The Richmond and Wandsworth Joint Staffing Committee was scheduled to meet on Thursday, 26th March 2026. The primary item on the agenda was a report concerning Performance Related Salary Progression (PRSP). The meeting also included standard procedural items such as the approval of previous minutes and a resolution to exclude the press and public for a specific agenda item.

Performance Related Salary Progression (PRSP)

A report from the Executive Director of Change and Innovation was scheduled for consideration, detailing Performance Related Salary Progression (PRSP). The report pack did not contain details of the report's content, only that it was scheduled for discussion.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The committee was scheduled to review and approve the minutes from the meeting held on 24th February 2026. These minutes, which were provided, covered discussions on Workforce Indicators and Trends for Quarter 3 2025/26, the proposed Pay Policy Statement for 2026/27, a review of politically-restricted and politically-sensitive posts, and proposed changes to family leave policies.

During the discussion of the previous meeting's minutes, it was noted that Richmond and Wandsworth Councils appeared to perform well in terms of full-time equivalent staff numbers compared to other London Boroughs, though further analysis was deemed necessary. Concerns were raised about staff turnover, with 12% in Quarter 3 being lower than the London average, but the demographic profile of staff, with a disproportionately high number over 55, indicated a potential for future impact due to retirements. The report pack indicated that targeted, age-specific policies were being developed as part of the People Strategy to support older staff.

The role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and developing technology in supporting staff with routine tasks was also discussed, with an emphasis on balancing this with the need to ensure new entrants possessed essential skills. The potential for AI and digitisation to transform services and free up staff for added-value roles was acknowledged. The committee was pleased to note improvements in the 'time to hire' metric.

Regarding staff absence, performance in Quarter 3 was below the London average, but managers were maintaining a focus on reduction. A more detailed analysis of the costs associated with staff absence was to be provided. Employment relations cases, predominantly related to staff absence, remained well below the London average, with a focus on early and informal intervention. The impact of the Transformation Programme on future staff numbers was considered too early to determine.

The previous meeting also addressed the proposed Pay Policy Statement for 2026/27, with a recommendation made for each council to adopt it. A review of politically-restricted and politically-sensitive posts for 2026/27 was also considered, with an undertaking to clarify the classification of the Principal Educational Psychologist post within Achieving for Children (AfC).

Significant changes to family leave policies were also discussed and approved in the previous meeting. These included an enhancement to maternity pay, increasing the period of full pay to 17 weeks, and aligning adoption leave with this enhancement. Paternity leave was also set to be expanded to four weeks, with two weeks at full pay and two weeks at statutory pay. These revisions were intended to improve parental support and encourage shared childcare responsibilities. The estimated additional cost for these changes was £38,000 per annum. It was noted that these revisions did not initially apply to Richmond Children's Services staff employed by AfC, although AfC was considering similar policy revisions.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The committee was scheduled to consider a resolution to exclude the press and public from the meeting for a specific agenda item. This exclusion was proposed under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an identifiable individual, where the public interest in maintaining exemption was considered to outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The reasons cited for maintaining exemption included the personal nature of the information and the potential inhibition of free and frank advice or exchange of views.