4 Collaboration and competition between
Local Enterprise Partnerships
Collaboration between LEPs
74. Written evidence submitted to us stressed the
need for LEPs to be willing to collaborate with each other when
appropriate.[103] Representatives
of LEP bidders did not consider this to be a significant problem.
Louise Bennett of Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce
told us:
Certainly in our proposition we clearly talk
about the need to collaborate with other LEPs. I can give you
three very quick examples of that […]: first, high performance
engineering, which is not just about Coventry and Warwickshire
as a LEP; it's also about Northamptonshire in terms of Silverstone,
and brings in MIRA in Nuneaton, which is part of Coventry and
Warwickshire, WMG—Warwick Manufacturing Group—which
is part of Warwick, the JLR R&D centre and Prodrive out in
Banbury. It goes beyond the Midlands, and I think there will
be a clear need for collaboration around the LEPs.
Tourism and leisure is completely different.
We have some iconic brands in Coventry and Warwickshire, obviously
with our town centres, but also with Stratford on Avon. We are
more likely to look to the Cotswolds in terms of collaboration
as we are to Birmingham for things like business tourism. You
can come up with lots of different examples and they are all about
matters of joint interest and collaboration, and the evolution
of that collaboration rather than structural co-ordination.[104]
75. This view was echoed by Geoff French from Enterprise
M3:
We're all big boys; we will come together where
we have common cause to make with Government or whatever. We
already have worked significantly in the Basingstoke Diamond,
with Reading and with Oxford, which are other Diamonds, and when
appropriate we will very happily work with Paul [Gresham] and
the Gatwick Diamond […], so I don't see that as a problem
at all. [105]
76. However, not all of our witnesses took this view,
and several warned against the rise of unfruitful competition.[106]
The Manufacturing Technologies Association argued that England
was not a large country and gave the following warning:
It would be a substantial step backwards if the
new structure were to allow old rivalries to reassert themselves
or rose to actively encourage them by adopting an overly competitive
funding structure.[107]
77. New Local Government Network believed that local
barriers to collaboration across local authority areas should
not be underestimated and that fears about the "loss of sovereignty,
bridging political divides and diverting resources from more parochial
activity" were major obstacles that local authorities would
have to overcome.[108]
78. While collaboration between multiple LEP bodies
represents a significant challenge it should be noted that RDAs'
own record on collaboration was not perfect. While Tate Liverpool[109]
and the Regional Studies Association[110]
gave a positive assessment and pointed to the success of the NWDA
in getting oft-competing cities such as Manchester and Liverpool
to work more collaboratively, Sir Harry Studholme of the South
West Regional Development Agency conceded that the experience
of having allowed 24 nanotechnology centres to proceed without
greater coordination between regions was an example where RDAs
fell down.[111] Business
Voice West Midlands struck a more pessimistic note both on the
RDA record and the prognosis for LEPs. It observed that "RDAs
didn't work together; very often, councils don't work together,
and it's very difficult to see why LEPs over such a large area
would do that."[112]
79. The Local Government Association suggested that
there may need to be a role for central government where necessary
cooperation is not achieved: "there is a demand from councils,
businesses, and potential LEPs for coordination between LEPs;
this coordination cannot be achieved without central intervention
and should be allowed to generate a range of different arrangements
to suit different circumstances."[113]
The Association for Consultancy and Engineering took a similar
view and recommended the establishment of a national LEP forum,
a knowledge transfer network, and incentives to engage beyond
the local area.[114]
80. The challenge facing both the business and
political community will be to ensure that, where appropriate,
LEPs collaborate to the benefit of all parties. Therefore, we
recommend that the Government consider making LEP recognition
conditional on membership of a knowledge sharing network so that
weaker LEPs have access to the experience and know-how of others,
or even a duty to cooperate similar to that envisaged for planning
bodies.
An ongoing need for active coordination?
81. Many organisations told us of the need for interaction
not only with geographical neighbours but also "virtually"
with sectoral partners, higher education bodies working in their
field in other parts of the country, and even overseas partners.
A number of our witnesses highlighted the need for some geographically
distant LEPs to work along sectoral lines. Sir Harry Studholme
of SWRDA referred to the need to recognise functional economic
geography and gave the example of aerospace where "significant
elements of our aerospace industry in the North West, a great
deal around Bristol, some in Derby and stretching as far south
as Yeovil".[115]
Kevin Lavery of Cornwall Council took a similar view in respect
of the automotive industry, saying "there are some things
that go beyond LEP boundaries…[T]he motor industry goes well
beyond the West Midlands […]; there are very important parts
of the industry in the North East and the North West too."
