I recently went to the first (possibly annual) public meeting of the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). LEPs have been in existence for barely a year and replace the regional development agencies (RDAs), such as Advantage West Midlands. They are not a direct replacement as they are generally more local and have substantially less money and little statutory power. I had a couple of weeks previously been to a seminar about LEPs at Coventry Business School. It was interesting to see the differences in the views expressed.
Much of Worcestershire’s first year has been spent getting board structures and governance in place. One of the major differences with the RDAs is that the LEPs have no funding as such for themselves and almost no direct access to finance. What they can do is to act as a broker and facilitator. The LEP’s own website says: ‘The LEP’s task is to shape the best business environment for the county, stimulate growth of the local economy, encourage inward investment, boost enterprise and job creation, and actively promote Worcestershire as a great place to invest and work.’ The board is required to be largely business people (though the RDAs boards were also business-led), but perhaps in the case of a small LEP such as Worcestershire’s, the sense is that the local business community feel they have greater ownership. This seems to be part of a change of tone from Government towards a more business-oriented approach, rather than local and national government bodies and agencies, and is also part of the move towards localism.
There seemed to be energy and enthusiasm from those making presentations, though much of what I heard was fairly familiar. The two memorable things were the stark way in which the loss of young people was expressed – 85 % of those who either leave Worcestershire to study never return, or who come to the University and other institutions leave the County at the end of their course; and the danger of complacency – reference was made to JK Galbraith’s book ‘The Culture of Contentment’ that warns it is those places that are neither particularly rich nor poor that face the greatest dangers. That is because they are not poor enough to get grant aid of any size, nor so rich that they can create their own wealth – a scenario we are familiar with in Worcestershire. It was also argued that there is greater disparity between rich and poor within a ‘middling’ area than poorer places where everyone is less well off or wealthier places where everyone is doing okay, with consequent social tensions. I think I’d want further evidence about that claim.
Some very small pieces of funding for four development projects were announced but the overall impression was of the paucity of funding – even the three members of staff and office accommodation is largely from money or in kind found by local partners. And the Worcestershire LEP, being really quite small compared with our neighbours and with the three northern districts riding two horses at the same time with Birmingham and Solihull, means that some funding is already modest and then has to be shared with our neighbouring LEP.
Part of the purpose of the LEP is to coordinate bids to the Regional Growth Fund, the third round of which has just been announced. However, one of the criticisms of the seminar at Coventry Business School (that brought together ongoing research from Yorkshire, the North east and the West Midlands) was that in the first round there was a fundamental disconnect between the funds awarded and ‘sub-national strategic development priorities’ and also a lack of alignment with European funds. The other fundamental criticism, which has been apparent from much of what I have already written, is the much diminished amount of money available. The response of one politician to me that there is no money left (echoing Liam Byrne’s note at the Treasury on leaving office) suggests either we have no money for crucial economic regeneration and are really in a fix, that difficult choices would have to be made as against other government programmes, or that there is a judgement that has been made that we will do things in a different way that the critical academics haven’t bought. The following quote in the research paper, from CLG, seems to bring together the first and third possibilities in saying that a new approach is needed to ensure that: ‘local economies prosper: that parts of the country previously over-reliant on public funding see a resurgence in private sector enterprise and employment; and that everyone gets to share in the resulting growth.’
The study does show that some of the bigger and more resourceful LEPs, largely in based on the conurbations, seem to be going ahead with a number of quite big and resourceful ideas and projects. That seems to be because some of these LEPs are based on other previously existing arrangements such as city regions and can be classified as ‘refashioned existing partnerships’. Others, of which I think Worcestershire is an example, could be classified as ‘new partnerships’, although Worcestershire is not really in a partnership with anyone (apart from the internal partnerships of existing private and public sector groups) save the overlap in the north. It does seem, though, that it is anticipated, indeed it is in the government guidance, that LEPs will cooperate with each other and form partnerships for pieces of work. There was some evidence of that at the Worcestershire meeting with talk of communication between LEPs
There appears to be limited opportunity for the voluntary sector to be involved. The main board according to the Worcestershire LEP website appears to be made up of four reps from each of the private and public sectors, and the business board consists of 15 business reps and five people representing housing associations (2), a community interest company, the Central Technology Belt and the rural community council.
It would be easy to be critical of the lack of funding and the limited statutory powers, but these are not the LEPs’ fault. Rather they represent a different way of doing things and this seems to be embraced by those leading the Worcestershire LEP at least. One might also worry about the limitations of the size and lack of partnership with other areas inherent in the Worcestershire LEP. However, this is a reflection of the county’s geographic and economic situation and there is little that can be done about this at present. It does instead allow a degree of focus solely on the one area, accepting the divided loyalties of the northern districts.
So we wait to see how the LEP delivers against its mission statement: ‘Our Local Enterprise Partnership will drive business growth throughout the county and provide the essential leadership to stimulate local enterprise, jobs and skills. It will build on the high levels of enterprise and home working across the county and maximise the value of our natural and economic assets in an environmentally sustainable way... The Local Enterprise Partnership proposes to provide access to finance for businesses, engage in cluster development and locally tailored business support particularly to encourage the areas (sic) growth and traditional sectors, promote innovation, and encourage graduate retention.’ For more specific details about how the LEP intends to fulfil their mission it is worth looking at their Vision and Objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment