Written evidence from Yorkshire &
Humber Stakeholders Group
INTRODUCTION
1. We welcome the inquiry of the BIS Select
Committee into the formation of the new Local Enterprise Partnerships
(LEPs) which are replacing the Regional Development Agencies.
This submission provides a collective response from a number of
key stakeholders and partners in Yorkshire & Humber representing
business, education, voluntary and community sectors and environmental
organisations.
2. The Yorkshire & Humber stakeholders
leadership group we represent emerged following the abolition
of the Yorkshire & Humber Assembly and the grouping of Social,
Economic and Environmental Partners (SEEPs) that sat alongside
local authorities in the Assembly. We have continued to meet as
a group because we believe such a wide and diverse range of partners
have a unique perspective on "sub-national economic development
policy" which we hope to reflect in this submission.
3. Many of these stakeholder organisations
will be submitting their own evidence to the Committee—we
will not repeat each individual point in this paper, but try to
draw out some common threads. This submission reflects views based
on our collective experiences of partnership working in Yorkshire
and the Humber. The organisations comprising our stakeholder group
are listed in Appendix A.
SUMMARY
4. We support the localist spirit that is
driving policy on LEPs. Too many decisions are taken in London
which impact on the economic and social wellbeing of our communities.
Despite the many achievements made by regional organisations over
the past decade, Yorkshire & Humber emerged from recession
with a modest rate of economic growth; high unemployment; partly
regenerated towns and cities; an unsustainable over-reliance on
the "public sector economy" in too many places.
5. The principle of LEPs to rebalance the
economy is right. We want to make sure that those that form across
our region work effectively for all of the diverse businesses
and communities in Yorkshire & Humber. To achieve this, we
believe that LEPs need to reflect the following points:
— Whilst it is right to focus on growing
the private sector, LEPs need to take a broad view about local
economic development priorities, as well as the nature of business
so that emerging models are also considered, for example cooperatives
and social enterprises. Growth must not just be economically sustainable:
— It must be socially and environmentally
sustainable as well. The link between economic, social and environmental
actions to drive sustainable development must not be lost.
— The connection between economic growth
and people must be built directly into LEPs. Promoting "social
capital" can help LEPs achieve their aims.
— The Government has stated that LEPs are
a 50:50 partnership between local council and business leaders.
However, there must be a mechanism for the proper engagement of
a wider range of stakeholders in LEP structures. Yorkshire has
a successful track record of partnership working—this spirit
must be carried forward into LEPs.
— We are very concerned about the impact
of significant reductions in public spending across Yorkshire
and Humber. Given the nature of our regions problems on issues
such as skills and employment, we fear a disproportionate impact
of cuts and believe Government, where possible, should focus the
limited resources it has on the areas that need support the most.
GENERAL COMMENTS
A wide range of stakeholders should be involved
in LEPs
6. New arrangements for the delivery of
"sub-national" economic development activity, focussing
on business competitiveness, are being developed with Yorkshire
and Humber. These are currently based on the formation of between
three and five local enterprise partnerships, involving business
and local authorities, with the possibility of some form of Yorkshire
wide body playing a supporting role.
7. Whilst recognising that involvement in
the governance and decision making of LEPs is not available for
all "regional" stakeholders, the design of strategies,
policies and delivery plans of LEPs could be deficient without
input from a wider group of stakeholders. This could be remedied
by the information, access and ideas which stakeholders are well
placed to provide and which would reflect the diversity, complexity
and depth of the places across Yorkshire and Humber.
8. It is right that each of the LEPs will
set their own priorities in response to their own local circumstances.
They will tackle different issues, but at the core of most of
the LEPs, we expect issues such as employment, skills and enterprise
to feature very prominently in priorities. It is also important
to recognise that the private sector itself is incredibly diverse.
LEPs need to understand the full spectrum of businesses and enterprises
in their area if they are to unlock the potential of the local
economy.
9. There are deep rooted problems in many
of our communities which contribute to the current low levels
of enterprise, skills and employment in many parts of Yorkshire
& Humber. Local authorities and businesses both have very
important roles to play, but these long standing problems can
only be effectively tackled by using all of the available expertise
from a wider range of stakeholders.
10. The letter of 29 June 2010 from BIS
and CLG setting out the parameters for LEPs was helpful in recognising
that colleges and universities should be involved in LEPs. We
agree with this statement, but the levels of engagement in the
early stages of LEP formation has been patchy at best.
11. LEPs will need to tackle long standing
problems in a different way. They will not have the financial
resources as were available over the past ten years; yet the problems
are the same. LEPs must therefore mine the knowledge and delivery
capability of a wide range of organisations if they are to be
successful. Whilst this will not always be possible at Board level,
it is important that this is formally reflected in the LEP activities
that focus on consultation and engagement. We strongly urge the
Committee to promote the role of stakeholders in LEPs and ensure
a wide range of organisations can contribute to the strategy and
policy of each LEP.
LEPs must have a clear strategic vision
12. We recognise that it is for local LEPs
to define their own strategy and priorities. We welcome this in
principle, but the process for determining this must not just
be a conversation dominated by local authorities talking to some
in business. The creation of a broadly based strategy, based on
evidence and "what works", will require the input of
many different organisations.
13. The Government has understandably given
LEPs a clear purpose to grow the private sector economy and we
support this in principle. We believe that the LEPs strategy must
take into account the following issues:
(a) Each LEP in Yorkshire and the Humber needs
a long term, creative plan which has the input of, and is supported
by, a wide range of local stakeholders.
(b) The process for developing the LEP plan or
strategy must be genuinely inclusive and based on evidence.
(c) LEPs must be focused on a clear aim but should
take a broad view of economic development across the LEP area.
Strong economies need strong communities and vice versa. Growth
must be socially and environmentally sustainable, as well as economically
sustainable.
(d) We believe issues such as youth and long
term unemployment should be a high priority for all LEPs in our
region.
(e) Tackling economic inequality is important.
The benefit of working at a higher spatial level than a single
local authority is that action can be taken to link areas of need
with areas of success and opportunity. LEPs should not just target
overall growth in the LEP area, but should actively seek to share
economic success within and outside its boundaries. A good environment
and strong community is good for business.
(f) Successful implementation of LEP strategies
will only be possible if partnerships are more creative, imaginative
and enterprising than in the past. Government should actively
encourage this type of thinking, eg in Regional Growth Fund.
(g) Yorkshire is a functioning economic area
in its own right. We support the principle of a Yorkshire wide
organisation sitting alongside the LEPs to lead the small number
of issues specific to Yorkshire eg activities where scale and
capacity are important such as innovation, R&D, inward investment,
graduate retention, knowledge transfer and support for the development
of key industrial sectors. This would complement the work of the
proposed LEPs with their focus on such matters as enterprise and
start up, employment, local infrastructure etc.
Funding must be carefully targeted
14. We recognise the financial pressures
the Government faces as it seeks to establish the LEPs and believe
it is possible to reduce spending and deliver efficiencies through
a combination of LEPs and national leadership. With more limited
resources available, it is all the more important to target the
resources we do have more effectively. The Regional Growth Fund
will be a source of potential funding, and LEPs will need to focus
on leveraging in private sector funding.
15. The Government must strike a balance
between investing in areas where it can gain the biggest short
term impact or on areas of greatest need, eg those with the highest
dependence on public sector employment or the biggest economic
challenges.
16. As it takes difficult decisions on public
spending, we would urge the Government to protect the places most
vulnerable to cuts as far as possible. We recommend that it prioritises
places as well as services. Given the local and regional economic
profile of Yorkshire & Humber, we believe our LEPs should
be amongst those prioritised—if their proposals are sufficiently
strong.
17. New funding pots such as Regional Growth
Fund will not be sufficient on their own to make a significant
difference, given its size but we do recognise that economic development
needs to be part of the process of reducing public spending. The
Fund can help to get some early LEP activity moving and fund other
important projects. However, the key issue is how LEPs can use
far more substantial core/mainstream budgets to implement their
plans as well as levering in resources from the private sector.
18. In terms of funding, we believe that:
(a) Regional Growth Fund should be carefully
targeted and include some geographical prioritisation, especially
to areas most vulnerable to cuts.
(b) Regional Growth Fund should be flexible in
terms of size of projects to encourage high quality small projects,
as well as bigger packages from LEPs.
(c) LEPs will not achieve their ambitions with
Regional Growth Fund alone. Bidding to the Fund must not be a
distraction for LEPs who should primarily seek to make a difference
with the substantial core resources already available to them.
(d) Government should ensure that ERDF funding
is available to the region and that any new structure allow decisions
about which projects to fund continue to be taken in Yorkshire
& Humber.
CONCLUSION
19. LEPs offer a new opportunity to address
some of the long standing economic challenges facing places across
Yorkshire and the Humber. To be effective, LEPs must properly
understand their place; work with a wide range of stakeholders;
be creative and enterprising with the limited resources available
to them.
20. To support them, Government must seek
to protect the most vulnerable parts of the country from cuts
as far as possible, for example by carefully targeting the Regional
Growth Fund; ensure the forthcoming White Paper emphasises that
growth must be socially and environmentally sustainable as well
as economically; and ensure these partnerships are genuinely partnerships
where all stakeholders have the opportunity to make a full contribution.
12 August 2010
APPENDIX A
LIST OF YORKSHIRE & HUMBER PARTNERS AND
STAKEHOLDERS
— Federation of Small Businesses.
— Yorkshire & Humber Chambers of Commerce.
— Association of Colleges.
— Yorkshire Universities.
— Yorkshire and Humber TUC.
— Yorkshire & Humber Faiths Forum.
— Churches Regional Commission.
— Confederation of British Industry.
— Yorkshire and Humber Forum, representing
the voluntary and community sector.
— Regional Environment Forum.
| 
