Written evidence from the County Councils
Network
The County Councils Network (CCN) is a cross-party
special interest group of the Local Government Association which
speaks, develops policy and shares best practice for the County
family of local authorities, whether unitary or upper tier. CCN's
38 member councils, with over 2,500 Councillors, serve 24 million
people over 45,000 square miles or 87% of England.
The CCN has undertaken extensive policy and
good practice work on subregional arrangements, economic development,
and local government action to tackle the recession. The CCN therefore
welcomes the opportunity to engage with the BIS Select Committee's
inquiry into the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships.
In the "CCN Manifesto" published in
advance of the 2010 General Election, the CCN argued
... that powers, functions and funding should
be devolved from unelected regional and sub regional bodies to
elected local government, and to county authorities in continuing
multi-tier areas. This would include responsibility for strategic
economic development, regional planning (both spatial planning
and economic strategy) and learning and skills. In continuing
multi-tier areas county councils would take responsibility for
sub-regional spatial and economic strategies, working with other
authorities in the region to ensure that where needed there is
an overall congruent regional strategy which relates both to the
specific needs of sub regions and to national strategy.
The CCN therefore supports the devolution of
a wide range of economic and business support functions from the
regional tier to a geographic scale which more accurately reflects
functional economic geographies, and provides for a balance between
local knowledge and strategic capacity.
In much of England, the appropriate scale will
be at the county level, whether unitary, two-tier, or metropolitan.
This may be composed of a partnership between upper tier and unitary
authorities, a partnership of unitary authorities, a partnership
of neighbouring counties, an upper tier county and neighbouring
unitaries, or some combination of the above.
While the Government's initial expectation was
that LEPs should have at least two upper tier or unitary members,
the CCN believes that in some cases this is illogical—some
wholly two-tier or wholly unitary counties form natural economic
areas which are larger than areas with, for example, a two-tier
county and a unitary county town. It is illogical, since the latter
would be permitted to form a LEP, that the former should be forbidden
in absolute terms from so doing. The CCN welcomes the softening
of the Government's tone on this requirement.
Given the important strategic economic functions
of upper tier and unitary authorities it will often be appropriate
to ensure LEPs follow these contours even where a strict economic
geography may divert slightly from this, as in the map prepared
for the LGA's "Vive la Dévolution" series. The
study undertaken for this work generated a preferred sub-regional
map[40]
which showed that the economic geography of England maps well
onto groups of district boundaries at the level of the city, city
region and county.
Whilst there is clearly not an exact fit between
the sub regions developed on the basis of a best fit with economic
data and the boundaries of counties the map does show that there
is a strong relationship between county boundaries and the study's
economic sub regions. Recognising this, and that different aspects
and sectors of the economy will function on different geographic
footprints, the CCN would argue for upper tier and unitary authorities
to be treated as the default "building blocks" for LEPs
in the overwhelming majority of cases.
The CCN believes that LEPs, or structures operating
at the scale of LEPs, also have the potential to fulfil a wider
role, acting as "Local Economic Partnerships" rather
than only "Local Enterprise Partnerships", where participants
feel this would deliver better outcomes and can make the case
for greater powers.
These could for example fulfil the co-ordinating
functions arising from the devolution of planning powers, ensuring
that development and infrastructure are managed as part of a coherent
programme of work, or take on commissioning functions around employment
and skills. Some of these functions would require a parallel structure
which had a democratic majority, as opposed to the `business-led'
status of LEPs themselves.
The CCN recognises that some areas will not,
at least initially, form part of a LEP, and would argue for maximum
flexibility to be granted to the authorities in this situation.
There has also been a lack of clarity about whether an authority
might, where appropriate, be able to participate in more than
one LEP. The CCN would argue that this should be possible, but
should be based on the full participation of the authority in
both LEPs, rather than geographic partitioning of an authority
between two adjacent LEPs.
Dual membership of LEPs would be particularly
appropriate if the LEPs had different priorities, such as urban
regeneration in one, and specific transport improvements in another.
The CCN has in the past argued for voluntary partnerships between
local authorities on this model, citing the analogy of "parish
clustering" as an example of how this can work, albeit on
a very different scale. Because economic boundaries can vary by
sector, by issue, and over time, LEPs should not be treated as
irrevocably fixed administrative boundaries, but as flexible,
outcome-focused, "coalitions of the willing".
The CCN welcomes the Government's hands-off
approach to LEPs, believing that fixed sub regional structures
bounded by rules and legislative requirements may fit central
government's past need for conformity and control, but that local
government is capable of managing more flexible and adaptable
structures, where form follows function, and which provide a better
fit with local needs and allow for more innovation in the longer
term. Where a formal relationship between LEPs and central government
is necessary, the CCN would support a "single port of call"
to ensure that policy is consistently applied between CLG and
BIS, and participants in LEPs are not diverted by mixed messages.
12 August 2010
40 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/21918 Back
|
