The Chair will open the meeting.

The Chair opened the meeting and attendees introduced themselves.

Councillor Lloyd-Shogbesan for lateness.

The Review Group have asked to invite evidence from large and small employers, business groups, workers who are directly affected by low pay, and agencies, professionals and faith groups in the city that support low paid workers.

The following people have agreed to attend this meeting to speak to the Review Group about issues related to low pay and the promotion of the Oxford Living Wage.  The Chair will ask each external guest to speak for up to 5 minutes.

·         Al Bell, Director, CAB Oxford

·         Dr Joe McManners

·         Ruth O’Loughlin, HR Manager, Oxfordshire County Council

·         Fiona Percival, Oxfordshire County Council

·         Jolie Kirby, CEO of Community Schools Alliance Trust (Cheney School)

·         Caroline Glendinning, Unison Branch Secretary, OCC

·         David Hawkins, Unison, OCC

·         Abdul Rahman

·         Peter Nowland

The representatives of Oxfordshire County Council spoke first and the Panel noted that:

·         The County Council’s lowest pay rate was £7.78 per hour which was paid to over 600 employees including school lunch supervisors and cooks.  This cohort represented 1.6% of the total County Council workforce expressed in terms of full time equivalent posts.  The attendees hadn’t looked at the gender balance of these employees.

·         In total 19% of the County Council workforce were paid below the Oxford Living Wage and 6% below the Real Living Wage.

·         Social Workers and Social Work Assistants were paid well above the Oxford Living Wage.  There were difficulties around recruitment and retention but a review had found that pay was not the central issue.

·         The County Council paid £22 per hour for home care services. It was not possible to identify what was paid to individuals on commissioned services because the exact amount a member of staff was paid would depend on the business model of the provider.

·         The County Council was not opposed to the aspiration of becoming a living wage employer but cost was a limiting factor given the funding reductions and increased demand for statutory services.  If pay differentials were factored in, raising pay to the level of the Oxford Living Wage would cost in the region of £20m per year. 

The Panel noted a written statement provided by a representative of a community school alliance trust based in the city which said that:

·         The lowest paid members of staff earned £8.19 per hour.

·         The trust board had discussed moving to the Oxford Living Wage and were looking at the financial impact and exactly how they could do this and over what time period.

·         The biggest issue is that school funding is not in line with increased costs for the sector.

·         They face the issue of a widening gap between salaries and cost of living, which impacts staff on lower salaries. They try very hard to provide benefits for staff such as providing Pay Care to all employees which supports costs for medical and health care, and free use of the gym.

·         They support the moral case underpinning the Oxford Living Wage campaign wholeheartedly.

The Panel spoke to a doctor from Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (and former councillor who proposed the original living wage motion), noting that:

·         There was a need to make more progress in terms of recognising, supporting and accrediting employers paying the Oxford Living Wage.

·         NHS commissioning was very complex and the main considerations were affordability and the level of activity, so it was difficult to raise this issue up the agenda as a key priority.

·         There was a direct link between low pay and ill health.

In discussion with the City Council’s UNISON representatives the Panel noted that:

·         The council was outside of national pay bargaining and had just completed a 3 year local pay deal.

·         The next pay deal would include a lump sum or percentage increase (whichever was higher), which would benefit lower paid workers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Scrutiny Officer will provide a verbal update on the progress of the Review Group’s call for evidence.

Deferred.

The notes of the previous meetings are included for reference.

Noted.

Meetings are scheduled as follows:

15 November 2017, 5pm

Noted.