The West Midlands needs to address its dismal employment rates

Birmingham looking festive. Image: Getty.

With the Midlands Engine policy, Joseph Chamberlain’s legacy being back in vogue and – perhaps most notably – CityMetric’s recent tour around the area, the West Midlands is finally getting the attention it deserves. Over the next few months, the run-up to the election of a metro mayor in the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) should mean even more thought is given to what’s needed to help the region thrive.

And top of that list should be turning around its dismal employment performance.

The West Midlands’ rusty jobs machine isn’t a new problem, as a report published this week by the Resolution Foundation highlights. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, the conurbation’s employment rate remained stubbornly low compared to other city regions.

And while the recovery has seen the proportion of people in work nationally rising to record levels, the West Midlands still hasn’t got back to where it was, with an employment rate of just 64.5 per cent compared to 71.6 per cent across all the city regions.

The WMCA is made up of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton – diverse areas with different histories and populations. But bar Solihull, each of those local authorities has an employment rate below the average across the UK’s other city regions. A cross-city plan is needed.

The big challenge for the new mayor, along with other local leaders and central government, is helping people from groups that have traditionally been disadvantaged in the labour market to find work. That doesn’t mean that we should expect, say, people with disabilities to have identical employment rates to the rest of the country. But the gap between the kinds of workers who tend to be in employment whatever the economic weather – in their thirties or forties, highly-educated – and these disadvantaged groups is significantly larger in the WMCA than in other city regions. Targeted support designed to help some of those groups that fare worst in the the region – younger workers, those with low qualifications and people from BAME backgrounds – could make a meaningful contribution.

Of course, it’s not enough to just think about potential employees: the kinds of jobs and sectors setting up in the city region are crucial too. The WMCA can be rightly proud of its industrial heritage, still evident today with companies like Jaguar Land Rover. And while a higher share of the WMCA’s workforce are employed in manufacturing, it’s still only 13 per cent. The city region should also look to expand into more “jobs-rich” areas such as the high value services sector. When it comes to industrial strategy, it should be proud of, but not constrained by, its past.


And hand in hand with attracting those sorts of jobs is having workers with the right skills. Qualification levels in the WMCA are below average. Despite having one of the highest proportions of students among city regions, it has trouble retaining them once they graduate, with fewer staying on than in Bristol or Manchester. More high-skilled jobs would help – but it’s worth thinking too about what those other “stickier” cities offer and how the WMCA can mark itself out and tap into the asset of its large student population.

While the mayor will have powers that can make a real difference, a shared focus with central government and other leaders in the West Midlands will be needed to boost employment. But with a targeted, ambitious plan that puts jobs growth at its heart, there’s every reason to hope that the West Midlands will be talked about for all the right reasons for years to come.

Conor D'arcy is a policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

What's actually in the UK government’s bailout package for Transport for London?

Wood Green Underground station, north London. Image: Getty.

On 14 May, hours before London’s transport authority ran out of money, the British government agreed to a financial rescue package. Many details of that bailout – its size, the fact it was roughly two-thirds cash and one-third loan, many conditions attached – have been known about for weeks. 

But the information was filtered through spokespeople, because the exact terms of the deal had not been published. This was clearly a source of frustration for London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who stood to take the political heat for some of the ensuing cuts (to free travel for the old or young, say), but had no way of backing up his contention that the British government made him do it.

That changed Tuesday when Transport for London published this month's board papers, which include a copy of the letter in which transport secretary Grant Shapps sets out the exact terms of the bailout deal. You can read the whole thing here, if you’re so minded, but here are the three big things revealed in the new disclosure.

Firstly, there’s some flexibility in the size of the deal. The bailout was reported to be worth £1.6 billion, significantly less than the £1.9 billion that TfL wanted. In his letter, Shapps spells it out: “To the extent that the actual funding shortfall is greater or lesser than £1.6bn then the amount of Extraordinary Grant and TfL borrowing will increase pro rata, up to a maximum of £1.9bn in aggregate or reduce pro rata accordingly”. 

To put that in English, London’s transport network will not be grinding to a halt because the government didn’t believe TfL about how much money it would need. Up to a point, the money will be available without further negotiations.

The second big takeaway from these board papers is that negotiations will be going on anyway. This bail out is meant to keep TfL rolling until 17 October; but because the agency gets around three-quarters of its revenues from fares, and because the pandemic means fares are likely to be depressed for the foreseeable future, it’s not clear what is meant to happen after that. Social distancing, the board papers note, means that the network will only be able to handle 13 to 20% of normal passenger numbers, even when every service is running.


Shapps’ letter doesn’t answer this question, but it does at least give a sense of when an answer may be forthcoming. It promises “an immediate and broad ranging government-led review of TfL’s future financial position and future financial structure”, which will publish detailed recommendations by the end of August. That will take in fares, operating efficiencies, capital expenditure, “the current fiscal devolution arrangements” – basically, everything. 

The third thing we leaned from that letter is that, to the first approximation, every change to London’s transport policy that is now being rushed through was an explicit condition of this deal. Segregated cycle lanes, pavement extensions and road closures? All in there. So are the suspension of free travel for people under 18, or free peak-hours travel for those over 60. So are increases in the level of the congestion charge.

Many of these changes may be unpopular, but we now know they are not being embraced by London’s mayor entirely on their own merit: They’re being pushed by the Department of Transport as a condition of receiving the bailout. No wonder Khan was miffed that the latter hadn’t been published.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.