Minutes - 88th GLAA Board meeting

1

Introductions

All attendees welcomed. The Chair welcomed new Non Executive Board members. TL and MS, as observers. DS was nominated as Board Conscience.

2

Apologies

HO Policy Team

3

Declarations of interest

None.

4

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 7th February 2024 and 25th March 2024.

The incorrect minutes were circulated in the pack, the correct minutes will be circulated out of committee for approval.

Action BM88(1)

The correct minutes will be circulated out of committee for approval.

5

Outstanding Actions

Outstanding Actions:

BM83(4) – The sub-committee paper is to be re-circulated and feedback from all Board members welcomed.

BM85(7) – This is be delayed until June.

BM87(1) – To be discussed under item 9c.

BM87(2) – To be discussed under item 9c.

BM87(3) – To be discussed under item 9c.

To be closed:

BM83(6)

BM83(8)

BM85(9)

BM85(10)

BM86(1)

BM86(2)

BM86(3)

BM86(4)

BM86(5)

BM86(6)

IT Strategy:

A Board member raised their concerns around the lack of a data strategy, as this will be integral to the business plan for year two. The executive explained that the full DDAT plan is coming to next Board.

6

CEO Report

Accommodation:

We are due to move accommodation later this year. This is being managed by the Government Property Agency.

The option which is being pursued is Loxley House, however this is owned by Nottingham County Council. Due to Nottingham County Council’s current financial state, this is causing lots of complexities and delays. GPA has a priority to ensure that the GLAA has accommodation, which may mean we stay at Apex Court for longer.

The Chair raised worries if the space was going to be large enough and have enough meeting space. The Executive assured the Board that Loxley House has sufficient meeting space, including for larger meeting such as Board meetings and this is built into our requirements.

Office Attendance:

The 60% attendance to Office is currently being encouraged but not mandated. This could affect the way we recruit if we are limiting the talent pool to Nottingham based candidates. Current 40% of GLAA colleagues are on an office-based contact, so the Executive team explained they are taking time to pause to reflect and research on the benefits and implications.

Letter to Permanent Secretary:

The Executive asked HO whether the letter had reached the Permanent Secretary. HO explained that the letter has been seen by the Permanent Secretary and a response is currently being drafted.

Civil Service College:

The Executive explained they will be asking Board members for availability for a summer 2024 training day on accountability and governance.

Positive media coverage:

A Board member noted the positive media coverage coming from Lords and Commons committees.

7

Home Office Update

Fee Review:

The submission is currently being worked through by lawyers before it goes to Ministers, then Treasury.

The Board asked for an insight on timing and explained that there was great urgency placed on the GLAA by the HO to submit this quickly, however the urgency seems to have now gone. The Chair of the Board reiterated the importance of the GLAA knowing the timeline as this drastically affects planning.

Public Bodies Review:

HO thanked GLAA for their engagement and explained the Executive team has been working on the self-assessment. The Board asked whether NED involvement would be suitable at this point. The Executive explained that input will be required for the terms of reference, as the self-assessment is a spreadsheet, fact based exercise.

The Chair raised that the letter received about the PBR explained the review is heavily focused on financial efficiency, despite previous conversations explaining it will incorporate different elements such as governance. The HO explained these elements can be built into the terms of reference.

The Chair also noted the letter explained there will be an expectation to find an extra 5% in efficiencies, and queried if this was 5% on top of the 5% existing pressure. The GLAA has completed implementation of the TOM, where we already found efficiencies and streamline procedures etc. and HO should consider this. Another Board member noted due to the small size of the organisation every % is crucial and the GLAA has no discretionary spend. HO explained they will feedback to the Board clarity on the 5%.

Lords Committee:

Evidence sessions continue for the Lords Committee, about the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Safeguarding Minister, Laura Farris, is due to give evidence on 20th May. The Committee will report later this year.

Annual Report:

Following the Government’s response to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into human trafficking, in which HO committed to recommence the publication of annual reports, the Modern Slavery Unit is currently drafting the report which they hope to publish this year. HO anticipates that it will report on progress over the last 2.5 years, since the last published report (October 2022).

Illegal Migration Act:

The MS unit continue to develop plans to implement the modern slavery measures in the act, working closely with the police and other operational partners to ensure that guidance is operational. The final approach is subject to ministerial decision.

Care Sector Discussion:

Officials in the Modern Slavery Unit are currently considering the GLAA’s proposal. It will be very important for GLAA to engage with other parts of the government system (e.g., DBT, DHSC and agencies). Broader policy development and intel gathering on the evidence base, carried out by other government developments, is still necessary, ahead of recommending any options to ministers. HO initial legal view is that the GLAA proposal could – hypothetically, should Ministers wish to proceed following broader policy development and scoping – be achieved via secondary legislation, although this would need to be affirmative. Unknown at this stage whether public consultation would be required.

