Localising Prosperity – by mainstreaming community economic development

 
Tactics for LEPs & business networks

The Government’s purpose for Local Enterprise Partnerships is to help ‘strengthen local economies’ and ‘facilitate local economic renewal’. EU funding requires economic activity to address social exclusion. Alongside this, many LEPs have chosen to seek inclusive growth and address areas of deprivation as valuable aims in their own right. The Localising Prosperity agenda provides ways of distinguishing growth that creates local, shared prosperity from growth that does not.

Localising prosperity is a way of multiplying the benefits where investment is available, but it also works where external investment is not available, by rebuilding the economy from within. It involves rethinking how we support our localities, redesign the networks and mechanisms which make up our local economies and rebuild an area’s economic and social capacity.

Tactics for LEPs & business networks to maximise local economic benefits

Elements to integrate into strategies, programmes and bids include:

– Involve locally-owned businesses, those demonstrating local commitment and those based in disadvantaged areas in decision-making such as LEP boards and Chambers.

– Understand the power of the ‘local multiplier’ & act on it: plug ‘leaks’ from the local economy, particularly deprived areas, so that more money circulates and multiplies locally.

– Prioritise the needs of SMEs in infrastructure, access to funding and skills. Commit to “SME-proof” decisions.

– Seek opportunities for worker buyouts or co-operatives so that more people are ‘owners’.

– Use consumer, industry and public demand creators such as the retrofitting agenda or procurement to develop local supply chains and product or service innovation.

– Prioritise ‘infrastructure’ businesses that link and generate local supply and demand – such as project developers, wholesale markets, processors. Seek structural opportunities for new businesses.

– Foster networks of innovation based within local institutions, businesses and communities.

– Consider local connectivity as well as global: the latter depends on the former.

– Ensure physical regeneration projects, enterprise zones and inward investment support local supply and demand chains, rather than undermining them.

– Reflect the need for locally-controlled and locally-responsive support services (finance, business support, planning, training)

– Maximise local resource use, including through industrial symbiosis, to increase efficiency.

Have we got the right emphasis?

The public cost per job is 80% higher for Foreign Direct Investment than for indigenous businesses
92% of movements from unemployment or non-participation in the private sector, are down to SMEs
2/3rds of the world economy is controlled by 500 companies accounting for only 1% of employment
In a study of 3,000 US counties, those with a larger density of small, locally owned businesses had greater per capita income growth between 2000 & 2007

Advertisements

Local economic development: some home truths

Interesting comments by Glen Athey below:

In local economic development the governance and structures will never be perfect. You need to deal with the bureaucracy that comes with public money and not hide from it. Plans and strategies are useful, until the action begins. And you need to focus to be effective, and have a team of professionals who understand both business and government, with top class communications and negotiation skills. In this article I’ve tried to encapsulate what’s often written between the lines, and hopefully dispel some of the misconceptions about local economic development in practice. The full article is available here.

The governance, structures and areas debate will roll on and on – best getting on with delivery and making a visible difference

The structures and governance will never be right – someone will always be upset because they are not represented, or that the LEP never talks to them, or that its undemocratic. Public-private partnerships are like that.

What people will remember is – were they any good? institutional and structural change is a given in economic development and regeneration. What people tend to remember are the extremes – were they any good, what did they deliver? they will remember if they perceived an organisation as making no difference – “they didn’t deliver anything, they just produced strategies.”

Visibility is also crucial – its no use being brilliant at something if no-one knows about it, or doing deals without people finding out. Ok too much marketing and self-promotion can also backfire and put people’s backs up; but there are other ways to be visible through relationships and day to day networks.

Don’t get too carried away with the debate about structures and governance.Hell, yes, I can remember the debates about RDAs being formed, and the the Subnational Review of Economic Development and Regeneration, getting everyone’s hopes up, then dashing a few, and then government saying “its up to you”! meanwhile I worked in Scotland, and we carried on in our national organisations – we changed and adapted what we did for sure, but we didn’t scrap our organisations and create new ones. In the case of the South East LEP – I think they have proceeded sensibly by having their subsidiary arrangements – allows them to get on and deliver things.

BUREAUCRACY AND RED TAPE DO NOT SIMPLY GET CANCELLED – THEY EITHER GO ON HOLIDAY (AND COME BACK), OR GET SHIFTED ONTO SOMEONE ELSE’S DESK

Keeping bureaucracy away from business means passing it onto someone else, or doing it yourself (if you are a LEP or local authority). If you want to hide the wiring of funding applications, etc. from business, you need the people and capacity to take care of this. Local delivery organisations have to comply with public funding requirements – and you either push this onto business, or do it yourself. This means you need to have the capacity to deal with the audit, funding and legal requirements. I think that LEPs, and many LEP board members have had quite a shock in terms of the conditionalities and processes that come with government processes. However, these processes rarely change – you just have to put in place effective and efficient administrative capacity and processes to deal with them.

What Company or Governing Boards want in terms of performance reporting and management information involves having an effective bureaucracy in place. Many board members expect to be handed all this financial analysis, evaluation, options appraisal etc on a plate at board meetings. But it takes a lot of work to put this in place, and explain in clear and concise terms the implications of different options or decisions.

Private companies would go through exhaustive due diligence before signing a contract or investing a few £million, the public sector and local economic development sector should be no different. I’ve heard it millions of times – “but this is the private sector, where decisions are made quickly, and we don’t usually fill in all these forms”. But I’ve actually seen many public-private deals put together and and witnessed private finance processes – lots of forms, lots of due diligence, lots of legal stuff about defaults, clawbacks, creditors etc.

HAVING A GOOD STRATEGY IS IMPORTANT, BUT DON’T WAIT UNTIL ITS PERFECT. YOU NEED TO QUICKLY GET ON AND DELIVER THE OBVIOUS STUFF FIRST, WHILST YOU WORK ON DEVELOPING IDEAS AND PRACTICAL OPTIONS FOR THE THE MORE CHALLENGING PRIORITIES

its important to have a good strategy but be pragmatic. Its not a masterplan that will be delivered 100% on time, on schedule. Half of it might be very detailed and accurate, and achievable – and half might not, because you don’t have the expertise, the resources, or the levers to pull to address the issues.

Start delivering now. Don’t wait until the strategy is perfect. Start by stepping stones. If you don’t have all the money now, do what you can and this will help prove the case for further funds.

Local development organisations have never been judged a success by having the best economic strategy in the universe – they get judged by delivery. I am amazed at how much of LEP resources have been put into SEPs – has this created a wee bit too much distraction from the important business of delivery?

DELIVER RESULTS AND IMPACTS, PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THE STRUCTURES AND GOVERNANCE ASPECTS (FOR A WHILE!)

If you can deliver results – people tend to forget about the governance stuff, apart from they want to be a big part of your future success. Delivering results, making a difference – is the best advert for yourself you can get, and the best motivation for local partners to support and get involved.

Strategic organisations can often be the most expendable. LEPs are often pushed as ‘strategic bodies’. But at some point, stakeholders and businesses will accuse them of just writing strategies and not implementing anything. Oh, and governments too – easier for them to close things down.

YOU CAN’T DO EVERYTHING – YOU NEED TO FOCUS

The budgets for local economic development nowadays seem inversely proportional to the expectations and portfolio of roles that rest on the shoulders of organisations such as LEPs. In local economic development, as in life – you simply cannot do everything. You need to choose a few key priorities and activities where you can and will make a huge difference.

Resist the urge to take on national policy commitments. The previous government said that RDAs were doing their industrial policy for them – but this was just plain nonsense, as without some national policy actions (such as relating to tax, legislation and things like HE and research funding), there was no national industrial policy. Be wary of claiming to be delivering national policy wholesale – e.g. solving the housing supply crisis or solving local congestion. There needs to be partnership between local and central governments. Either that or wholescale devolution of finance and responsibility – of which there is not the faintest glimmer at the moment.

Perhaps LEPs need to focus less on physical infrastructure and more on business and skills? I think that an unfortunate side effect of the SEP process has been that many LEPs have been sidetracked away from the excellent progress that they were making on business growth and skills. To some degree that is the natural role of Whitehall – to create new structures do do one thing, then for them to provide funding to do another.

THE SKILLSET FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REMAINS THE SAME – COMBINING COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE WITH GOVERNMENT; RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT WITH DIPLOMACY

Economic development professionals all have their specialisms, but there are a few core skills and abilities required. Firstly, they must understand the commercial world, private business and markets – but they must also understand how to deal with government. A lot of their work is reconciling the two , and much of the work is around communicating and interpreting what the market wants from government and vice-versa. Relationship management skills and diplomacy are also a key requirement. You get to deal with a lot of personalities and general disagreements (usually just bad communication) – being able to deal with them is the key. Other associated skills such as the ability to chair a meeting, hold an impromptu workshop, listening, being fair and objective, and chairing skills all go a long way to helping with this.

Economic development professionals need “get up and go”. I recently dealt with a local authority officer who wanted to push a project to their local LEP, but just had not discussed this with the key stakeholders concerned. My response was – “its your project, and if you can’t do the spade work and relationship building to get it off the ground and in a fit state to pass through the board, then it ain’t got a chance of succeeding.” I genuinely think that that, to be effective at local economic development, you need the drive and self-motivation to succeed or make things happen. Some might say its called ‘being entrepreneurial.’

Economic development professionals need to be able to understand, and act on, a diverse portfolio of activities and challenges. I sometimes think that those with a public sector background are more able to cope with multiple and competing policy objectives and multiple stakeholders; and that business people are better at focused delivery. Its useful to have a team that can combine both of these skills.

LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS POLITICAL

Many business LEP board members thought it was all about business! but its a very political process. This has always been the case. You need to be able to push through investments that have a sound basis in economic and business needs and opportunities, but also make them politically attractive. But isn’t business a political and social activity too? of course it is.

original article here > https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140814213412-17447079-local-economic-development-some-home-truths

Lottery to match EU regeneration funding

16 June 2014

The Big Lottery Fund has announced it will match funding allocations from the European Union for regeneration projects, in a boost to the money available to local enterprise partnerships.

The fund announced today that it was in advanced talks to match more than £260m of the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) from 2014-2020 to encourage charities and third sector organisations to bid for funding.

Priorities for the new seven-year programme will be determined by LEPs as part of their local growth plans. Once the ESIF funding package is approved by the European Commission later this year, the matched money will be available for projects that address poverty and social inclusion, such as schemes to improve skills and employability in disadvantaged communities.

 

The funding deal is intended to increase the involvement of charities in delivering the plans agreed by LEPs, who will take control of allocation European funds from Whitehall.

 

Big Lottery Fund chief executive Dawn Austwick told delegates at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ annual conference that £620,000 of lottery funding would also be made available to bring together voluntary organisations in LEP areas. This would ensure they were involved in early conversations about funding opportunities and could start developing bids, ahead of the allocations from local growth deals.

 

Only a very small proportion of the last round of European Social Fund money was accessed by charities, NCVO chief executive Sir Stuart Etherington said. The new round would be focused on a community-led approach.

 

‘This is very important news for the voluntary sector. Previously, work funded by European social inclusion funding has been nationally designed, and delivered through large organisations.

 

‘We made very clear that we believe the best way for the funding to make a difference is to use it to support the work of expert charities.

 

‘This is why we called for the money earmarked for social inclusion to be available to the voluntary sector. Voluntary organisations will now be shaping and running the projects they think are necessary to help people in disadvantaged communities.’

 

Civil society minister Nick Hurd MP also welcomed the decision, highlighting that ‘social entrepreneurs’ had previously struggled to access funding from the EU.

 

‘We are determined to change that. Over the last year, Cabinet Office, NCVO and Big Lottery have worked very hard to engage the LEPs and create this exciting opportunity.

 

‘Now we have to get the detail right – so that this money works as hard as possible on behalf of the most excluded and disadvantaged in communities across the country.’

Why the visitor economy is crucial to growth in Gloucestershire

 

*GVA of tourism related industries1 by rural – urban LA classification, region and local authority1

Source: ONS, Annual Business Survey, data available on request: abs@ons.gov.uk

2000 – 2010

Coverage: England

 

 

 

GVA Millions

E06000025

South Gloucestershire

176.1

E07000078

Cheltenham

133.2

E07000079

Cotswold

88.2

E07000080

Forest of Dean

38.5

E07000081

Gloucester

110.4

E07000082

Stroud

129.3

E07000083

Tewkesbury

52.7

 

 

 

 

TOTAL (Inc S. Glos in indices)

552.3 (728.4)

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/rural-statistics-local-level-data-on-tourism-gva

According to GFirst LEP

“Productivity to increase at an annual average growth rate of 2% leading to a £14.5 billion economy in 2025 (from £11.5 billion in 2007) a growth of £3 billion in 18 years”

Visit England have projected that during the same period Visitor Economy will grow nationally by annualised 5%.  In Gloucestershire this would generate an additional economic activity derived from this sector rising from £728 million in 2010 to £1.5 billion by 2025 generating  14,300 jobs (DCMS Government Tourist Policy 2011 quotes a more conservative annualised 3.5% growth rate to 2020  N.B. from 2002-2010 GVA growth rates of tourism related industries in Gloucester averaged at 7.9% per annum)

 

Using the same projections GVA generated by tourism in the City of Gloucester would grow from £110.4 million to £229.5 million

In 2013, the direct industry effect generated around £58bn of Gross Value Added

(GVA) or about 4.1 per cent of (expected) UK GDP. Combined with the ‘tourism

industry’ effect the contribution was just under £127bn in GVA, or 9.0 per cent of UK

GDP. In total, including all direct, indirect, and induced effects, the contribution to the

UK economy was £161bn or 11.4 per cent of UK GDP.

 Annualised growth rates % over previous year

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

South Gloucestershire

3.9

9.4

9.1

23.5

-1.3

-18.0

29.3

-18.4

-7.6

Cheltenham

18.1

11.7

13.7

1.2

46.1

-34.1

-31.6

1.3

24.0

Cotswold

13.6

14.2

35.2

-7.5

-4.3

26.3

-40.2

-3.8

10.6

Forest of Dean

1.1

4.9

39.1

-7.5

9.3

20.5

-38.7

-19.6

52.7

Gloucester

9.7

15.9

17.9

1.6

11.2

19.5

-25.2

5.6

15.3

Stroud

3.5

19.7

32.0

-10.7

-3.9

53.6

-41.5

-20.8

131.3

Tewkesbury

14.9

5.6

20.6

12.3

0.6

25.5

-32.6

-24.0

10.2

Source: ONS, Annual Business Survey, data available on request: abs@ons.gov.uk

*GVA is the value of the sector’s output minus inputs bought from other sectors and taxes and subsidies.

Excerpts from DCMS Government Tourist Policy 2011

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78416/Government2_Tourism_Policy_2011.pdf

 

Forecast Growth in Sectorial GVA 2010-2020

 

Obviously these projected growth rates are averages across all parts of the country, so

it’s striking that some parts of UK visitor economy are already exceeding these figures

substantially. For example Welcome To Yorkshire recorded 6.6% increases in tourism

spend during 2008, and 10% growth in visitor numbers in 2009 too.  In the current

economic climate, with growth an essential element of the Government’s strategy to

repair the national balance sheet, these performances make the tourism sector a

particularly important part of the UK economy.

 

Tourism’s Potential For Growth

 

The tourism industry has the potential to become one of the fastest growing sectors of

our economy. But creating – and sustaining – these higher rates of wealth and job

creation won’t just happen automatically: it will need plenty of hard work and

entrepreneurialism from the sector itself, and help from the Government to remove the

structural problems and blockages which might slow the industry down

Why the visitor economy is crucial to growth of the economy in Gloucestershire

Image 

*GVA of tourism related industries1 by rural – urban LA classification, region and local authority1

Source: ONS, Annual Business Survey, data available on request: abs@ons.gov.uk

2000 – 2010

Coverage: England

 

