Agenda item

The Head of Economic Regeneration submits a report relating to worker exploitation in sectors other than the textiles sector.

The Head of Economic Regeneration submitted a report relating to worker exploitation in sectors other than the textiles sector. 

Dr Nik Hammer, Director of the Future of Work Cluster at the University of Leicester attended the meeting to assist with the discussion.

Key points included:

• The report referred to labour exploitation in the city and what was known of it.
• Work had been undertaken to look at the textiles sector and a Labour Market Partnership had been brought together to address concerns.
• It was noted that the Council did not have any powers or resources in relation to Labour Exploitation and enforcement, all of this lay with national enforcement agencies.  However, it was established to see what the Council could do to address issues despite this.
• A Community Safety Coordinator post was established and was working on enforcement with national regulators, as well as working with communities and partners.
• The post had been appointed to in March 2020.  When the Covid-19 pandemic occurred, the Leicester textile sector was criticised and national regulators devoted resources to increase enforcement in the city via Operation Tacit (OpTacit), working with the Labour Market Partnership.  This was a significant piece of work nationally as it was unusual for national regulators to devote resources to a particular sector prior to this.
• Detailed evaluation by the Director of Labour Market Enforcement of the work done was to be published in 2023, however, this had not occurred and as such the information was not yet available.  However, it had been shown that there was a lot of interest in labour exploitation in the city and as such work was proposed to look at this area, particularly in terms of what it meant for economic sectors and geography.
• University partners had been engaged to support new work to assess the extent of labour exploitation across all sectors and it was being considered as to what could be done to move the work forward.
• The University of Leicester had a research cluster in the Business School with a large range of interdisciplinary and different sector expertise, looking at areas such as the care sector, the gig economy and precarious labour market issues.
• It was proposed to expand and broaden the approach to include sectors outside the textile sector.  This would require research with a range of local labour market partners and government agencies as well as analysing any available data.
• This work could then inform any Council response to these issues.

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

• Annual reports of the work undertaken by the Labour Market Partnership was available on the Council Website and would be circulated to members.  This work looked at the enforcement activity by the partnership and community engagement work undertaken.
• The Labour Market Partnership Coordinator post had cost £150k.  This role had engaged with a broad range of community and sector organisations.  Additionally, work had been carried out with regulatory enforcement bodies to help encourage collaborative working and help engage with local organisations such as the Council and the Police.  The Council had lots of services in the community and so it was desirable to ensure that they were joined up.
• It was not known at this point why the review of Op Tacit by the Director of Labour Market Enforcement had not yet been published
• It was the intention of the University of Leicester study to look objectively at where it was thought that labour exploitation may be prevalent and to gather data.  It was intended for decisions to be made jointly on which sectors to look at.
• It was suggested that should the focus for any similar activity be broadened; it would be important to still take consideration of the textiles sector.  It was further suggested that the hospitality and catering sectors could be looked at as well as construction, which was often seasonal and could make use of migrant and student labour which was not always formalised.
• The work was welcomed in relation to mapping out the businesses engaged in exploitation and working with partner agencies which might have more information.
• It was necessary to begin with an open mind on where the data would lead.
• The work envisaged should look at the work done locally and what was possible in terms of Council intervention.  It would also be necessary to look at best practice from elsewhere as this issue was not exclusive to Leicester.  It was hoped that the work would advise and create options.
• It was raised that if people in the Council were aware of exploitation, they should raise it with the relevant authorities and not be inactive due to a lack of enforcement authority.
• The Chair noted that the work was vitally important, and it was necessary to think about how to undertake the work, noting that member involvement was important.  With this in mind she requested that the issue be brought as an item to the first meeting of the next municipal year.  She thanked people involved with the work for their interest.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That the comments of the Commission be noted.

3)    That the issue be brought to the first Commission of the new municipal year with a recommendation on how to proceed with the work.