Written evidence from the Association
for Consultancy and Engineering
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)
should have a strong focus on business and job creation, improving
the economic, social and environmental prospects for their local
areas.
1.2 LEPs should also support the achievement
of strategic national objectives, and should demonstrate that
their work supports national needs, including encouraging growth
outside of London and south east England.
1.3 LEPs should be encouraged to engage
with other localities in order to learn from other areas' experiences
and absorb best practice.
1.4 A National LEP Forum is one potential
mechanism for fostering coordination between LEPs. Such a body
would have a highly focused remit and be made up of high level
representatives of all LEPs, but should not unduly impede the
ability of LEPs to act in the best interests of their local areas.
1.5 The new LEPs are likely to experience
the same problem that affects the existing Regional Development
Agencies, namely that businesses would regard their boundaries
as arbitrary political divisions. "Porous" boundaries
could be established, with some local areas participating in multiple
LEPs should they choose to do so.
1.6 The structure of the new LEPs could
be modelled to a degree on the existing Local Economic Partnerships,
with amendments to reflect modern needs and challenges.
1.7 Lay members of the public should be
considered for election to the boards of LEPs, although business
representatives should take at least half of all seats.
1.8 Public accountability could be strengthened
by involving communities in the steering of LEP work streams,
local referendums on the performance of LEPs, regular public engagement,
and locating LEP secretariats within local authorities.
2. THE FUNCTIONS
OF THE
NEW LOCAL
ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS
2.1 ACE believes that the LEPs should exist
to:
— Improve economic, social and environmental
prospects for their respective local areas; and
— Contribute to the overall economic, social
and environmental prospects for the UK as a whole.
2.2 There should be a strong emphasis on
boosting employment and business opportunities as part of this.
2.3 To do this, ACE believes that they should:
— Facilitate sharing of capacity, knowledge
and best practice in areas such as procurement and service commissioning.
The aim should be to improve the way in which products and services
are procured in order to derive best long-term value;
— Be incentivised to engage with other
authorities and organisations beyond their local areas in order
to widen knowledge and understanding; and
— Be clear about how their local agendas
contribute to, and impact upon, national and pan-area strategic
needs.
2.4 The willingness and ability to share
knowledge between areas will be vital in making these arrangements
work both in the local and national interests. LEPs should be
encouraged and supported—and incentivised, if necessary—to
learn from each other and incorporate established good practice.
This will reduce the risk of resources being wasted in reinventing
solutions that have already been found.
3. CO -ORDINATING
ROLES BETWEEN
LEPS
3.1 The degree of coordination required—and
the types of issue that are likely to arise—depend on the
overall roles and remits of the LEPs. The current Regional Development
Agencies have common remits and responsibilities, but choose to
address the needs of their regions in different ways.
3.2 Should the new LEPs be designed to be
responsive to the specific needs of their local areas in a way
that is meaningful, and if responsibility is to be given to local
areas to develop as they see fit, then there will inevitably be
instances of overlap in activities between LEPs.
3.3 However, one of the government's stated
objectives is to encourage economic growth outside of London and
south east England, particularly through the new Regional Growth
Fund. A degree of coordination to ensure policy success and accountability
to the taxpayer will therefore be necessary.
3.4 Fostering an attitude of collaboration
between LEPs will be important in achieving cohesion. A simple
way of doing this would be to establish a national LEP Forum,
comprising of senior representatives of each LEP. The Forum would
be given a well-defined scrutiny role, and be tasked with examining
and addressing issues of compatibility between LEP strategies.
3.5 The role of the Forum would be restricted
to some key areas so as not to unduly limit the LEPs' ability
to act on behalf of their local areas.
3.6 An alternative approach would be to
encourage the establishment of working groups between neighbouring
LEPs to address issues of common interest. These could be similar
to the multi-authority commissions established by the Association
of Greater Manchester Authorities.
3.7 Given sufficient authority and buy-in
from local authorities, this structure could help to reduce the
risk of disagreement between LEPs on fundamental topics. However,
a positive attitude of collaboration and engagement on the part
of local authorities will be essential if LEPs are to co-ordinate
their activities effectively.
3.8 If a steering body was not felt to be
desirable, then a support network could be established as an information
resource for LEPs, similar to the existing Knowledge Transfer
Networks. The Local Government Association or similar organisations
could take the lead on this.
4. CO -ORDINATING
REGIONAL STRATEGY
4.1 ACE regards a clear, coordinated approach
to policy and strategy as essential, particularly for encouraging
investment in infrastructure and low-carbon technology. Private
sector investors and businesses tend to look for clear market
signals.