 

 

GVA Millions

E06000025

South Gloucestershire

176.1

E07000078

Cheltenham

133.2

E07000079

Cotswold

88.2

E07000080

Forest of Dean

38.5

E07000081

Gloucester

110.4

E07000082

Stroud

129.3

E07000083

Tewkesbury

52.7

 

 

 

 

TOTAL (Inc S. Glos in indices)

552.3 (728.4)

 

According to GFirst LEP

“Productivity to increase at an annual average growth rate of 2% leading to a £14.5 billion economy in 2025 (from £11.5 billion in 2007) a growth of £3 billion in 18 years”

Visit England have projected that during the same period Visitor Economy will grow nationally by annualised 5%.  In Gloucestershire this would generate an additional economic activity derived from this sector rising from £728 million in 2010 to £1.5 billion by 2025 generating  14,300 jobs (DCMS Government Tourist Policy 2011 quotes a more conservative annualised 3.5% growth rate to 2020)

 

Using the same projections GVA generated by tourism in the City of Gloucester would grow from £110.4 million to £229.5 million

N.B. from 2002-2010 GVA growth rates of tourism related industries in Gloucester averaged at 7.9% per annum

In 2013, the direct industry effect generated around £58bn of Gross Value Added

(GVA) or about 4.1 per cent of (expected) UK GDP. Combined with the ‘tourism

industry’ effect the contribution was just under £127bn in GVA, or 9.0 per cent of UK

GDP. In total, including all direct, indirect, and induced effects, the contribution to the

UK economy was £161bn or 11.4 per cent of UK GDP.

 

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

South Gloucestershire

3.9

9.4

9.1

23.5

-1.3

-18.0

29.3

-18.4

-7.6

Cheltenham

18.1

11.7

13.7

1.2

46.1

-34.1

-31.6

1.3

24.0

Cotswold

13.6

14.2

35.2

-7.5

-4.3

26.3

-40.2

-3.8

10.6

Forest of Dean

1.1

4.9

39.1

-7.5

9.3

20.5

-38.7

-19.6

52.7

Gloucester

9.7

15.9

17.9

1.6

11.2

19.5

-25.2

5.6

15.3

Stroud

3.5

19.7

32.0

-10.7

-3.9

53.6

-41.5

-20.8

131.3

Tewkesbury

14.9

5.6

20.6

12.3

0.6

25.5

-32.6

-24.0

10.2

Source: ONS, Annual Business Survey, data available on request: abs@ons.gov.uk

*GVA is the value of the sector’s output minus inputs bought from other sectors and taxes and subsidies.

Excerpts from DCMS Government Tourist Policy 2011

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78416/Government2_Tourism_Policy_2011.pdf

 

Forecast Growth in Sectorial GVA 2010-2020

 

Obviously these projected growth rates are averages across all parts of the country, so

it’s striking that some parts of UK visitor economy are already exceeding these figures

substantially. For example Welcome To Yorkshire recorded 6.6% increases in tourism

spend during 2008, and 10% growth in visitor numbers in 2009 too.  In the current

economic climate, with growth an essential element of the Government’s strategy to

repair the national balance sheet, these performances make the tourism sector a

particularly important part of the UK economy.

 

3.3 Tourism’s Potential For Growth

 

The tourism industry has the potential to become one of the fastest growing sectors of

our economy. But creating – and sustaining – these higher rates of wealth and job

creation won’t just happen automatically: it will need plenty of hard work and

entrepreneurialism from the sector itself, and help from the Government to remove the

structural problems and blockages which might slow the industry down

LEP Overlaps – what are they good for?

Comments from Guy Lachlan, Owner of Jones & Cocks, Non-Executive Director of Buckinghamshire Business First, Chair of the Bucks Business Group, and Vice Chair of the British Hardware Federation.