82. The CBI also saw a need for LEPs to cooperate
on what it described as "pan-region issues":
We have seen a desire from the business community
to have something at the regional level that works with LEPs [...].
That is very understandable. There is a nuclear cluster in the
North West of England. There are automotive and engineering clusters
in the West Midlands and North East, and processing businesses
and chemicals in the North East.[116]
83. These views point to a common sense need for
collaboration in certain industry sectors. However, the question
remains whether a continuing subnational coordination function
is necessary.
84. Alan Clarke of One North East cited the national
renewable energy centre, NaREC, as an example of a project better
delivered at the regional rather than a local level,[117]
and Sir Harry Studholme added the South West Wave Hub, and the
Daresbury and Harwell research centres as similar cases. Andrew
Lewis of Newcastle City Council provided the following illustration:
I have a really important case study that gets
to the heart of your question around the low carbon and offshore
wind sector off the North East coast. It requires a huge, effective
public-private partnership arrangement to make that work and to
deliver the investment that we know will generate tens of thousands
of jobs. It requires local action, because to some extent we
are often owners of the assets as local authorities—with
the Port of Tyne, for example. It requires integration of supply
networks right across the whole of the North of England. It requires
innovation and support, some of which is in a national centre,
which is based in Northumberland. It requires a really effective
partnership arrangement to make it work.
In the past One North East, our RDA, would have
taken the lead on much of that work, so we've got to respond to
that as local authorities and business networks to put together
the sort of partnership that will retain and keep the momentum
going on what is an incredibly important investment for us. Now,
at the moment, we are in a position where the LEPs' geography
does not really help us with that in the North East, so we are
continuing to work with our neighbours to see if we can put together
a much stronger partnership arrangement to be able to deliver
really important investment opportunities like that.[118]
85. The Government has acknowledged the need for
cooperation between LEPs on both local and sectoral issues, and
the White Paper actively encouraged that approach:
The Government wishes to encourage cooperation
between partnerships where this would result in a more efficient
use of resources and secure a better outcome than operating in
isolation. This cooperation need not be restricted to neighbouring
partnerships and will be particularly important where partnerships
share a common interest, such as the need to support important
industrial clusters. The aerospace industry, for example, has
important clusters in both the North West and the South West.
The Government will also encourage groups of partnerships which
contain key sector clusters to work collaboratively with the relevant
national industry bodies. Likewise it will encourage collaboration
around particular themes, for example, tourism.[119]
86. When we put it to the Minister that there may
be a need for a form of regional, cross-boundary or other subnational
coordination he agreed that this could be beneficial although
he did not appear to favour any formal institution carrying out
that role:
Our view is that if a group of LEPs wish to form
a forum or strategic team on a particular project, we have absolutely
no prejudice against that, but they do not need to come to use
for permission […] they will actually focus on those rather
than necessarily on another bureaucracy that has a permanent secretariat.[120]
87. We welcome the Government's agreement that
strategic coordination of certain projects or sectors may require
groups of LEPs to work together, including on a regional or sectoral
basis where appropriate. Where there is agreement among LEPs that
there should be a body to perform such coordination, we recommend
that the Government support it.
103 Examples are: One Nucleus, Association for Consultancy
and Engineering, Local Government Association, Campaign to Protect
Rural England, South East Economic Partnerships, North West Universities
Association, Tourism South East, Centre for Cities, North West
Business Leadership Team, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders,
National Housing Federation, Federation of Small Businesses, TUC,
New Local Government Network, Regional Studies Association, and
British Chambers of Commerce. Back
104
Q 161 Back
105
Q 122 Back
106
For example, see SEMTA, Ev w213 Back
107
Ev w133, paragraph 19 Back
108
Ev w150, paragraph 1.5 Back
109
Ev w227 Back
110
Ev w192 Back
111
Q 22 [Studholme] Back
112
Q 166 [ Williams] Back
113
Ev 142, Executive Summary Back
114
Ev w7, section 3 Back
115
Q 13 Back
116
Q 76 [Cridland] Back
117
Q 25 Back
118
Q 161 Back
119
See paragraph 2.14. Back
120
Q 210 Back
|
