Agenda item

Claire Portsmouth, Procurement and Contracts Analyst, outlined a report to update the Committee on the progress in implementation and baseline monitoring of temporary agency staff with Matrix.  Concerns had been raised by members around the costs and numbers of agency staff requested through Matrix.  The report was intended to alleviate some of the concerns but it was highlighted that for a variety of reasons, Slough continued to rely heavily on agency staff. Also, until the structure of the Council started to settle through a number of ongoing consultations and the implementation of the five year plan, costs would likely increase in the interim period of adjustments.

It was highlighted that to date in the current year, the total amount invoiced (April to February 2015) was £9,602,885.  The weekly invoiced amount was on average £200k; therefore the forecast for the full year of £10.4m reported in the last report remained on target.  The Committee noted that the number of Matrix placements currently stood at 240, against 228 for the last report. 

Members noted that margin costs through re-procurement continued and since quarter 1 there had been a £27k reduction. The exercise to move staff off contract would continue where any agency staff remained at SBC for more than 12 weeks and so far a total of 97 placements had been re-procured against 191 eligible posts (50%).

The Officer discussed pay parity for certain temporary agency workers and SBC staff and this was variable.  In the case of a Senior Social Worker the pay was £3.51 per hour higher than the SBC equivalent worker and the higher pay was far in excess of the scale point.  Members were advised that work was being undertaken by HR to recruit permanent Social Workers. It was also noted that there was some disparity between the salaries paid to administrative staff and temporary and permanent staff undertaking non-qualified healthcare posts and work was underway with Matrix to resolve this.

It was noted that 1% of the total pay to Matrix resulted from agency staff expenses, the majority of which were for mileage paid since April. The mileage rates paid reflected those paid to permanent staff. This would need to be reviewed to assess whether mileage claims for agency staff should be managed differently.

The Committee noted that Matrix continued to achieve the KPI targets set out in the original contract regarding filling of posts, the number of rejected candidates and helpdesk assistance and these were monitored on a quarterly basis.  Members noted that the number of candidate applications, recruitment difficulties and recruitment in progress continued to be the most common reason for agency staff requests (54% over the last quarter). 

  Members raised a number of comments/ questions in the debate that followed including:

• The breakdown of agency staff placements and tenure of staff were included in the report. How did the Council compare hours and days and how did the Council know that it was getting value for money from the contract?  It was agreed that at the next meeting of the Committee a report would be included to discuss how the matrix Contract was being managed in terms of value for money.
• The report stated that there were currently 24 staff outside of the Matrix contract at February, costing £145,374 over January and February. 82% of the spend was within the Wellbeing Directorate.  Members were advised that there should be no long term contracts outside of Matrix and work was being done to ensure the posts were put into the Matrix contract when they came to an end. It was felt that the report did not include sufficient information around this area. It was agreed that the Officer would provide details of the length of these contracts etc within the next report.
• In relation to agency staff placements and the length of those contracts, what was the term of longest contract in place? This was thought to be 7 years and the officer agreed to provide a report on this at the next meeting. In the Wellbeing Directorate it was necessary to retain agency staff if it was not possible to recruit to replace them  when their contract ended. This problem was a national one and explained why there were some longstanding staff in social care areas. On occasion there were staff who had rare skills who were employed for a particular project. It was acknowledged that there were concerns around this practice and better quality data would be useful so that Senior Management could examine this. It was also confirmed that the 1^st Quarter of the Audit Plan next year would consider Matrix Actions. The Officer advised that a breakdown on length of tenure of placements through Matrix would be added to future reports.
• Could the Officer confirm that the Council was not in breach of the Agency Worker Regulations (2010)? It was noted that the highest average pay rate salary was £8.68. The Officer confirmed that the lowest SBC rate was £8.48 and he assured the Member that there was pay parity. The Member requested that the actual pay detail be included in the next report.
• A Member noted the pay differences between permanent SBC and agency staff and it appeared that in some cases the Council was  paying the Agency a significant amount per week above SBC levels per staff member?  The Officer advised that the normal uplift was in the area of 24% and he accepted that the figures set out in the report were of concern. The Member requested and it was agreed that additional data would be presented in future reports to show the differences.
• How could Members assess whether the Matrix Contract was value for money? It was felt that there should be a comparator. The Officer advised that Matrix had been requested to benchmark last year’s data and it was acknowledged that they could not continue to compare themselves to Pertemps for this purpose.

Resolved-  That the report be noted.