Agenda item

Report of the Director of Strategy & Communications.

4.1       Mr Steve Carr, Head of Economic Development, introduced the report which provided an overview of the Growth Deal for London which had recently been agreed between Government and the London Enterprise Panel, the Mayor of London, London Councils and London boroughs. Mr Carr summarised the context of the Growth Deal including the negotiations, opportunities arising from the Deal and Westminster’s involvement to date and going forward.

4.2       Members were informed that negotiations in respect of the employment aspects of the Growth Deal for London had been led by Westminster’s Chief Executive (jointly with the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Islington) on behalf of partners across the Greater London Authority (GLA), Central London Forward (CLF - the partnership of the eight central London local authorities); and London Councils. This negotiation produced a pioneering agreement regarding the delivery of employment services and the provision of better access to jobs in the growing economy. It is also a route to securing greater freedoms, flexibilities and funding to drive growth and jobs in London. The CLF will now work in partnership with London Councils, the GLA, the London Enterprise Panel and Government, to establish a joint project team to develop a time-limited, five-year initiative for Employment Support Allowance claimants in Central London.

4.3       Mr Carr explained that the Deal has embedded within it key principles around local government service reform, collaborative working; and the devolution of services to enhance local authorities’ ability to support economic development and growth. In fact through the negotiation, significant commitments on devolution had been secured, thereby ensuring that success will unlock a series of progressive steps towards further local service integration across London.

4.4       Majeed Neky, Senior Policy Officer, provided Members with an overview of the next steps in the process and its implementation. Mr Neky explained that, over the next three months, alongside the detailed design of the scheme, a timetable will be agreed for specific steps towards devolution linked to the performance of the initiative. There will also be a detailed agreement on how successful performance of the initiative will lead to the approach being extended to other areas of London and scope widened to address other services. Ultimately there is an aspiration to negotiate to retain a share of the savings created, through reduced expenditure on benefits and reduced demand for broader public services, by helping people into work.

4.5       Mr Neky explained that the initiative will see each claimant working with a single, multi-skilled caseworker, over a long period of time, to help them implement a plan of action which addresses their individual needs. This will involve a multi-agency approach, working closely with existing council, health and voluntary sector services, to provide specialist support such as mental health provision or specific skills training to guide the individual through their journey towards work.

4.6       The Committee discussed the tension between the ‘supply’ of families and unemployed residents requiring assistance and the demand for both sustainable employment and housing.  In agreement with Members, Mr Neky explained that enhancing individuals’ skill-set, and working closely with individuals to ensure they have the right skill-set to attain suitable employment, will be key to the programme. In this context Mr Neky detailed that the measures included an allocation to the London Enterprise Panel of £65 million for a suite of skills-related enhancement schemes including: capital investment in skills institutions in London; investment in a pilot digital skills programme; greater influence for London to ensure that nationally funded skills provision through the Skills Funding Agency meets London priorities; and support for a single integrated apprenticeships offer for London employers. This will be an excellent platform from which more can be achieved going forward.

4.7       In respect of housing, Members were informed that the Growth Deal also included greater flexibility to borrow money against housing stock in order to deliver more affordable homes. Members heard that Westminster will initially receive £8.5 million of additional borrowing capacity to help deliver more affordable homes and will continue to advocate for flexibility in this area. The Committee discussed the financial details cited in the report and requested that further information be provided in respect of the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) and the aforementioned £8.5 million of additional borrowing capacity.

4.8       In response to questioning from Members regarding whether a ‘Westminster-specific approach’ had been taken, Mr Neky explained that the main focus for Westminster to date has very much been to support our hardest to help residents to overcome barriers and move towards employment. He noted that the City Council already commissions a range of successful programmes to support residents into employment, including the Workplace Coordinator scheme and the recently launched FACES programme for families with barriers to employment. However, these have been on a relatively small scale compared to the extent of the long-term unemployed cohort within Westminster. The primary challenge for the City Council will be to effectively target those residents with complex needs and multiple barriers to employment, which requires co-ordination locally. Mr Neky further noted that the aforementioned approach of having a single, multi-skilled adviser assisting a small caseload of individuals to guide the individual through their journey towards work, is one which has been built upon the ‘Troubled Families’ programmes.

4.9       In relation to the role of the specialist adviser, Members noted the importance of ensuring that people with the right level and type of ‘life coaching’ experience and skills are recruited to the programme. Although the exact specification of the adviser/life coach role had not been defined in its entirety, nor the recruitment planned, Mr Neky suggested that one way in which the advisers’ skill-set could be assured was through an ‘adviser academy’ to train individuals at the same level.

4.10     In relation to the matter of future targets, the Committee were informed that this will be subject to further discussions with Government over the coming months at the design stage. Although the Government has already committed to involving London authorities in co-designing the successor to the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) Work Programme. The latest evaluation of the aforementioned DWP Work Programme to help the long-term unemployed move off benefits and into sustained employment, showed just a 5% success rate. Specific attention will therefore be given to investigating ways in which a commitment could be made to achieve a higher than 5% success rate, although the measure of “success” in this respect is yet to be defined. Members agreed that interim steps towards employment, which have clear tangible benefits in themselves, should also be evaluated as part of the defined terms of the success of the programme.

4.11     In response to a query from Members around the research which had been undertaken and/or relied upon to support the programme principles and evidence its likely success, Mr Carr explained that a broad range of detailed economic and social research studies had been investigated to inform the approach. He noted that a number of different models (universally) had been considered. The key message taken from the successful programmes related to the necessity to target specific geographical areas and work with communities at a local level.

4.12     The Committee discussed the fact that the concentration of entrenched worklessness in the Borough was located in North Westminster, within social housing and among older residents (50+), with a high proportion of residents experiencing significant barriers to employment, particularly relating to mental health issues. Members discussed the various demographics and circumstances in specific locations within Westminster’s Wards, which vary according to a very local ‘village level’. The Committee suggested that Ward Members could be integral to providing this type of local knowledge to inform the approach of the programme according to area and requested that consideration be given to how Councillors could usefully provide this local knowledge.

4.13     RESOLVED:

(1)           That the report be noted; and

(2)           That the Committee be provided with progress updates as necessary.