Side Secretary stated that he understands that authorities have specialist legal advisers bought in to provide advice to employees and apologised for any simplistic wording in the report that may have given the wrong impression of what councils do in practice.

7. Any Other Business

There was no further business.

The meeting was concluded at 12.52pm

10. Date of Next Meeting

25 June 2020 (AGM) Group Meetings: 10.00am Joint Meeting: 11.30am

FUTURE MEETING DATES

Future Meeting Dates

11 February 2021 15 July 2021 (AGM)

10

Greater London Employment Forum Apprenticeships 2019-2020 Item: 6

Report by: Tim Gallagher Job Principal Policy & Project Officer: title: Enterprise, Economy and Skills

Date: 11 February 2021

Contact: Tim Gallagher

Telephone: 020 7934 9916 Email: [email protected]

Summary: London Councils has completed the 2019-20 collection of data by London boroughs. All 32 London boroughs and the City of London submitted returns

Data was collected in April 2020, after the outbreak of Covid-19 and at a time when there was considerable disruption to the usual working practices of local authorities. This is unlikely to have impacted on the numbers of apprenticeship starts delivered directly by boroughs, as the lockdown occurred right at the end of the financial year. Boroughs did not report any issues accurately reporting this data. However, a number of boroughs reported difficulties getting data on apprenticeship starts in their supply chains and with local employers, and therefore this data should be seen as incomplete.

The data submitted shows that London boroughs generated a total of 3,693 apprenticeships during the 2019-20 financial year. The total figure for the previous year was 2,722, although these figures are not directly comparable. This year’s data includes 838 apprenticeships generated through working with local employers not in the supply chain and 89 apprenticeships generated through levy transfers, both new categories which were not included in the previous year’s figures.

Boroughs directly employed 1,772 apprentices, a 14% increase on the previous year. This is almost three times the amount generated in 2016/17, the final year before the apprenticeship levy and public sector target were introduced. 510 apprentices were delivered in maintained schools, a 25% increase on the previous year 11

1. Background

1.1 Every year London Councils collects data from all London boroughs on:

 The number of apprentices directly employed by boroughs.  The number of apprentices employed by maintained schools.  The number of apprentices recruited by contractors that deliver services on behalf of a borough.  The number of apprentices placed with Apprenticeship Training Agencies (ATAs) where boroughs pay the salary and provide the placements for but do not employ the apprentice.  For those apprentices employed directly by the borough and in schools, we also record information on the age, level and number of apprentices who were previously NEET – not in education, employment or training.

1.2 In previous years we did not collect any data on diversity. This year we included additional questions around diversity, including ethnicity, age, gender and disability.

1.3 Following a discussion at the Apprenticeship Sub-group meeting on 12 March, it was agreed to include additional questions around the number of apprenticeships boroughs had helped deliver by working with businesses not in the supply chain and the number of starts generated by apprenticeship levy transfers.

1.4 Data on organisational and public sector headcount was obtained separately by London Councils. This enables the monitoring of achievement against the public sector target.

1.5 This year’s data collection was carried out in April-May 2020. London Councils received responses from 32 boroughs and the City of London.

2 Trends

2.1 The data submitted shows that London boroughs generated a total of 3,693 apprenticeships during the 2019-20 financial year, compared to 2,722 in 2018-19. However, this year’s data includes 838 apprenticeships generated through working with local employers not in the supply chain and 89 apprenticeships generated through levy transfers, both new categories which were not included in the previous year’s figures. If we remove these new categories the total number of starts was 2,766, representing a 1.5% rise on the previous year.

2.2 The data shows that the total number of apprentices employed by boroughs continues to rise each year. Boroughs directly employed 1,772 apprentices, a 14% increase on the previous year. This is almost three times the amount generated in 2016-17, the final year before the apprenticeship levy and public sector target were introduced.

12

2.3 510 apprentices were delivered in maintained schools, a 25% increase on the previous year. It also represents a 76% increase on the 289 apprenticeships delivered in schools in 2017-18, the first year of the public sector target for local authorities and schools.

Number of apprentices recruited by boroughs, supply chain, ATAs and schools since 2009‐10* 3000 2722 2766 2500 2574

2050 2000 1931 1772 1500 1559 1571 1553 1248 1146 1108 1000 1004 987 1080 877 900 721 761 752 688 758 627 599 640 510 500 579 524 521 409 481 250 321 325 287 274 298 256 289 162 80 100 0 59 2 3 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20

Direct recruitment Supply chain ATA Schools Total

*Graph does not include data collected for the first time this year on apprenticeships generated through levy transfers and through working with local employers not in the supply chain.

2.4 The number of apprenticeships created in the supply chain has declined by 37%. This can be partly explained by boroughs not being able to fully report starts in the supply chain due to the outbreak of Covid-19. Several boroughs reported being unable to make contact with businesses in the supply chain during the lockdown, and some boroughs were only able to supply incomplete data. However, it is worth noting that 12 boroughs submitted data on the supply chain, compared to just six boroughs in 2018-19.

2.5 Only three apprentices were employed through an Apprenticeship Training Agency (ATA), and all of these starts were reported by a single borough. In recent years boroughs have effectively ceased to use ATAs to recruit apprentices, which can be partly explained by the restrictions on transferring apprenticeship levy funds to ATAs in the new system.

2.6 A total of 89 apprenticeships were generated through apprenticeship levy transfers from twelve different boroughs. This is the first year that we have collected this data.

13

2.7 Most boroughs were able to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the age of the apprentices recruited within boroughs. Of the responses received, 33% of the apprentices recruited were aged 24 and under, compared with 44% the previous year and 68% the year before that. This means that the proportion of apprentices aged 24 and under has more than halved over the last two years. Two thirds (67%) of directly employed apprentices are now aged 25 and above. The picture is similar in schools, where 61% of apprentices are aged 25 and above.

80% Proportion of starts by age: 2017‐19 ‐ 2019‐20 67% 70% 60% 56% 50% 46%

40% 32% 33% 30% 26% 20% 22% 11% 7% 10% 0% 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20

16‐18 19‐24 25+

2.8 Data on the level of study was provided for around 99% of apprenticeships reported. For directly employed apprentices, the proportion at each level was as follows:  Level 2: 17% (down from 26% last year)  Level 3: 43% (down from 47% last year)  Level 4-5: 29% (up from 20% last year)  Level 6-7: 11% (up from 7% last year) Proportion of starts by level: 2017‐18 ‐ 2019‐20 50% 45% 47% 43% 40% 42%

30% 26% 29%

20% 17% 20% 10% 10% 11% 7% 0% 3% 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4‐5 Level 6‐7

14

2.9 There has been a further shift away from intermediate level apprenticeships and towards higher and advanced level. A total of 60% of apprenticeships were created at levels 2 & 3. This is a fall from 73% in 2018-19 and 87% in 2017-18.

2.10 Boroughs provided data on the number of apprenticeships starts for new staff and existing employees in the council. 45% of apprenticeship starts were new members of staff, down from 52% the previous year. There was some variation amongst the boroughs, with the proportion of new starters ranging from 9% to 83% of the total number of apprentices.

2.11 182 apprentices employed directly within the council, or 10% of the total, were recorded as previously being NEET – not in education, employment or training. This represents an increase from 75 apprentices last year and is the first year this figure has risen since 2013-14. This can partly be explained by an improvement in reporting, as 20 boroughs reported NEET data this year compared to nine the previous year. Just 2% of apprentices in schools were recorded as previously being NEET, although fewer boroughs were able to supply data on this.

2.12 This is the first year that London Councils has asked for data on ethnicity and disability. Not all boroughs were able to supply data on ethnicity, and some were only able to supply partial data. Some provided data on ethnicity but not in the same categories we had requested (for example listing BAME as a single category), so we have had to omit these responses for the sake of consistent reporting. In total, ethnicity was provided for 71% of apprentices directly employed by boroughs. This broke down as follows, with the percentage for the council workforce as a whole listed in brackets:  White: 46% (59%)  Mixed/multiple ethnic background: 7% (4%)  Asian/Asian British: 19% (13%)  Black African/Caribbean/Black British: 20% (23%)  Other ethnic group: 8% (2%)

Breakdown by ethnicity 2019‐20

White 8% Mixed/multiple ethnic 20% 46% background Asian/Asian British

19% Black 7% African/Caribbean/Black British

15

2.13 90 apprentices, or 5% of the total number of apprentices delivered directly by boroughs, reported having a disability.

3. Apprenticeship Pay Survey

3.1 London Councils first surveyed London boroughs to identify different levels of apprenticeship pay in 2016. This is the fifth year that we have carried out a survey on apprenticeship pay. The aim is to provide a resource for boroughs to benchmark their pay against others. The pay rates submitted by boroughs should refer to new apprentices rather than existing members of staff starting an apprenticeship.

3.2 The survey of boroughs was undertaken during September and October 2020. A total of 32 boroughs and the City of London responded to the survey, a response rate of 100 percent. The survey results represent a comprehensive picture across the London boroughs, but are just a snapshot.

3.3 As a benchmark, the table below shows the rates for London Living Wage and National Minimum Wage when the survey was carried out and the previous year:

2019-20 2020-21 London Living Wage £10.55 £10.75

National Minimum Wage Aged 25 and above £8.21 £8.72 21-24 years inclusive £7.70 £8.20 18-20 years inclusive £6.15 £6.45 Under 18 £4.35 £4.55 Apprentice under 19 £3.90 £4.15 Apprentice 19+ in first year £3.90 £4.15

3.4 Apprenticeship pay varies considerably across London boroughs. For Level 2 apprenticeships, the hourly rate ranges from £4.30 to £12.29. The average is £9.02 and the median is £10.75.

3.5 Level 3 pay ranges from £5.95 to £12.29. The average is £9.64 and the median is £10.75.

3.6 31 respondents (94 percent) gave a flat rate of pay for apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3. Two boroughs vary pay according to the individual apprenticeship at all levels, meaning they do not have a set pay rate for apprentices at any level or age.

3.7 For higher level apprenticeships, the hourly rate ranges from £8.72 to £15.24. However, most boroughs have varying rates of pay for higher level apprenticeships. Where a single rate of pay is listed, this should be seen as a minimum. 7 boroughs stated that their rate of pay increased after 6 or 12 months. 8 boroughs did not provide any data at all for higher levels, stating that pay levels varied depending on the job specification.

16

3.8 19 boroughs pay the full National Minimum Wage (£8.72) or above for all apprenticeships (58 percent of respondents). And of these, 17 boroughs pay the London Living Wage (£10.75) or above for all apprenticeships (52 percent of respondents).

3.9 The 17 boroughs are Barking & Dagenham, Camden, City of London, Croydon, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Westminster.

3.10 The number of respondents paying the London Living Wage or above to all apprentices has increased from 15 in 2019 (45 percent) to 17 (52 percent). This has increased year- on-year – see graph below

Number of boroughs paying LLW to all apprentices

20 17 15 15 12 10 6 4 5

0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

3.11 All boroughs now pay at a rate above the National Minimum Wage for apprentices (£4.15) for all levels, for the second year in a row.

3.12 The wide variation in pay levels for apprentices between London boroughs remains.

3.13 The average pay for entrants at Level 2 has actually fallen slightly from the previous year. However, this can be explained by variations in reporting, as in previous years more boroughs provided ranges of pay at Level 2 and 3 rather than minimum pay, which had the effect of increasing the average amount. The overall trend since 2016 is an increase in average pay at all levels.

Average pay for L2 and L3 apprentices £15.00 £9.06 £9.62 £9.64 £10.00 £8.03 £7.90 £8.57 £9.19 £9.02 £5.00 £6.70 £6.93

£‐ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Average pay level 2 Average pay level 3

17

4. Meeting the Public Sector Apprenticeship Target

4.1 The Public Sector Apprenticeship Target came into force from April 2017. Local authorities are required to create new apprenticeship starts equivalent to at least 2.3% of their staff over the period of 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2021.

4.2 Six local authorities were able to meet or exceed the 2.3% target in 2018-19, up from two the previous year.

4.3 Headcount data is based on a combination of borough headcount and schools where the local authority is the employer (community, voluntary-controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools). The headcount data for schools is based on government data from November 2018, as more recent data has not yet been published. Therefore, the actual percentage figure for the public sector target may vary slightly when boroughs submit this information to government later this year. The local authority headcount data was collected by London Councils and is taken from 31 March 2019, the start of the financial year being reported on.

4.4 In some cases boroughs submitted their own headcount data. In these instances we have used this data rather than the data obtained from the Government/London Councils.

4.4 Significant variance in headcount can be explained by the makeup of schools locally. For example, academies, voluntary-aided and independent schools are not subject to the borough’s apprenticeship levy. The makeup of local school has a significant impact upon borough’s headcount and therefore their ability to meet the public sector target.

4.5 Collectively, London boroughs would have needed to create an additional 1,435 apprenticeships to meet the public sector target. The average performance against the target was an average of 1.41% compared to 1.23% the year before.

4.6 Boroughs created 321 more apprenticeships through direct recruitment and in schools than in the previous year. 20 boroughs increased the number of apprentices recruited directly and through schools compared to 2018-19.

18

Greater London Employment Forum

Local Government and NHS Item: 7 Collaborative Working

Report by: Steve Davies Job title: Head of London Regional Employers’ Organisation Date: 11 February 2021

Contact Officer: Steve Davies

Telephone: 020 7934 9964 Email [email protected]

Purpose: To report on the introduction of an Employment Service Passport agreement for use between employers in the NHS and local government to recognise accrued service for individuals that get jobs in each other’s sector, and therefore recognise their continuous service for certain contractual entitlements, such as annual leave, occupational sick pay, occupational maternity pay, other leave arrangements.

This will help to make NHS and local government employers a more attractive recruitment proposition than the private sector and support the recruitment and retention of talent in the public sector workforce in London.

This meeting provides an opportunity to share the arrangements for how it will work and re-energise its introduction since this stalled with the onset of Covid-19.

1. Introduction/ Background

1.1 HR leads from NHS London and local government have been meeting to improve collaborative working across the employer and professional HR networks.

1.2 The potential for sharing knowledge, information, workforce practices and understanding of different cultures, systems, governance arrangements, etc. within the NHS and local government across employer and professional HR networks has been identified as important, especially with the vision of health improvement and prevention articulated by the NHS Long Term Plan and drive for integrated care systems.

1.3 Meetings between lead officers from NHS Employers, Health Education and London Boroughs Regional Employers’ Organisation have identified the following areas for collaboration/ knowledge sharing/ understanding:  HR network linkages 19

 Apprenticeships  Recruitment and Career pathways  People returning to work from a significant break in service  Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion – sharing good practice that stimulates greater workforce diversity and inclusion  Covid-19 employer support arrangements  Leadership development opportunities – e.g. training, mentoring, secondments  Employment Service Passport

1.4 This report was shared with the Greater London Provincial Council (GLPC0 in March 2020. As a result of the first Covid-19 lockdown the meeting of GLPC did not take place but the reports on the agenda were sent to Members.

1.5 Due to Covid-19 the implementation of the Employment Service Passport – see below - has been delayed. This meeting provides an opportunity to share the arrangements for how it will work and re-energising the introduction and roll out of it.

2. Employment Service Passport

2.1 A key aspect of improving collaboration and networking is the potential to get some tangible benefits from working together. Having greater flexibility of employment across public services is an ambition shared by the organisations and recognised trade unions. Therefore, the opportunity to get an employment service passport agreement between the NHS and local government has been chosen as an outcome that can be implemented relatively quickly and demonstrate the collaborative working relationship across HR.

2.2 What is an Employment Service Passport? - An Employment Service Passport is an agreement between employers in the NHS and local government to recognise accrued service for individuals that get jobs in the other sector and therefore recognise their continuous service for certain contractual entitlements, such as annual leave, occupational sick pay, occupational maternity pay, other leave arrangements. Note - This relates to individual recruitment only and does not cover service transfers which fall under TUPE or TUPE like arrangements.

2.3 A key benefit of such an arrangement is making NHS and local government employers a more attractive recruitment proposition than the private sector, or some other public sector organisations and supporting the recruitment and retention of talent in the public sector workforce in London.

2.4 The principles and arrangements for an Employment Service Passport have been discussed and approved at the respective NHS and London boroughs heads of HR meetings and the meeting of the London NHS Partnership – Social Partnership Forum on 5 March 2020, which is a meeting of NHS employer and recognised trade union representatives. As outlined above this report was shared with GLPC Members in March 2020 but a meeting did not take place because of Covid-19 lockdown.

20

3. How will the Employment Service Passport work?

3.1 A memorandum of understanding has proven to be an effective method for getting London borough employers to agree a clear set of standards and rules through the experience in local government of using such a memo for the Children’s Social Worker Agency Temp arrangements, which help to control the supply and cost of agency workers across local government employers who sign up to the MoU. The memorandum of understanding is signed by chief executive and HR director of each respective London borough employer.

3.2 For NHS employer bodies the preferred route of governance agreement would be agreement at regional Sustainability & Transformation Partnership (STP) board level by NHS employers and therefore agreement on behalf of several regional NHS employer bodies, including Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG’s).

3.3 The aim of the MoU is not to change the terms and conditions of service for each individual organisation in scope; all local agreements, employment benefits and terms and conditions will be retained. However, where there has not been a break of one clear week or more between the employments, any new local arrangements that refer to continuity of service, e.g. additional leave entitlement, will be cognisant of the MoU and take account of the recognised other employer service as part of the calculation of certain contractual entitlements. The individual will be subject to their new employer’s terms and conditions (local and national) as to the calculation of reckonable service and the associated benefits and their entitlement to their previous contractual benefits shall not transfer. Any dismissal with contractual notice payments will be based on the increased reckonable service and paid accordingly as a result of recognising continuous service.

4. What are the Benefits?

 Supporting the recruitment and retention of talent in the public sector workforce in London  Recognition of continuous service for certain contractual entitlements will provide a potentially wider pool of applicants.  Making NHS and local government employers a more attractive recruitment proposition than the private sector, or some other public sector organisations.  A flexible/mobile workforce can have both economic and social benefits, with a direct impact on engagement and turnover, while providing increased development, motivation, and job satisfaction for employees. This increases staff morale and it is agreed that a motivated workforce is more productive.  A flexible/mobile workforce will strengthen cross organisational cultural understanding, enhance professional links and increase partnership working. Learning best practice from each other can only improve the totality of approaches adopted individually by each organisation.  Having a geographically and organisationally mobile workforce will benefit all organisations and many individuals and will expedite the integration of social care and healthcare.

21

5. Concerns/ Issues and Mitigation / Answers

Concerns/ Issues/ Answer/ Mitigation Questions Do we need to change No. contracts of employment The proposal is not to copy or transfer the individual’s contract to do this? of employment (which happens with TUPE), or to change the recruitment organisations terms and conditions, but just to recognise the years’ service someone has with their previous organisation so that they will not lose the benefit they built up of having longer service.

For example, an employee from the NHS (or vice versa local government), with 10 years’ service joining a London borough (or vice versa NHS), will have that 10 years recognised for the purpose of getting additional annual leave entitlement with the London borough (or NHS), full sick pay benefits and other service related leave benefits.

How much extra will this Nothing. cost? The budget cost for the job vacancy (position/post) will be exactly the same as at the point of advert and appointment.

There may be some productivity costs due to giving extra leave or sick pay because of the recognition of accrued service from a different employer. However, these costs will not add to the budget cost for the post and therefore will be no different than had an individual been taken on from local government with 10 years’ service.

Will there be likely extra No. costs for redundancy? There will be no recognition of previous service for the purposes or redundancy or severance calculations.

Will service be recognised No. for pension or Recognising service for redundancy or pension purposes redundancy/ severance would require changes in legislation to make it work. Plus, it payments? would incur a potentially significant cost to employers. Similarly, service recognition for severance payments would require changes to the new employers’ contracts of employment and terms and conditions which are deemed to problematic as well as incurring a potential cost to the new employers. What will the previous  Additional annual provisions with the new employer. service be recognised for?  More generous maternity leave and pay provisions  Sick pay entitlements, which improve with greater levels of continuous service  Any other leave provisions whereby service length grants additional benefits  Notice pay

22

Will this apply in TUPE or No TUPE like situations This is a measure to support normal recruitment and retention arrangements. Where a TUPE situation arises the individual transfers to the new employer with most (excludes pension) of their contractual conditions intact and protected.

Will someone who is Yes subject to this Where an individual has had their previous service recognised arrangement have their and is now enjoying additional leave entitlements as a result service and entitlement with their new employer, then if they are subsequently protected if subsequently transferred as part of a service TUPE or TUPE like transfer part of a TUPE transfer they will have their entitlements protected since it will be deemed to be in their contract of employment terms and conditions.

23

Greater London Employment Forum London Pensions CIV – Collective Item: 8 Investment Vehicle

Report by: Steve Davies Job title: Head of London Regional Employers’ Organisation

Date: 11 February 2021

Contact Officer: Steve Davies

Telephone: 020 7934 9963 Email [email protected]

Purpose: This report provides information about the operations in the London pensions collective investment vehicle (CIV).

Background

London CIV was established in 2015 as a collaborative vehicle to pool Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) fund assets for more effective investment and value add. The purpose of the company is “to be the LGPS pool for London to enable the London Local Authorities to achieve their pooling requirements”.

Pool members are both shareholders and investors and referred to as “Client Funds” to emphasise the fact that the LCIV is there to serve their requirements.

New governance arrangements were put into place from January 2019, meaning that London Councils Pensions Joint Committee ceased to exist and was replaced by a new framework for Shareholder engagement.

Summary

Key points to note in respect of the budget and objectives for 2021/22 are:

 LCIV plan to grow assets under management (AUM) by £1.4bn through a combination of new funds and investment in existing funds.  LCIV will be working in partnership with client funds to develop a product pipeline that meets their needs, including ESG and climate change strategies. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) investing refers to a class of investing that is also known as “sustainable investing.” This is an umbrella term for investments that seek positive 24

returns and long-term impact on society, environment and the performance of the business.  Appointment of two staff focused on Responsible Investment/ESG. This work is supported by a Responsible Investment Reference Group (RIRG) chaired by Cllr Robert Chapaman of LB Hackney.

Financial performance

At the end of September 2020 LCIV had £9.6bn pooled in active funds and £10.9bn in passive funds (counted as pooled for MHCLG purposes) giving a total of 56% of London LGPS client fund assets pooled. The target is to grow AuM by £1.4bn year on year. The latest information from client funds suggests that a current forecast of 67% by 2023, so further work with client funds collectively and individually is focusing on getting closer to the 75% target by 2023. Key factors at present are: the development of more ESG (particularly climate) strategies, a move to private markets (more illiquid funds rather than equities) and more investment in passive funds.

Forward-looking plans have been developed against the backdrop of COVID19 which has created very volatile market conditions, Brexit, increasing ESG and climate change concerns and emerging outcomes of triennial valuations. Indications are that the new strategic asset allocations resulting from triennial evaluations will result in new investments in London CIV funds but also some movement in investments between London CIV funds. The consequence of this will be a high level of transactional activity for London CIV during 2021.

A number of activities were undertaken this year to review the financial model incluidng a review of the the funding model and a cost benchmarking exercise. This will continue in 2021/22 with the support of the Cost Tranparency Working Group (CTWG) which is chaired by a s151 officer (currently John Turnbull of Waltham Forest). Activites include a focus on value add and the Cost Transparency Initiative (CTI). This year an historic VAT saving will assist in funding our ESG activity and provide a buffer against market volatility.

People, Diversity and Inclusion

Key points to note in respect of appointments are, overall a stable team and permanent staff replacing consultants:

LCIV are currently recruiting for a Chair of the Board in succession to Lord Kerslake who comes to the end of his term of office in September 2021. Updates are being provided to stakeholders including Pension Chairs, s151 and Pension Officers and London Councils.

During the year the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Shareholder Committee were amended so that the Trade Union representative is a full member (with voting rights) rather than an Observer. Chris Cooper who is a Unison member and a member of the Southwark pension panel is the current member. The arrangement is in line with corporate governance expectations and guidance about stakeholder engagement. Chris Cooper’s background means that he brings a valuable wide appreciation of the issues and is able to network with other pension committee members.

The overall gender composition of the staff team at the last reporting date of 31 March 2020 was 48% female (23 staff) and 38% (18 staff) were of black, Asian, minority ethnic origin.

25

Greater London Employment Forum

Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Item: 9

Report by: Steve Davies Job title: Regional Employers’ Secretary

Date: 11 February 2021

Contact Officer: Steve Davies

Telephone: 020 7934 9963 Email [email protected]

Purpose: To briefly outline the issues raised by the introduction of the restrictions on public sector exit payments – the 95k exit cap.

1. Exit payments cap

1.1 The restriction on exit payments regulations came into force on 4 November 2020, so severance packages will not exceed a maximum of £95,000.

1.2 The cap of £95,000 applies to the total amount payable when someone exits the local authority and so applies to the total of severance payments, any pension strain cost and notice payments in excess of three months. Pension strain cost is the amount of money required to pay into the pension fund to compensate for early payment of pension until the former employee reaches normal retirement age.

1.3 So, how will this affect the £95,000 cap? The £95k cap includes Statutory Redundancy Pay and any other severance payments, as well as the strain cost that the employer needs to pay to the pension fund.

2. Disproportionate Impact of the Regulations

2.1 The inclusion of pension strain costs within the overall exit cap means that even some low and medium paid staff may hit the cap if they have more than 30 years’ service and made redundant in their mid to late 50’s. This encompass a much wider range of staff than if the cap simply applied to direct payments, including those who have given many years of 26

public service in areas that are not, by most definitions, senior staff or ‘fat cats’ but work in key areas such as Social Care, public health, manage local library services and waste collection teams. Relatively low paid local government workers earning as little as £21,000 could be caught. The average local government salary across London is c.£35k.

2.2 In addition, the proposals disproportionately impact on local government employees compared with other public service workers. This arises from the different rules governing public sector pension schemes and the fact that the local government pension scheme – uniquely – is a funded scheme.

2.3 Further, the MHCLG (ministry for health, communities and local govern) have made proposals to change the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) rules in line with the Exit Cap Regulations that include recovery of the Statutory Redundancy payment from the pension benefits. Statutory Redundancy payment is a legal minimum requirement for persons whose roles are no longer in existence. To then recover this from their pension benefits is unfair and likely open to legal challenge.

2.4 The Government’s own pension Actuary’s Department has already provided illustrations of the likely adverse impact that the proposals would impose on the vast majority (86%) of local government employees at the age of 55 or above. The proposals have nothing to do with tackling “high” costs of redundancies, or the redundancy costs associated with high earners, but affect more or less everyone.

2.5 It is important to note that in London boroughs over 40% of the workforce are older workers aged 50 and over with many years of local government service. 60% of the workforce are women and 40% of the workforce is black, Asian and minority ethnic people (BAME), with a higher proportion of BAME staff working in frontline and local government keyworker roles, such as social care, public health, general health & safety related occupations, the very roles that the public has been relying on to help us through the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is these groups of workers that will be hardest hit by regulations.

3 Legal challenges

3.1 The position with regard to 'pension strain' payments is particularly problematic. The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) rules have not yet been changed to accommodate the cap. There is an ongoing consultation about changing the scheme rules.

3.2 Under the LGPS rules at present, a pension scheme member made redundant or retired on the grounds of efficiency over the age of 55 has to take the pension they have earned in their current LGPS service immediately at the point of redundancy (including any previous LGPS service that a member has combined with the current service). This pension is not reduced by an early retirement factor for early payment as it would be if it was the member retiring voluntarily.

27

3.3 However, the Exit Pay Restrictions prevent this happening. This has created a conflict with the LGPS rules and employers are worried about situations where they are under an obligation under the LGPS rules to make a pension strain payment which exceeds £95,000 but are prevented from doing so by the cap.

3.4 On 22nd December 2020 three requests for Judicial Review (JR) of the Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payment Regulations 2020 were granted permission to be heard. These requests, which will be heard together in the latter half of March, are from ALACE (the chief executives union) and LLG (lawyers in local government), UNISON and thirdly, the GMB and Unite unions, who all contest the regulations on a number of grounds including their effect on the existing LGPS regulations.

3.5 It is understood that until these proceedings are complete, that the Pensions Ombudsman will not make any directions on how employers should deal with the problem of LGPS scheme members being entitled to an unreduced pension and the Exit Pay Cap Restrictions preventing this.

3.6 The LGPS Advisory Board opinion which is based on the legal advice it has obtained, is: “the course of action presenting the least risk to both LGPS administering authorities and scheme employers is for the:

 LGPS administering authority to offer the pension member the opportunity to take a deferred benefit under LGPS regulation 6 or a fully actuarially reduced pension under LGPS regulation 30(5);  Scheme employer to delay the payment of a cash alternative under regulation 8 of the Exit Cap Regulations”

3.7 It is for the LGPS administering authority, not the employer, to decide whether to pay an unreduced pension under LGPS Reg 30(7) or a reduced pension under Reg 30(5). Employers should ensure the LGPS administering authority has confirmed what it intends to do, and that the employee understands the position.

3.8 Pension scheme members will however still be able to bring claims against employers and LGPS administering authorities even if these are subsequently stayed during the judicial review process.

28