4.2 The interface between local and national
strategy is, therefore, key to the success of the new LEPs. Discontinuities
between national and local priorities risk discouraging investment
and inhibiting economic growth.
4.3 The location of boundaries between LEP
areas will become an important point for discussion. At present,
products offered by local authorities and existing Regional Development
Agencies—such as grants and support services—are only
available within well-defined areas. Those businesses located
outside of the relevant geographical area are excluded, no matter
how close they are to the geographical boundary.
4.4 Businesses tend to regard this as a
somewhat arbitrary limitation, which the government has recognised
as part of its criticism of the existing Regional Development
Agencies.
4.5 There may need to be clearly-defined
spheres of influence for each new LEP, so that businesses and
local authorities are clear about the LEP under which they operate.
This is particularly important to ensure efficient administration
of the Regional Growth Fund.
4.6 However, issues of disenfranchisement
would likely arise irrespective of how the boundaries are drawn
up. Arranging the LEPs around local authority boundaries, for
example, would probably not address the perception that services
were being delivered according to arbitrary political divisions.
4.7 In some cases it may be possible to
establish "porous" boundaries between LEPs, so that
local authorities could participate in more than one enterprise
zone. This could be particularly pertinent in areas such as the
outer boroughs of London, which may see their economic futures
aligned both with central London and their neighbouring counties.
4.8 Thus, the boundaries of an LEP would
vary depending on the support programme concerned. In areas where
LEPs overlap, businesses could choose to partner with the LEP
that best matches their ambitions and direction.
5. STRUCTURE OF
THE LEPS
5.1 There are several existing examples
of how the new LEPs could be organised. These structures could
potentially be scaled up to operate on a multi-area basis. A common
theme of each grouping is a blend of stakeholders that bring together
business leaders, local authority officials, third sector organisations
and relevant public sector organisations:
— Adur Economic Partnership[3]
This grouping of businesses, education and public
sector organisations was established in 1994. It is a membership
organisation established as a limited company. AEP has carried
out a number of functions including developing the business section
of the Adur Community Strategy. AEP is governed by a board of
ten directors and four co-opted members. All directors submit
themselves for re-election, by rotation, every three years.
— County Durham Economic Partnership[4]
Also established in 1994, the County Durham Economic
Partnership works through a partnership structure with representation
from a range of sectors and key stakeholders within the county
plus representatives from government agencies and the private
sector. Durham County Council provides a secretariat to manage
the implementation, monitoring, evaluation and review of the County
Durham Economic Strategy.
— Norwich Economy Round Table[5]
Norwich City Council established an Economy Round
Table as part of its Local Strategic Partnership. The role of
the Round Table is to take an overview of the needs of the local
economy, consult local businesses and take action to meet needs
that are unmet. Members include representatives of district councils
and Norfolk County Council, universities, businesses and relevant
public sector organisations (eg Jobcentre Plus).
5.2 While organisations such as those listed
above could form the basis of the LEPs, there would probably need
to be some changes to reflect the challenges of the present and
the future.
5.3 As mentioned earlier, if the LEPs take
the lead in the new Regional Growth Fund then there would need
to be clear lines of public accountability. This would help to
reassure taxpayers and Parliament that public money was being
invested wisely.
5.4 Public accountability could be strengthened
by having councillors or lay members of the community elected
to the boards. These could be by direct election or elected through
the participating local authorities.
5.5 Accountability could be further enhanced
by locating the secretariat for each LEP within a local authority
and giving the participating local authorities a scrutiny role.
5.6 The blend of organisations represented
would be key. Business representatives should receive at least
half of the seats, with some room reserved for representatives
of business associations. Local authority and community representatives
would be included, as above, along with the education sector.
5.7 Local referendums could be useful in
gaining public approval for the LEP's work, although ideally the
general public would be fully involved in the formation of LEP
policy and activities from the outset. Regular opportunities for
the public to interact with the LEPs will help to foster a sense
of community engagement in local economies.
6. ABOUT ACE
6.1 ACE represents the UK's consultancy
and engineering industry. Its 650 member companies collectively
employ more than 100,000 people and contribute approximately £10
billion to the UK economy annually.
9 August 2010
3 http://www.theaep.co.uk/about_us.html Back
4
http://www.countydurhampartnership.co.uk Back
5
http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/atoz/service_page.asp?id=1398 Back
| 
