Written evidence from the East of England
Science and Industry Council
As Chair of the East of England Science and
Industry Council (SIC) and a Director of one of the region's and
the UK's major businesses, I welcome the opportunity to input
into this inquiry into Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).
The East of England SIC is one of a series of councils
set up across the UK in 2004 bringing together the expertise of
industry, higher education institutions and research institutes
to identify priority areas for development and support, as well
as mobilising key players within the region to help achieve its
innovation potential.
The SIC adds value to existing mechanisms to
support innovation and influence the way in which academic, research
and business communities relate to one another in the areas of
research, knowledge and technology transfer, innovation, training
and skills.
Our primary objective is to help create an environment
for high growth businesses and to ensure future economic development
activity is strategic, aspirational and has sufficient capacity
and resource to drive innovative growth. The East of England has
significant opportunities and expertise and we do not want to
see its potential wasted. With the abolition of RDAs and the move
to LEPs, the Council has a number of concerns:
— Current policy needs to be clarified.
There is a drive towards localism, but the Government also wants
to centralise many of the functions that the Regional Development
Agencies (RDAs) carry out. Arrangements for the transition to
LEPs and centralised activity requires swift clarification to
help ensure effective structures are in place. Without this, we
are concerned that much of the valuable support to businesses
and ground breaking projects across the region driving economic
growth and innovation will suffer.
— LEPs are set to focus on areas around
housing and planning, transport and infrastructure, employment
and enterprise and transition to a low carbon economy. We are
concerned that this range of services will not engage high growth
multinational businesses who look beyond such issues for growth.
Clarification is needed on the incentive for such businesses to
engage.
— Innovation and high growth activity is
critical for the future success of businesses in this region.
We have more entrepreneurs per head of population in the East
of England; £1 of every £5 venture capital is invested
here; and business investment in R&D is three times higher
than the UK average. Therefore serious consideration needs to
be given to the right delivery body for related activity to ensure
this successful record does not lag. The body needs to be equipped
to deliver innovation and high growth related activity and such
activity requires strategic leadership and sectoral specific knowledge.
— If as suggested central bodies were to
take on these functions—for example the Technology Strategy
Board (TSB)—this would be welcomed by the group given their
strong track record. However, we remain concerned about the local
and sectoral knowledge required to help them prioritise investment.
Although the TSB has worked with RDAs to date, they lack the expertise
contained within the current RDA. Regional and local consideration
of key strengths and sectors will need to be applied to future
activity and therefore a sub-national delivery arm may be critical
to success.
— Any future central activity and funding
sources must take a practical and sectoral—not geographic—view
of where they will get the best return on investment. Quite simply,
they must invest in success. The East of England offers huge potential,
particularly around key sectors such as lifesciences and healthcare,
low carbon innovation and ICT. There is already a critical mass
of companies, expertise and R&D to capitalise on—essential
to creating a UK centre capable of competing internationally.
Policies which may overlook this by diverting investment to underdeveloped
regions -, is, in our view, not in the broader interests of UK
plc.. Already we have seen businesses in the East of England excluded
from the National Insurance Contribution (NIC) holiday which will
significantly disadvantage start-ups in this region.
— Offshore Wind is a key example of a growth
opportunity in the East of England where we can build on success.
It is also where, incidentally, the GVA figures of the geographic
areas involved are significantly lower than that in many other
regions of the UK. This poses significant challenges for parts
of the region which the government must not overlook when it comes
to allocating funding.
— In terms of bidding for funds such as
the Regional Growth Fund, business or sector groups would be strongly
placed to prepare bids for projects around innovation and high
growth activity and this should be considered.
— On coordinating regional economy strategy,
this is an area where an RDA has proved particularly effective,
bringing together multiple partners from all areas and sectors
and taking a long term strategic view of opportunities and needs.
It is questionable whether LEPs will be able to address this in
an effective way due to their size and likely focus on local issues.
However, addressing issues that affect cross boundary areas will
be critical. A sub-national body may still be needed therefore
to set regional strategy or to coordinate LEPs.
— The majority of the concerns raised in
this response highlight the need to maintain the focus on innovation
and high growth activity within the regions, but question the
ability of LEPs and central bodies to effectively deliver this.
We are not advocating an RDA model; however, some kind of sub-national
body will be critical to the success of future policy. One solution
could be to leverage Science and Industry Councils. We are established
in every region, have existing sectoral knowledge, low operating
costs and are business led. SICs could be consulting bodies to
LEPs and national delivery bodies.
|
