The Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting on 17 March 2026 discussed corporate HR metrics, including sickness absence and agency worker usage, alongside an update on the Council's commercial strategy. Key decisions included noting improvements in sickness absence rates and the ongoing implementation of the commercial strategy, with further discussions planned on refining data collection and reporting for both HR metrics and agency worker spend.

Corporate HR Metrics and Wellbeing

The Board received an update on Havering's sickness absence rates, which have shown a continued downward trend, with average sick days falling from 10.8 to 10.2 days per employee. While Havering's overall cost of sickness absence is below the London average, mental health-related absence remains the primary cause, consistent with wider London trends. Long-term sickness continues to be a pressure point.

The annual wellbeing report for 2025 highlighted increased demand for wellbeing support, with mental health, musculoskeletal issues, and personal stressors being the leading reasons for referrals to occupational health and employee assistance programmes. Employee benefits and wellbeing initiatives are growing, with significant uptake in salary sacrifice schemes and loan approvals through Salary Finance. However, budget constraints for 2026 are expected to limit service expansion, shifting the focus to sustainable, low-cost interventions.

Members raised several points regarding the HR metrics:

• Occupational Health Referrals: Havering has a high number of occupational health referrals, which officers suggested could reflect a proactive approach to staff wellbeing and the council's aging workforce demographic. The recent change in provider led to a temporary pause in referrals, potentially inflating the 2025 figures.
• One-Day Sickness: Questions were raised about how one-day absences are measured and whether they are correctly recorded as long-term sickness. Officers committed to investigating this further.
• Data Presentation: Concerns were raised about the anonymisation of borough data in benchmarking reports, making comparisons less meaningful. Officers explained this was done to maintain respect for other authorities.
• Long-Term Sickness Definition: Clarification was sought on the definition of long-term sickness (20+ days) versus the reported average absence of 6.9 days. Officers explained this was an average across the entire workforce, not just those experiencing long-term absence.
• Musculoskeletal Issues: The catering team was identified as an area of concern for musculoskeletal injuries, accounting for 24% of cases. Officers noted that this could be linked to an older workforce and that health and safety assessments would be reviewed. The Chiro Collective initiative was highlighted as a successful intervention, though engagement numbers were noted as low.
• Cost of Sickness: The reported £3.29 million cost of sickness absence was questioned regarding whether it included on-costs such as agency cover and pension contributions. Officers stated they would need to investigate this further.
• Work from Home and Sickness: The impact of working from home on sickness absence was discussed, with officers confirming that if an employee is unwell, they should not be working, regardless of location.
• Annual Leave vs. Sickness: The practice of using annual leave to cover sickness absence was discussed, with officers stating that compassionate or emergency leave should be recorded separately.
• Best Practice: The Board noted that Outer 14 had the lowest absence rate and recommended exploring their best practices. A suggestion was made to return to public health messaging around basic hygiene to manage minor illnesses.
• Managerial Culture: The effectiveness of absence management across the council was questioned, with officers stating that HR enables managers and provides support, but capacity is limited by budget constraints.
• External Quality Assurance: The lack of external quality assurance for sickness management training was noted, with the cost of accreditations being a barrier.
• Learning from Other Authorities: The Board recommended engaging with better-performing local authorities, such as Bexley, to learn from their approaches to sickness absence.
• Recommendations: Several recommendations were made, including a formal recognition of the team's improvement in sickness rates despite financial challenges, exploring best practices from other boroughs, conducting in-depth work on musculoskeletal injuries in the catering team, and implementing public health messaging for illness prevention.

Agency Workers

The Board received an update on the Council's spend on agency workers, which has decreased by 22.74% (£1.464 million) in the last three months of 2025 compared to the same period in the previous year. The primary reason for engaging agency staff remains project or additional work (66.99%), with sickness/absence cover being a low driver.

Key points raised included:

• Senior Agency Workers: Concerns were raised about the number of senior agency workers (earning over £75k) and those with over two years' tenure. Officers are working with the provider, ADECO, to review these numbers and explore alternative models, such as statement of works.
• Off-Framework Agency Workers: A reduction in off-framework agency spend was noted, but officers are continuing to investigate and onboard these workers into the ADECO supply chain to minimise risk.
• Conversion to Permanent Roles: Questions were asked about plans to convert long-term agency roles into permanent positions. Officers explained that in some circumstances, agency workers can be more cost-effective due to pension contributions. A risk log will be developed to prioritise conversions.
• ADECO Contract: The procurement process for ADECO as a Master Service Provider was explained, highlighting competitive rates achieved through an e-auction.
• Restructuring and Agency Workers: The use of agency workers during restructuring was questioned, with officers explaining it can be necessary to cover business as usual for hard-to-fill roles or during lengthy restructuring processes.
• Workforce Planning: The Board recommended a focus on workforce planning to reduce reliance on expensive agency workers and explore training existing staff for project roles.
• In-house Agency Model: The potential for an in-house agency model, similar to Haringey's Havering Works, was discussed as a way to reduce agency bills and create local employment opportunities.
• Data Accuracy: It was noted that data transfer issues between previous provider Matrix and ADECO meant some figures might not be entirely comprehensive.
• Recommendations: Several recommendations were made, including a breakdown of agency worker tenure, further investigation into the reasons for restructuring engagements, and exploring the feasibility of an in-house agency model.

