Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, reminding everyone that this was a virtual meeting, as permitted under Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, to enable meetings to take place whilst observing social distancing measures.

At the invitation of the Chair, Members and officers present at the meeting introduced themselves.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Fonseca, who was absent on Council business.  The Commission noted that Councillor Malik was present as his substitute.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed on the agenda.

Councillor Sandhu declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in relation to the general business of the meeting, in that his wife owned a property in the city’s Cultural Quarter.  Councillor Sandhu advised that, if this area came under discussion, he would leave the meeting during that discussion.

The minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission held on 5 February 2020 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Commission was reminded that the information on social value and procurement requested under minute 55(a), “Progress on Matters Raised at the Last Meeting – Minute 45, “Social Value and Procurement Update” (4 December 2019)” had been circulated to all members of the Commission.

Further to minute 57, “Questions, Representations and Statements of Case”, it was noted that the Local Plan consultation had been deferred due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation confirmed that no information was available at present on when this consultation would now take place, but that Members would have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft Plan.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission held on 5 February 2020 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Chair thanked all officers for setting up this virtual meeting and for all their work on matters falling within the remit of this Commission.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any Petitions received in accordance with Council procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

a)     Margaret Lewis asks the following questions:

“The evidence is clear that LCC has presided over a marked reduction in disabled access & design expertise over the past three years. First, with the loss of the Disability Discrimination act post, then with the shelving of the Leicester Designs Standards Document (LIDs) and finally the loss of the Disabled Access Officer role, who had a key role in involving disabled people via the Disabled peoples Access group, in decision making.

How do you plan to replace this expertise? What are the milestones and timescales?

How are you planning to involve disabled people formally in the formative stages of street and building design? What are the milestones and timescales?”

b)        The Monitoring Officer to report on any further Questions, Representations and Statements of Case received in accordance with Council procedures.

Margaret Lewis asked the following question:

“The evidence is clear that LCC has presided over a marked reduction in disabled access & design expertise over the past three years. First, with the loss of the Disability Discrimination act post, then with the shelving of the Leicester Designs Standards Document (LIDs) and finally the loss of the Disabled Access Officer role, who had a key role in involving disabled people via the Disabled peoples Access group, in decision making.

How do you plan to replace this expertise? What are the milestones and timescales?

How are you planning to involve disabled people formally in the formative stages of street and building design? What are the milestones and timescales?”

In response, the City Mayor noted that Leicester City Council had been one of the first authorities to employ an Access Officer.  Much progress had been made since then, giving the Council a good understanding of how to engage with those representing disabled people and their needs.  However, various speciality posts had been lost in the Council, including this one, due to the Council’s financial situation.  Despite this, officers working in the Planning, Development and Transportation service had developed considerable expertise in these areas.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation assured Ms Lewis that the Council continued to invest considerable resources into accessibility and still was committed to inclusive design, aiming to deliver schemes to the highest standards possible.  A considerable knowledge base had been developed over a number of years, which also helped to avoid over-reliance on an individual officer.

One way in which this was evidenced, was in the Council’s published street design guide.  The street assessment tool contained in the design guide was now used routinely.  However, the Council also used a lot of external knowledge to help achieve the desired standards of provision.  Groups representing disabled people had been engaged in the preparation of the document.  It was intended that the design guide would be kept under live review for at least a year, to make sure that it was suitable for its intended purpose.

Groups representing disabled people were routinely consulted through the Disability Access Group.  It had not been possible for this Group to meet since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, but the Council wanted these meetings to resume once schemes were being developed again, as this was an important avenue of consultation.

A number of schemes were being developed and these were discussed with the Group at various stages of development.  In addition, when schemes were implemented, they were reported to the Group, to assess how the schemes were working and help identify any problems.  Recently, the Council had invested very heavily in extensive street improvements and had engaged with access groups during this.

At the invitation of the Chair, Margaret Lewis asked a supplementary question, expressing her appreciation of officers’ expertise regarding streets, but noting that she understood that LIDs included building design and asking why this had not been implemented in the city.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

The Chair will present the report of the Task Group review of Economic Development at Local Level.  The Commission is recommended to receive the report and comment as appropriate.

The Chair presented the report of the Task Group review of Economic Development at Local Level, drawing attention to the following points:

·           The Task Group had consulted with various external organisations, details of which were included in the final report;

·           It has not been possible to visit Preston, to discuss the Preston Model, as intended, due to the Covid-19 pandemic;

·           Some of the Task Group’s recommendations were very relevant to the economic recovery needed for the city due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic; and

·           Details of the recommendations made, along with information on the reasons for these, were set out in the report.

Councillor Myers (Assistant City Mayor – Policy Delivery and Communications) expressed his support for the report, welcoming the rich and informative data it contained.  He expressed the hope that the recommendations made could be adopted and implemented over the term of the Council.

Councillor Myers noted that the development of a model similar to that used in Preston in co-operation with key anchor institutions across the city was recommended.  This was welcomed as, being the largest employers in the city, they had a significant influence, both on people’s lives and the city as a whole.  In this way, it would help drive the city’s post-Covid-19 recovery and inform other future business models.

At the invitation of the Chair, Jonathan Payne, Professor of Work, Employment and Skills at De Montfort University, addressed the meeting, making the following points:

o    Leicester was the 32nd most deprived local authority area in England.  The issues raised by this were likely to be exacerbated by the current Covid-19 pandemic;

o    It was widely thought that the country would be entering a very deep recession following the Covid-19 pandemic, as a result of which unemployment levels could increase significantly by next year and take ten years to recover;

o    Approximately 70% of the city’s workforce were employed in the hospitality, tourism and retail sectors, but these sectors were expected to be facing a moderate or severe impact from the anticipated recession;

o    Many young people were in financial difficulty.  They often worked casual hours and lack of work experience could lead to employers feeling that it was risky to employ young people;

o    Recent measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could go some way to improving the situation, but questions remained, such as whether employers would co-operate and who would monitor training provided.  There also was concern that adult training would be restyled as youth training;

o    Prospects for long-term unemployed people remained limited, due to lack of work experience opportunities;

o    60% of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) were not actively seeking work.  Many had complex needs, but very few opportunities were available to these groups;

o    Tailored one-to-one coaching was important for both the long-term unemployed and NEET groups.  Leicester already had some good examples of this;

o    Further education colleges had a vital role in economic development, but the local employment market  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Investment submits a report outlining the ongoing work to develop an initial economic recovery plan.  The Commission is recommended to note the contents of this report and comment on the proposed approach, in particular the suggested objectives for the economic recovery plan.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submitted a report outlining ongoing work to develop an initial Economic Recovery Plan in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.  The Director emphasised that this currently was a first stage Recovery Plan, which established the work streams needed to deal with the issues covered.  More detail would be added to the Plan later in the year.

The Director noted that the city’s economic recovery had barely started before the city was placed in local lockdown.  Although this increased the challenges faced, the city’s investment pipeline was still in place, with investors such as the universities, this Council and major developers still planning to do work on site.  It therefore was important not to let this stall. 

The importance of designing responses that were effective for those most affected by the recession was stressed.  Concerns had been identified about possible actions that employers would take, but the Council’s relationship with employers was better now than it had been previously, so a good basis for engagement existed.

The Director also advised that it was hoped to use the framework for inclusive growth that had been recommended in the report of the recent Task Group review of Economic Development at Local Level, (minute 70, “Task Group Review of Economic Development at Local Level”, referred).

At the invitation of the Chair, Jonathan Payne, Professor of Work, Employment and Skills at De Montfort University, addressed the meeting, welcoming the partnership with employers, but raising the issue of how to engage employers to address social problems, such as how to provide better jobs, or provide opportunities for deprived people, particularly in terms of work experience.  Professor Payne also stressed the need to establish a firm definition of inclusive growth, the core of which should be quality of work.

The Director agreed with the need for job quality.  Locally, too many businesses were under-employing the skills available, so these needed to be better utilised, (for example, providing appropriate jobs for graduates).

The Head of Economic Regeneration then made the following points:

·           The Council had some well-established partnerships, such as the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership and the East Midlands Chamber;

·           Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council had been supporting approximately 150 businesses per month, but since the start of the pandemic this had increased to approximately 250 – 300 per month;

·           Work was being undertaken to engage with businesses and individuals in other ways than face-to-face, such as through a virtual business fair and live interviews using technology.  Good results were being seen as a result of this; and

·           As a lot of people were likely to soon become unemployed, a focus needed to be maintained on those furthest from the labour market.

Councillor Myers, (Assistant City Mayor – Policy Delivery and Communications), stressed that the purchasing power of anchor organisations should not be underestimated; the Council was likely to be the city’s biggest purchaser over the next few years.  Investment rates also were likely to have a significant impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The Director of Planning, Transport and Development submits a report outlining the ongoing work to deliver the COVID 19 Transport Recovery Plan.  The Commission is recommended to note the contents of this report and comment on progress on delivery of the Transport Recovery Plan.