8

Strategic Risk Register (SRR)

The SRR is going to be reformatted which will aid in highlighting the mitigations.

Proposed Strategic Risk:

A new strategic risk on maintenance of positive performance if financial stability cannot be maintained was presented to the Board. The Board agreed to the risk being added and asked for ARAC to discuss it first on the 15th May before coming back to the Board on the 5th June.

Decision

The Board agreed for a new SRR risk on maintenance of positive performance if financial stability cannot be maintained to be added to the SRR.

Action BM88(2)

For the ARAC to see the new risk in full on the 15th May before the SRR will come back to the Board on the 5th June.

The Board noted that this new risk involves many inter-dependencies, some outside GLAA’s reach. The Executive team noted mitigations may include reprioritisation.

The Board asked how this new risk differs to the one outlined in risk 12. The executive team explained risk 12 is around capability and capacity to implement change, especially around the TOM. Whereas the new risk is around the continuation of the positive performance that was a result of TOM and the ability to sustain this level of performance in financially unstable times.

The Board noted the GLAA is not undertaking any work outside their statutory remit, and that there is significant risk to the quality and quantity of work we undertake. The Executive team noted if financial stability was not possible, HO would be putting the £1 million investment through the TOM transformation programme at risk of not being realised in the long term.

Risk four: Non-compliance with Data Protection Act (DPA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The risk remains red currently. The iBase cleanse is starting again as soon as suitable resources are identified.

This risk reflects the risk of non-compliance with DPA, MoPI and GDPR, across the organisation in every role. This could involve not shredding official and sensitive documents, to reporting data breaches. The Executive explained colleagues have been reminded to complete mandatory training. The Chair asked for the link to be circulated around the Board to ensure Board members are complaint with mandatory training and are leading by example.

Action BM88(3)

For the links to the mandatory training for Board members to be circulated.

The risk also reflects the single points of failure around statutory roles in the organisation and challenges to business continuity if there is a gap in those roles. This prompted a wider conversation around single points of failure in the organisation. ARAC would like to explore this further.

Action BM88(4)

For ARAC, to receive a report on single points of failure alongside the item on Strategic Risk on 15th May.

The Board also noted that we would not want to carry any poor-quality data into the new systems. The Executive noted that a colleague was completing this work, however the work was paused. The colleague has now restarted and will be leading the data cleanse with an approximate timeline of 12 months.

The Chair of ARAC asked if it was possible for ARAC to have oversight of the TOM internal Risk Register. The Executive team explained that they will bring a paper on this subject on the 15th May.

Action BM88(5)

For the Executive team to bring a paper on TOM Risks to the ARAC meeting on the 15th May.

9

Performance

a)    Strategic Performance Pack

The performance is looking very pleasing, thanks was passed to the governance, planning and impact manager and the performance team in producing the end of year performance so quickly. The Executive team noted that the dark green indicated where we were in target and the lighter green indicates where we were within 10% of the target.

The highlight of the performance data is licensing progress. The backlog is now down to four, with only the more complex cases left. In March, the median time taken to make a licensing decision was 59 working days excluding the backlog, this is within the target for 2024/25 of 60 working days. The Executive team reminded the Board that recently they have received four retirement notices, and the current lead time to train an officer is six months.

One of the observers asked whether the quality of decisions have been compromised in an attempt to speed times up. The Executive team explained previously the organisation has taken a too risk-averse an approach and built in inefficiencies causing delays. The new process has withstood scrutiny.

The Board noted that with the arrival of our two new Board members, following security clearances, it would be useful for them to meet with the Executive as part of induction. The Board asked whether the six-month lead time for training new licencing officers is too long. The Executive team explained this accounts for three weeks training plus mentoring. This is flexible depending on how the new recruits adapt to their roles. The estimated lead time is generous.

Due to the improved performance in regulation, resource has been freed up for compliance inspections. We have completed more compliance inspections than expected, with more to come. The Board noted that in six months’ time it may be appropriate to pause and reflect on the lessons learnt.

A Board member asked if the risk-based approach is correctly identifying high risk businesses. The Executive explained the risk-based approach has been successful and the high-risk businesses have been as expected, and some have had licences revoked, however in some cases additional licensing conditions were removed. Overall, it has been successful and as we continue to inspect, the percentages are settling.

A Board member asked how many unlicensed investigations have been undertaken. The Executive team explained around 100 unlicensed investigations have taken place, and enforcement officers are now being sent with intelligence questionnaires as well. The Executive team explained this will be in the new business plan for 2024/25.

The Executive team explained that there has been a major cultural improvement. This is shown through there being no internal FOI’s or SAR’s since September 2023. Colleagues have been encouraged to check and challenge leaders, which has led to collaborative working to find and resolve inefficiencies.

