DFID Human Resources Committee
Human Resources Committee - Record of meeting 27 June 2006
Present:
Sue Owen (Chair) |
HRD Lynette Carrington, Stewart Dolier, Mike Hollis, Elizabeth Hill, Kamaljit Kerridge Poonia, Lesley McGarvie, Carol Morrison Observers: |
John Anning |
|
Richard Calvert |
|
Jane Clark |
|
Liz Davis |
|
Martin Leach |
|
Dave Fish |
|
Joy Hutcheon |
|
Hans Boemer |
|
Catriona Lang |
|
Charlotte Seymour Smith |
|
Ellen Wratten |
|
Ed South (HRC Secretariat) |
Apologies
1. Apologies were received from Jim Drummond and Martin Dinham.
Welcome to observers
2. Sue welcomed observers to the meeting and invited to provide any feedback on the meeting to Ed South - HRC Secretariat.
Approval of Minutes of 4 April 2005
3. The minutes were approved
Matters Arising
Performance Management System
- Ellen asked the Committee to revisit the Quality Assurance (QA) role. There is a concern amongst Heads of Profession that with the line manager’s line manager taking the QA role, in some circumstances there is no-one with the skills to compare the technical aspects of reportee performances;
- Liz confirmed that a review of the performance management process has been commissioned and agreed with the Trade Union Side. It will take place from mid-July to the end of the year. The review will capture the mid-year review process. The decision about the QA role will remain unless a fundamental flaw is identified as part of the review. All Committee members were encouraged to gather evidence to feed into this review;
Strategic work force planning
4. Before Liz and Mike introduced this paper, Sue commented that:
- DFID is well ahead of Other Government Departments and Agencies in formulating its workforce planning;
- Much of our Work Force Planning is driven by the outcome of the ongoing Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR07) and the forthcoming White Paper and Zero Based Reviews (ZBR);
- At this stage, we cannot say very much about numbers;
5. Liz thanked Sue for her opening comments. She noted that other Government Departments and Agencies were also struggling with the concept of work force planning but we were ahead of the game leading on this issue, but it is still a very complicated issue and much work needs to be done. In producing this paper, Mike had gathered meaningful statistics and used evidence to support work force planning activities.
6. Mike presented the key points and asked the Committee whether:
- This was the right approach;
- All business drivers were identified.
7. In discussion the HRC:
- Welcomed the paper and broadly endorsed the emerging strategy outlined in the paper;
- Noted that the paper was really helpful;
- Acknowledged that more work would need to be done to plan up to 2015;
- Emphasised that the Strategy would have to be flexible to meet any future demands on the organisation – such as the forthcoming White Paper, the Zero Based Review or any change of Government Policy;
- Noted Policy Division’s importance to the organisation;
- Acknowledged that there would be a risk in failing to deliver;
- We needed to avoid HR jargon and maintain a balance between central directives and autonomy;
- Noted that there was a lot of discussion in the paper on career incentives – these needed to be real ;
- Said it was extremely worried that there would be a potential expectation for the business continuing to carry a 5% vacancy rate;
- Emphasised that there needed to be a closer alignment between real posts and people;
- Noted that DFID covered all three government functions of policy, delivery and corporate services;
- Emphasised that future papers on Work Force Planning would need to mention SAIC, given their importance to the organisation;
- Noted that any change in the retirement age would have an impact on Work Force Planning;
- Accepted that perhaps in future DFID would recruit people at different stages in their working life;
- Emphasised that, on delivery of Corporate Services, there would be issues around professional upskilling, including communication as a professional skill;
- Noted that there was a need to think more flexibly when carrying out recruitment;
- Suggested that perhaps we should go back to core cadres;
- Emphasised the need to influence the multilaterals at a strategic level;
- Noted the PSG challenge to get promotion to the SCS;
- Proposed that there needed to be a mechanism of managing people in and out;
- Noted the legal constraints around fixed term contracts but wondered if we could run the risk;
- Proposed that there was a need to a debate on career incentives;
- Suggested that the adoption of a default retirement age might have an impact on the Strategy;
- Recognised the need to stress to the Treasury that the delivery of DFID’s core business activities could be at risk – [ELABORATE?]
- Noted there was a need to manage expectations;
- Acknowledged that the timetable was very ambitious;
- Noted the need to differentiate between core business and core services;
8. In response, Liz said that there appeared to be a number of themes emerging
- A need to develop better career paths for Advisory staff (including designing incentives and recruiting in mid career and managing the move between Specialist/Generalist);
- Have better and more flexible HR systems as there is some evidence that we are putting our least experience people in more difficult and challenging posts;,
- While we are on target for staffing levels at 2006, there are still difficult conversation to have around downsizing and upskiling;
9. Sue acknowledged that this had been very useful discussion. In summary, the key points were:
- Need to involve SAIC in this process;
- Put incentives in place in fragile states while recognising the diversity of business environment;
- Do some work around career paths;
- Be more rigorous about getting the right people in posts;
- Recognise that headcount reductions have an impact on the entire organisation - not just corporate services;
- The career issues around Heads of Professions and Advisers.
10. Liz noted that it was highly unlikely that we would have a firm plan in place by December 2006 as there was a lot work to be done. She invited members of the Committee to feedback any other observations back to Mike Hollis and suggested setting up a workshop in September for staff who wished to input views.
