Agenda item

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submits a report summarising the levels of economic inactivity and English language proficiency across Leicester’s labour market, and the interventions commissioned in response to these issues by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submitted a report summarising the levels of economic inactivity and English language proficiency across Leicester’s labour market, and the interventions commissioned in response to these issues by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

The Head of Economic Regeneration presented the report.

Key points included:

• The report concerned features of Leicester’s labour markets, specifically economic inactivity and English as a Second Language (ESOL).
• Leicester had a higher-than-average unemployment figure which disguised a distinctive feature of the labour market around economic inactivity.
• Definitions of economic inactivity included people who are not employed, seeking work, or available for work due to various reasons such as students, retirees, homemakers, and those who have given up searching for a job.
• Many people withdrew from the Labour Market during the Covid-19 pandemic, sometimes this was due to them feeling discouraged or due to health issues.
• Many people were involuntarily inactive, and it was thought that they could re-join the workforce with the right encouragement.  Support was directed to this target group.
• There was a high proportion of economically inactive people in Leicester, however the share of these who did not want a job was lower in Leicester than the national average, and a quarter were long-term sick.
• Another feature of economic inactivity in Leicester was a low level of proficiency in the English language and the demographic structure of Leicester was a feature of this.  7% of Leicester residents could not speak English which was the third highest percentage out of all Local Authorities in England and only 70% spoke English as a first language compared to just over 90% in England.
• Resource was being directed to areas of need and funding was being allocated to these issues.
• Twelve external organisations were delivering support through the Shared Prosperity programme and there were two projects focused on economic inactivity, and two focussed on ESOL and basic skills.
• Future initiatives from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) included one that proposed to allocate funding directly to local authorities focussed on supported employment for disabled people to enter the economy, however, no detail had been announced at the time of the report.

The Head of Adult Education gave a presentation on ESOL provision using slides as attached in the agenda pack.

Key points other than those on the slides included:

• The Twin Training ESOL programme focussed on qualifications to get people into work.
• The Adult Education team with their VCS partners were focused on the Everyday English scheme which provided informal first steps into ESOL, opportunities to build confidence in everyday situations and a limited number of places for asylum seekers and others who were not otherwise eligible for ESOL funding. A caseworker supported individual to progress onto more formal learning opportunities.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• Points were raised about the locations of the schemes and services within the city.  It was clarified that whilst the organisations involved may be based in a certain location, they delivered support across the city and the area where they were registered did not reflect the focus of their delivery.  The delivery would be tracked over the next 18 months and the outcomes of the delivery could be reported back to the Commission. A list of delivery locations and service recipient locations (where postcode declared) could be provided to members of the commission so that they could help to identify gaps in the service and suggest further locations.
• Points were raised about the importance of ESOL to support integration.

A representative of partner-organisation Positive Communities gave a presentation using slides as attached.

Key points other than those on the slides included:

• It was noted that Positive Communities provided support in Stoneygate, Wycliffe, North Evington, Spinney Hills and Evington Wards and the rest of the city was covered by a partner organization called Futures.
• There was considerable demand for the services on offer.
• Mobilisation involved working with partners on community-based marketing and outreach they were now into a period of intensive delivery over the next 15 months to hit targets.
• There was a very strong partnership among members, including the BYCS, and they met regularly.
• A referral mechanism existed to support clients who might want to be supported by different organizations.
• The importance of working with the Council was recognised.
• UKSPF was a shared effort between the Council and all of the various providers.  Council officers were thanked for their support.
• A longitudinal evaluation was being undertaken to look at people’s journeys across the 18 months and looking at how they could be supported.
• There was a potential to bring partners together to form a legal entity to do further work and bid for tenders.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• The programme lasted 18 months.  Unit costs per person were similar to the European Social Fund and the Community Renewal Fund.  People would require intensive support.  Partners delivered support at minimum cost and there was no excess expenditure, this was very cost effective.
• In response to a query about providing support within places of employment, it was stated that this was not within the scope of the funding criteria, however, if there was an opportunity it was thought that some partners would be enthusiastic, however, it would be up to the government to fund such an initiative.  It could be difficult to get employers to release staff to take part in such schemes.
• The funding currently available was less than the previous funding from the European Union.
• In terms of projects being on track it was early days as delivery had just started, but signs were positive.  Delivery was above target.
• Some organisations in Positive Communities were ESOL partners and as such they were aligned in delivery. 
• Delivery occurred in peaks and troughs.
• Pottery classes offered were very full.  Expansion could be difficult due to the facilities being expensive.
• A potential error was flagged in the table showing unemployment figures.  This would be checked with the Office of National Statistics.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That outcomes of delivery of ESOL to be brought back to the Commission following tracking over the next 18 months.