The Director of Planning, Transport and Development submitted a report outlining the ongoing work to deliver the Covid-19 Transport Recovery Plan, advising the Commission that this Plan had been prepared before the city had been placed in local lockdown.

There had been a high degree of compliance with the Covid-19 lockdown travel restrictions, resulting in a reduction of approximately 75% in bus use.  Although this had been increasing before the local lockdown, since that had been introduced there had been a reduction in use of approximately 22% on the previous week.  Footfall in the city had increased approximately 50%, but was now decreasing by approximately 50% week on week.

The Director explained that a priority in preparing the Recovery Plan had been to encourage cycling and walking activity.  One aim was to undertake 10 miles of pavement widening in 10 weeks and, to date, 8.5 miles had been done in 6 weeks.  Government grants of £400,000 had been received for this work and applications would be made for further funding.  Residents had been invited to suggest where pavements could be widened and a lot of responses had been received, from across the city.  Many of these suggestions had been implemented, or would be shortly, as this was being delivered in phases.

Initially, cones were set out to mark the new pavement layout.  This was then reviewed in the light of local needs.  Some areas had been softened, (for example, by changing the style of cones used), and in other areas planters had been installed, to help create areas that could be used for things such as pavement cafés.  Although these were temporary measures, it was felt that there could be a case for making some of these changes permanent.

It was questioned why local residents had not been consulted on the locations of the widened pavements and some concern was expressed that they made some junctions dangerous, due to the vehicle movements needed to use the junction.  In reply, the City Mayor explained that the work undertaken was in line with government policy.  The new layouts had been widely welcomed across the city and the opportunity to experiment with different pavement layouts also was welcome.

The Director advised that the process used was set out in the Transport Recovery Plan.  The work had been undertaken to create safe environments, including helping people avoid the need to take public transport but still be able to move around the city.  There were areas where the scheme needed to be refined, but a lot of positive feedback had been received about the work.  If any scheme was to be made permanent, a staged process would be used, which would include engagement and consultation.

Other initiatives included loaning bikes to workers, to enable them to cycle to their place of work and helping other cyclists to maintain their own bikes.  Members noted that the Wheels to Work scheme had reported that e-bikes were popular to hire and expressed the hope that their popularity would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

The City Mayor will answer questions raised by members of the Commission on issues not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

Members are asked to submit these questions in advance of the meeting.

a)     Possible Exploitative Practices in Textile Factories in Leicester

Councillor Waddington asked the City Mayor the following question:

“As a consequence of the pandemic and lockdown, attention has again been drawn to some of the textile factories in Leicester which are flouting health and safety regulations, failing to pay the minimum wage and opening when they should have been closed. I hope the opportunity provided by the pandemic will lead to steps being to end these exploitative practices once and for all.

Can the City Mayor explain what action is currently being taken by the Council together with Government Agencies to inspect and regulate these factories, and will he ask for officers to prepare a report on the problems and solutions for the next meeting of this Commission?”

In reply, the City Mayor advised the Commission that he had been very concerned about the practices of some garment manufacturers in the city, particularly as Leicester had the second largest concentration of these in the United Kingdom. 

A meeting was convened of all agencies approximately three years ago, as most enforcement powers lay with agencies outside of local government, (for example, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Health and Safety Executive).  Those agencies’ ability to co-ordinate action at a local level was limited, so work since then had been undertaken to create a context in which they could meet in the city.

There had been a considerable increase in interest by those with regulatory powers in working with the Council.  As a result, agencies had undertaken a number of visits to employers where it was thought a problem could exist and they had advised that they were reassured that it was a small number of employers who were giving the rest a bad name.  The City Mayor offered to brief the Commission further on this at a future meeting, when appropriate agency representatives also could be present.

Further attention had been drawn to this issue following suggestions that “sweatshops” were a source of transmission of the Covid-19 virus in the city, but evidence to support this had not been found.  However, the government’s “test and trace” system for Covid-19 cases did not have any focus on place of work, which gave rise to some concern about the reliability of the data.  Therefore, although highlighting the issue of “sweatshops” was welcome, it had the effect of diverting attention from the main problem in dealing with Covid-19 in the city, which was a lack of proper data.

Members recognised that this was a highly complex issue and expressed the hope that progress could now be made, although it was noted that recommendations in relation to addressing the issue of “sweatshops” made last year by a parliamentary select committee had been rejected by the government.

AGREED:

1)    That the position regarding possible exploitative practices in textile factories in Leicester be noted; and

2)    That the City Mayor be asked to brief this Commission further on the situation regarding possible exploitative practices in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The meeting closed at 6.13 pm