New Retirement Age: Band A1 and below
11. Liz reminded the Committee that it was being invited to discuss setting a retirement age for Band A1 and below – and that retirement age and pension age were not being the same thing.
12. Elizabeth explained that the need to have a discussion on this issue was driven by the Employment Equality (Age) regulations that come into force on 1 October. These regulations made it unlawful to discriminate against staff because of their age. She also highlighted that the Cabinet Office had agreed a default retirement age of 65 for members of the Senior Civil Service. But, for other Civil Servants, Departments and Agencies had delegated authority to determine their own arrangements. So far, only the Department for Work and Pensions had announced a decision - having opted to set no retirement age. Elizabeth had shared her paper with the General Advisory Group on Diversity (GAGD) and there had been broad agreement on setting the default retirement age of 65.
13. In discussion the Committee:
- Welcomed the paper;
- Noted that ageism was a challenge in the workplace;
- Asked if there was any evidence of a performance dip in later years;
- Suggested that perhaps in the longer term we should aspire to have no retirement age, as adopted by DWP ;
- Acknowledged that local legalisation would have an impact on setting a default retirement age for SAIC;
- Thought that there would therefore be a need to improve performance management across the Department and of those in the final years of their career;
14. In response, Liz said that she broadly agreed with the pragmatic approach the HRC was suggesting of no default retirement age in future. To do this, we would have to do some work around performance management and also consider the impact the “no retirement age” had on organisations such as DWP.
Investors in People: The Road to Reaccredidation
15. Liz asked for feedback from each Director on progress in their areas towards Investors in People (IiP) re-accreditation. We now have a full complement of internal reviewers, mini-reviews have been taking place across DFID and HR offered increased support if required by any of the business divisions.
16. In discussion, the Committee:
- Requested a ‘checklist’ of areas to focus on in order to achieve the re-accreditation, highlighting the areas where we might struggle against the new standards;
- Identified that the common areas for concern were induction and evaluation of training (including planning for evaluation of training);
- Noted that some of the language used was inaccessible and requested the removal of confusing jargon;
- Noted that overseas offices might need specific support from HR regarding evaluation of training;
- Requested a report on where we fell down last time and a programme of planned activity with benchmark dates;
- Noted that the results of mini reviews conducted so far showed that whilst most areas would have passed the old standard there was further work to do to pass the new standards;
- Requested guidance on how to handle the IiP accreditation in the context of a change process;
- Noted that the HR Business Partners could assist divisions in identifying the key areas of focus, particularly with the results of the management survey;
- Expressed surprise at the strictness of the new standard, i.e. that all milestones had to be achieved in order to pass the standard;
- Noted that we needed to place more emphasis on planning learning and development strategically;
- Recognised the need for dialogue regarding objective setting.
17 .Liz reminded the Committee that IiP is aimed at organisations that are going through periods of change. And external reviews have been held in areas going through significant change and uncertainty.
18. Liz suggested that we could have a second round of internal reviewer trainers to ensure sufficient resources would be available.
Health and Safety Management Training
19. Liz reminded the Committee that DFID had a legal obligation to provide health & safely training to all of its line managers. Following the discussion at the February HRC, Carol proposed we would meet our obligations by:
- Making a Health & Safety DVD available to all staff;
- Introducing a 3 hour training package which would be delivered at existing Divisional or Departmental meetings;
20. In discussion the Committee:
- Accepted the proposed training package;
- Acknowledged that it reduced the prospect of a legal challenge for non compliance;
- Noted that perhaps DFID had a moral obligation to develop “hazardous environment” training for staff in country offices covering such issues as road traffic, violent crime, civil disturbance and conflict.
21. Liz thanked the Committee for their constructive feedback and emphasised that the proposed training package was designed to meet our legal obligations. The proposed target dates for rollout are financial year 2006/7 for UK offices and December 2007 for overseas offices. The issue of “hazardous environment” training is perhaps an issue for HR, in consultation with others in the long term.
Action Points
Carol to (i) implement health & safety training package; and (ii) explore, in the longer term, hazardous environment training in consultation with the Office Services, Security and FCO
Race Equality Scheme
22. Kamaljit explained that all Public Bodies are required to have a published Race Equality Scheme. She explained that there was ongoing discussion with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) on whether DFID’s Race Equality Scheme covered our international activities.
23. In discussion the Committee:
- Noted that DFID’s core business was tackling social exclusion and helping marginalised people;
- Accepted that DFID needed to have a clear Race Equality Scheme;
- Supported the view that DFID could not accept responsibility for monitoring and reporting on race equality issues throughout the world.
24. Kamaljit thanked the Committee and invited them to contact her by 29 June 2006 if they had any other useful points.
Item 7- New HR Technical Competency Framework
25. Sue invited the Committee to note that the HR Transformation Board would take forward the introduction of the New HR Technical Competency Framework.
Item 8 - 2006 Management Survey
26. Sue reported the 2006 Management Survey would be published on inSight in the next couple of days and encouraged all staff to complete the survey.
Any Other Business
New Processes and Policy
27. The Committee acknowledged that there was a considerable amount of work going on throughout the Department to introduce new processes and policies. While it welcomes this on going work, it is important that staff minimise the burden they are placing on their colleagues.
28. Liz agreed.