The pulse survey shows a positive change in every aspect.

The Board noted that due to the lack of a finance and performance committee, it is difficult for the Board to digest and analyse the performance due to time constraints. However, the Board did recognise the lack of resources and challenges.

b)    Business Plan 2023/24 Progress

The Executive team explained six deliverables have been delivered with one on track to be completed and three at risk of not being fully delivered.

We have developed and invested in our analytical and intelligence functions. The research and analysis team has to date created 46 analytical products and are undergoing the Intelligence professionalisation programme (IPP) training, to be on a level platform with the wider intelligence community. Currently their work is not reflected clearly in the business plan however this is something we are looking forward to in the 2024/25 business plan. The new business plan will include a full review of what data we hold and how we use it, from when it comes into the organisation, through to investigation. This will allow us to analyse and establish our needs and requirements of IT systems.

The Executive also explained that there is ongoing work to embed the Victim Navigator a core part of our work, rather than being a bolted-on programme.

The Board congratulated the Executive on the improvements in performance, and this dramatic improvement should be clearly explained in the ARA. The language needs to be positive and show where we came from to where we are at now. The Executive took all feedback on board and noted that they will look into the variance which can be used as some targets are only marginally out of target (less than 5%).

A Board member noted that our people turnover has increased. The Executive explained this was mainly due to voluntary exits as part of the TOM. The Board explained that the Executive team need to ensure in the ARA, there is an explanation of this context.

A Board member noted that the messages in the ARA need to be visual and not just text as often a reader will have a glance through and look at the infographics to tell the story.

c)    Business Plan 2024/25

The Executive team has taken on all feedback from the last Board and have been working closely with DS to work through the Business Plan and will share the draft with JM in due course The deliverables have been reduced and condensed from 44 to 19, and the KPIs sit around 13. We are planning on theming the business plans.  This year would be “build”, last year we “transformed” and in year three we will look to “thrive”. We have also moved all the risks into one section, and challenged ourselves when reviewing our use of language that is concentrated and focused. There is no hard deadline with this, however we are working towards Board agreement by the 10th May. The Executive is consulting the Chair in the meantime and there may be some informal checks and challenges.

Decision

For the approval of the Business Plan to managed out of committee with the target of the 10th May for Board agreement.

One of the Board members asked whether there is capacity and capability to create more visuals to go alongside the business plan. The Executive explained all visuals will have to be accessible, but this is something that will be discussed with the communications team.

10

Narrative and Communications

a)    Regulating in the Adult Care Sector

The Executive team explained the significant rise of labour exploitation in the adult care sector. This is often seen through houses of multiple occupancy, controlled movement to and from the workplace, either excessive or limited working hours. The GLAA has proposed to take our current successful licensing system and overlay it to the adult care sector. If the current GLAA licensing standards were overlayed to this sector, it would have prevented the large majority of the labour exploitation. The CQC already inspect care providers for the quality of care however by using the GLAA’s skills set, it would be possible to work with the CQC to inspect worker conditions.

The GLAA has held a series of roundtable events gathering experts' views to get a holistic opinion, which is resoundingly supportive of the GLAA’s proposal.

Currently the scale of the problem is unknown as there is no data for the number of labour providers, the current estimate is approximately 2,500 UK providers.

A Board member shared their concern surrounding the infrastructure needed for this to be successful. The Executive explained as this would be a licensing scheme it would be self-funded, dependent on the fee review, and assured the Board they are in discussion with the CQC’s CEO and Director of Operations, to create a model that works well for both organisations.

A Board member asked whether there were any other organisations with solutions to this problem. The Executive explained there is currently a gap in the market and the sensible choice would be for the GLAA to step into this space as we already have the skills and experience of regulating sectors. We are also the only organisation with the powers to regulate oversees.

Next Steps:

The proposal has been sent to the Safeguarding Minister (Laura Farris) and Minister Hollinrake in the Department for Business & Trade. The CEO and Chair of the Board have met with Laura Farris who showed interest and support in the GLAA taking on this challenge. HO explained the proposal is being looked at by lawyers, the preliminary advice is that secondary legislation will be required. The current time frame could be as quick as 18 months dependant on parliamentary time.

The Executive explained in the meantime we are delivering training to the CQC on signs to look out for when carrying out their inspections and how to report suspected labour abuse and exploitation.

b)    External Stakeholder Engagement Plan

A Board member queried if the plan was too basic and could be more ambitious. The Executive explained the External Communications team is only 3.4 people, so to set themselves up for success we have created a plan that is ambitious but reflects the current resource levels.

A Board member noted that due to the lack of resources the proposed plan was good. To utilise LinkedIn to give messages to labour providers, you not only educate them, but you can also encourage them to pass on their knowledge to workers, which would usually require more resources to target.

A Board member shared their concerns regarding the timelines for the website. The Executive team explained this is due to lack of capital funding. We requested capital funding for the website, but this was declined, and we were advised that the organisation can resubmit the request for it again mid-year. Another Board member noted that even though this is a trimmed plan, that it is quality over quantity and in the situation, the proposed is a sensible and practical plan.

The Chair noted that there needs to be a difference between the external communications plan and public affairs plan. The public affairs plan would include programmes and campaigns in parliament, e.g., the current work on the adult care sector. This would utilise networks and connections of the Board members.

A Board member noted both the website and naming are significant projects, which carry a potential large positive impact. The Executive team noted they had recently met with a colleague from OISC, who are undergoing a name change, and discussed the cost, processes and procedures. There is further work to liaise with Home Office to gain approval before Board involvement at the next stage.

The Board Apprentice noted in the organisation he works at they use third party channels, in the case of the GLAA, labour providers with information that they are required to share. The Board thought of this as an effective idea and the Executive agreed to look into this.

11

Corporate Governance

a)    Corporate Governance Framework

The Executive team noted they are awaiting recommendations for HOSU regarding the governance of the Board and sub-committees, which may affect the document proposed. Equally, the Board are still to decide on a potential new sub-committee which would affect the proposed document.

A Board member noted that the terms of reference for LU/LP and NGO worker groups will need updating to reflect the changes planned, as the terms of reference are out of date. In addition, they asked for there to be clarification and consistency using ‘will’ and ‘must’. Also, for the Board Apprentice’s role to be updated to reflect his ability to speak and ask questions in the meeting and for section 4.43 to be reviewed and potential exceptions added.

The Executive team asked the Board to approve the addition of a standing annual item of a regular review of Board skills and experience to be added. The Board agreed and approved.

For the Corporate Governance Framework to be updated with the Board’s comments:

• Terms of reference for LU/LP and NGO worker to be updated to reflect the changes planned.
• Clarification and consistency using ‘will’ and ‘must’.
• The Board Apprentice’s role to be updated to reflect his ability to speak and ask questions in the meeting.
• Section 4.43 to be reviewed and potential exceptions added.
• The addition of a standing annual item of a regular review of Board skills and experience

Decision

The Board agreed for the workplan to be approved following the above changes.

b)    Workplan 2024/25, Sam Ireland

The Board noted the following additions to the workplan, at appropriate timings:

• NED recruitment
• Board Effectiveness Planning

The Chair of P&C noted that there had been some changes to the P&C workplan and for this to be recirculated.

Action BM88(6)

For NED recruitment and Board Effectiveness Planning to be added to the Board workplan.

Action BM88(7)

To recirculate the updated P&C workplan to all Board members.

The Chair of ARAC noted the sequencing of the Risk Appetite & Tolerance, Risk Management Policy and Strategy and Risk Impact Matrix was incorrect as they should come to ARAC before Board. The Executive agreed to correct this.

Action BM88(8)

For the sequencing of the Risk Appetite & Tolerance, Risk Management Policy and Strategy and Risk Impact Matrix to corrected to ensure they should come to ARAC before Board.

Deep Dives:

The Board agreed on the following deep dives to be added to the workplan at appropriate timings:

·       Business Planning and Strategy Building

·       Victims, specifically how external factors affect victims.

·       Compliance and Regulation

·       Talent and Succession Planning

Decision

The Board agreed the above deep dives to be added to the workplan at appropriate timings

12

Financial Outturn 2023-24

The Executive noted there has been a lot of discussion around finance already. The Executive team explained due to timings this isn’t the final outturn, and that it will be available in May. The Executive praised the finance team on their performance despite volatility.

The Executive noted the return on the £1m investment for the TOM has been seen. We have been nominated for a management consultancy award with Capgemini for the TOM.

The late capital expenditure in the last quarter was planned and due to capital funding becoming available, which was spent on new modern operational equipment.

A Board member asked if individual Director budgets have been allocated. The Executive team explained each Director has an allocation for pay roll, with KOB having additional for IT expenditure and third-party contracts. This is yet to go through the governance framework.

13

Board Conscience

The Board conscience noted the following:

• Was lovely to meet the two new NEDs and Head of HOSU and hope they have picked up on the Board’s aspirations and commitment.
• All attendees were polite and respectful.
• The highlight was the performance report, and it was refreshing to reflect on the progress and be able to ask better questions due to better data.
• There was an ongoing theme of the potential lack of funding and managing aspirations and reality.

14

AOB

Sub-committees:

MS is to sit on ARAC and TL to sit on P&C. In terms of chairing, the Chair of the Board is to pick this up following end of year reviews.

Date of next meeting: 05/06/2024