Professional March 2019

Policy hub

government that organisations try to automate reporting wherever possible, so lead time for software development must be included as a prerequisite to any new legislative changes in future. ❍ ❍ Information and legislation were delivered too late for a number of software providers and companies required to report. Delaying legislation meant many courses run by various companies could not provide the most accurate information as it was still in draft form until after the reporting dates. ❍ ❍ Unlike GPG reporting there will be a need to collect information from long-serving employees which has not previously been collected, so time will need to be factored in to allow for this. ❍ ❍ Guidance and information was not clear and still leaves large areas which can be misinterpreted. There was a lot of confusion regarding which pay elements to include/exclude.

and human resources (HR) professionals along with their software developers will be instrumental in ensuring that affected employers comply with mandatory requirements to report ethnicity pay gaps and achieve greater transparency. This is the first step in developing policy in this space and much more detail and discussion will be required before ethnicity pay transparency can be delivered. ...Rushed delivery will not achieve accurate outcomes

developers, payroll and HR professionals and so we recognise different methodology will be required. If government consider that the time is right to deliver another reporting obligation on employers, in the name of transparency, significant time and structured planning will be needed. Rushed delivery will not achieve accurate outcomes. Lessons need to be learned from the roll out of GPG reporting with government engaging in greater detail with all affected stakeholders as they continue to consult. Employers pay processes vary in size and complexity enormously and with the added challenges for gathering accurate ethnicity data, this adds further layers of difficulty. The CIPP policy team see this consultation as the start of a conversation and not the end of it and look forward to being involved in further consultation and discussion with government and stakeholders. n

From an administrative burden perspective comparability with the

methodology applied for GPG reporting would be preferred by our members. However, our members are pragmatic and recognise that this will not achieve the same results because of the different challenges presented by ethnicity classifications, yet value must be achieved through the efforts of the software

Conclusion and recommendations As with gender pay gap reporting, payroll

All consultation responses are available in the Policy hub on our website.

Hear from the experts at our national forums Exclusive to CIPP members*, the national forums are a perfect opportunity to hear from the policy team, as well as other key speakers, on developments in payroll, pension and reward legislation. This event will also provide an excellent chance for you to network with other CIPP members.

Available dates:

Bristol

London

2 May

13 June

Belfast

Newcastle

9 May

18 June

Manchester

London

16 May

10 July

Cardiff

London

22 May

11 July

Glasgow

Birmingham

6 June

17 July

London

12 June

*applicable levels of membership only. Please be aware that lunch will not be provided.

Book online at cipp.org.uk/events , email info@cipp.org.uk or call 0121 712 1000 for more information.

cipp.org.uk CIPP_UK cip .org.uk @CI P_UK

7

Issue 48 | March 2019

| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker