Agenda item

Councillor Bell-Bradford, Executive Member for Inclusive Economy, Culture and Jobs, introduced his annual presentation to the Committee.

The following key points were noted during the presentation:

·        The Executive Member highlighted the council’s progress in securing apprenticeships and employment opportunities throughout its supply chain and in local businesses. The council had supported 4,698 residents into work over the past two years; significantly better than the manifesto commitment to place 5,000 residents into work over four years.

·        The Executive Member commented on areas the council was working to improve; 27 more local businesses had been accredited as London Living Wage employers in 2023-24, bringing the total to 329, however it was known that more engagement was needed with Anchor Institutions to encourage them to seek London Living Wage accreditation through their supply chains.

·        The council’s focus on getting local people into work was working to address poverty through high quality employment opportunities. The council supported people into good jobs, that paid the London Living Wage, and provided one-on-one support to keep people in employment. The service was performing in excess of targets. The Executive Member commented on the potential of new devolution opportunities from the new Labour Government, which may provide local authorities with greater powers to support local employment.

·        The Anchor Institution Network was a group of prominent local employers including the Council, Whittington Hospital, London Metropolitan University, Arsenal Football Club and others that sought to take a joint approach to local recruitment and related issues; this including encouraging organisations to pay London Living Wage and take an “Islington first” approach to recruitment. These organisations symbolised the borough and were rooted in the local area.

·        The Council was also working to standardise social value requirements in procurement. As an example, the payment for travel time on social care contracts was previously considered to be a “social value” addition, however through persistence in procurement this has since become a standard feature of the contracts. The council was now seeking to guarantee sick pay for care workers through its contracts. There were opportunities for the local government sector to take a joint and consistent approach to this to help shape the local market.

·        A member queried how the council supports people into work. The Executive Member explained that efforts were focused on those furthest from the jobs market; this included assigning a jobs and skills coach, providing interview skills training, and matching resident skills to local opportunities. The service provided tailored support to residents with disabilities, who are neurodivergent, or who are from global majority backgrounds. As well as supporting residents, the council also engaged with local employers to help tailor opportunities in the local jobs market.

·        A member queried if the service should be setting more ambitious targets for supporting people into work, given the success in meeting the targets earlier than expected. In response, the Executive Member commented that he would like to focus on developing bespoke programmes into local employment for young people; Islington was on the edge of the City of London, with some of the top employers in the world nearby, however working class young people from Islington did not have established routes into these employment opportunities. The Executive Member also wanted to increase focus on keeping people in jobs and tracking their progression; as well as taking a more granular approach to data, allowing for greater analysis.

·        A member queries the statistics on Page 65 of the presentation; this highlighted that the council had achieved £2.3m in social value, with six staff employed from under-represented groups, which seemed to be a low number. In return, it was explained that the true number would be higher, however there were challenges with monitoring and data collection, which was not carried out centrally. Work was underway to improve data collection.

·        A member noted the target of 1,000 apprenticeships had not been met, and the council was currently delivering 50 apprenticeships in house per year. It was queried how the council would work to meet this target. In response, the Executive Member noted the target of 1,000 was total opportunities both in the council, in local businesses, and through the supply chain. The council offering 50 apprenticeships in house was considered to be good progress and evidence of the council leading by example. It was hoped to expand on this number in future, and the council was working with local businesses to encourage them to offer more apprenticeships.     

·        Following a question on the quality of local employment opportunities, the Executive Member emphasised that the council focused on good quality opportunities, and noted that this was a non-statutory service that the council offered because it was the right thing to do and helped to address poverty and inequality in the local community. Officers commented that more could be done to publicise the successes of the service.

·        It was confirmed that the council monitored employment placements at 13 weeks and 26 weeks to confirm that the resident was still in employment. The Committee suggested that longer term monitoring, over two or three years, would be valuable.

·        A member noted the council’s role as an employer and commented that the council’s workforce should better reflect the demographics of the local community, particularly in senior roles. The Executive Member for Finance and Performance commented on the work to increase the diversity of the council’s workforce, and that the latest performance report indicated that the percentage of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic staff within the top 5% of earners was now 31%, around 10% higher than the London average. However, it was appreciated that there was more to be done to increase diversity in the workforce.

·        A member asked about the availability of affordable workspaces and the need to have premises that could adapt to new and emerging industries. In response, it was advised that an Affordable Workspace Strategy was being developed and it was acknowledged that the council’s approach to commercial property would need to adapt to meet the needs of the local economy.

·        The Executive Member commented on positive relationships with local employers; noting that some were very motivated by the council’s mission to create a more equal Islington and were proactive in collaborating with the council.

·        A member asked about barriers to achieving the council’s inclusive economy ambitions. In response, it was advised that there were some difficulties in working across London. While some boroughs had similar ambitions, most other councils did not provide the same level of support or investment, or prioritise this work in the same way that Islington had. As a result, it could be challenging to take a coordinated strategic approach across London, particularly when working together at scale could lead to better engagement with major employers. The council was working to develop a model that other councils could adapt and it would hope that this would help to standardise social value asks across London.

·        The Executive Member also commented that he would like to see more ward-based business support, offering smaller interventions for local businesses. It was commented that every business in the borough needed to know that the council was on their side. While the council had been successful in building networks, more could be done to clarify the offer of support to local businesses.

·        A member asked about how to support residents with English as a second language into employment, while also commenting on the challenges faced by carers and those digitally excluded. It was important to ensure that employment opportunities were accessible to all. It was suggested that a leaflet could be produced for ward councillors to distribute at surgeries, Members also suggested that a comprehensive communications strategy should be developed to promote employment support services.

·        Members commented on the potential of collaboration with other boroughs; for example, could Islington offer employment opportunities to residents in neighbouring boroughs, if they also offered opportunities to Islington residents in return. The Executive Member commented that this would need further consideration.

The Committee thanked the Executive Member for his attendance.