Commercial Strategy Update

The Board received an update on the Council's Commercial Strategy, which aims to embed a commercial mindset across all services to strengthen financial sustainability and improve service delivery. The strategy focuses on developing a shared commercial culture, building commercial capability through training and job profile reviews, and improving communication and idea generation.

Key points discussed included:

• Financial Implications: While the strategy itself has no immediate direct financial implications, it aims to improve financial sustainability through increased income generation and efficiency. The current financial systems make it difficult to aggregate income from traded services at a council level, and work is underway to develop a Power BI dashboard for better reporting.
• Income Generation: Services do have income targets, but these are not always collectively aggregated. An example was given of education services developing procurement frameworks for schools, generating income that is reinvested.
• External Analysis: No recent external analysis has been commissioned to identify services with commercial potential, though historical analysis has been conducted. A new commercial framework template has been developed, drawing on best practice.
• Social Benefit vs. Income: The balance between income generation and social benefit was discussed, particularly in relation to commercial units. The template for business cases considers these factors.
• Employee Incentive Schemes: The idea of employee incentive schemes for commercial ideas has been raised but is not yet concretely planned. A previous Big Idea campaign aimed to gather staff suggestions.
• Work Programme Detail: A recommendation was made to bring back the strategy with more detailed goals and milestones, as the current plan is high-level and commercially sensitive. A confidential paper with more detail can be provided.
• Protecting Commercial Acumen: The importance of keeping commercial information contained to protect the Council's competitive advantage was highlighted.
• Ring-fencing Income: A recommendation was suggested to ring-fence a proportion of income generated by services for their sustainable growth, rather than relying on annual budget arguments. Officers noted that strict legislation governs the use of generated income and that work is ongoing to clarify cost contributions to overheads.
• Fees and Charges Income: The £13 million income from fees and charges was noted, but it was not possible to quantify how much of this has increased due to the commercial strategy due to current financial system limitations.

Former Library Sites

The Board discussed the Cabinet's response to the call-in regarding future proposals for former library sites. While Gideon Park is confirmed to proceed, Harold Wood's future is still under negotiation with a foundation, and South Holland Church's outcome is pending a further Cabinet report. Members expressed dissatisfaction with the Cabinet's initial decision to close libraries and the perceived lack of clarity in their responses to the Board's questions. A recommendation was made to seek further clarification from Cabinet on specific points, including the agreement to separate Cabinet decisions for each site and the requirement for business plans.

Self-Evaluation of Board's Work

The Board reviewed its work during the 2025/26 year, drawing on findings from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) survey and internal reflections. Key themes for improvement included:

• Length of Tenure: A recommendation was made for a minimum two-year tenure for Board members to allow for adequate learning and effectiveness.
• Working Protocol: The development of a formal working protocol between Cabinet and Scrutiny was highlighted as crucial for improving effectiveness, with a suggestion for a joint meeting with the new administration to agree its implementation.
• Officer Resourcing: Concerns were raised about the capacity of officers to support scrutiny activities, particularly task and finish groups and timely report delivery. It was recommended that the next cycle properly considers officer resourcing.
• Work Planning: The importance of focused work planning, pre-meets, and tracking slippage of items was emphasized to ensure effective and timely scrutiny.
• Unanswered Questions: A system for tracking unanswered questions and ensuring they are formally recorded and followed up was recommended.
• Report Clarity: A recommendation was made for reports to be received two weeks in advance of publication to allow for better preparation and consideration.
• AI and Data: The potential use of AI for scrutiny was discussed, with a recommendation for training on its benefits and risks, and for improved executive summaries in reports.
• Public Engagement: The need to engage more with residents and external partners was highlighted as a way to enrich scrutiny work.
• Tracking Impact: The importance of tracking the impact of policies and decisions, similar to how the commercial strategy's impact is monitored, was emphasized.

The Board also considered an independent review from Westminster City Council on strengthening scrutiny arrangements, noting its focus on vision, relationships, structure, training, and work programmes. The Board acknowledged the value of learning from other councils and the need for quality over quantity in scrutiny activities.