My wife and I own and operate a small retail business which is involved in the delivery of Liquid Petroleum Gas and other gases around Aylesbury Vale. It just so happens that our served area almost exactly matches the footprint of Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC), which has chosen to be a constituent of two adjacent LEPs – Buckinghamshire Thames Valley (BTVLEP) and South East Midlands (SEMLEP).
LEPs have been given the job to drive growth in their local areas; they are partnerships of local businesses with local authorities and other public sector bodies, and because they know their local economies well, the idea is that they can tailor services to meet local needs, and thereby drive growth.
The result of AVDCs current choice is that my business operates almost entirely in an area covered by two overlapping LEPs; one of 21 overlaps around the country which have been allowed to exist.
The role of LEPs, however, is developing and maturing and it is increasingly clear that they are going to be vital to the success of small businesses like ours. For example, they are now expected to compete against one another for a share of the Single Local Growth Fund (SLGF), as well as the strategic allocation of some EU funds based on their local growth plans.
So how will an overlap of LEPs work for small businesses?
The short answer is: I have no idea!
Presumably we, as a small business, will be expected to speak to two LEPs which may have different – even conflicting – ideas about growth in our area; there will be two different business support numbers to call for help, and two teams of people looking at the same situation from different perspectives.
And the LEPs themselves will have to waste time cross-checking with each other to make sure they are not both being asked for the same help by businesses in the overlap, and that their responses are co-ordinated to whatever extent is possible.
This situation seems unnecessarily confusing and costly – as small businesses we continually strive to eliminate duplication and streamline processes, and yet the government seems to be tolerating this new inefficiency for the time being. They summarise their position as follows:
“LEP geography is a bottom-up process, identified and decided upon by LEPs. As such, overlaps between LEPs have been accepted as long as the case was made in terms of functional economic areas and LA and private sector agreement.” (Business, Innovation and Skills Committee – Ninth Report, 23/4/13)
This seems simplistic to me. Each functional business area can easily make a case for a particular geography from their own point-of-view, but if the result of two competing LEPs’ proposals is an overlap which generates unnecessary bureaucracy and cost with no benefit to the businesses within the overlap, they should be forced to settle the overlap one way or the other.
To allow overlaps to persist seems guaranteed to delay the ability of LEPs to succeed in their role, i.e. the constructive and efficient distillation of dialogue with businesses in their patch. The issue of overlaps will have to be resolved sooner or later, and as a business within an overlap we would urge the powers that be to grasp the nettle and force a resolution so that we can move into this exciting phase of national development together.

As well as running his own small business, Guy Lachlan is a Non-Executive Director of Buckinghamshire Business First, Chair of the Bucks Business Group, and Vice Chair of the British Hardware Federation. He also sits on the South Bucks and Aylesbury FSB branch committee.

LEPs Devolution or Delegation – fascinating insight by Alex Pratt @39LEPs and @BTVLEP

Devolution or Delegation?

Minister with responsibility for LEPs Greg Clarke spoke briefly to LEPs at the recent LEP Network Conference, where he was questioned about his “Minister for Cities” title. The LEPs provided a few suggestions.  He has his work set out with the Department for Education saying it has no relevance to growth, most interventions at the level of the firm being managed centrally by BIS, and the recent Witty Review which recommends a more centralist approach to technology support, university engagement, innovation and national programmes like UKTI.

The 39 LEPs

The LEP Chairs recently met with UKTI, TSB and ADEPT. We also agreed to merge with the current LEP Network from April 2014 to create a new single collective body accountable to the LEP Chairs and joint-funded by the LEPs and Central Government.

‘Keep Turning the Stones’

After many weeks of planning, members of ADEPT’s Management Board met with representatives of the 39 LEP Chairs at the British Library earlier this month. In this magnificent building both sides reflected on the progress made since the publication late last year of Lord Heseltine’s report, ‘No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth’. Lord Heseltine’s ambition was for Government to give strong support to the localism agenda, to reverse the centralising trend of the past century and unleash the dynamic potential of local economies.

There was strong agreement between the LEP business leaders and ADEPT that the £2bn being made available to LEPs in 2015/16 was not on the scale proposed by Lord Heseltine. Nor had all Government Departments welcomed letting go of budget and responsibility with open arms, and indeed a significant part of this money was already intended for local authorities anyway. We reflected there was a danger that shifting Transport and New Homes Bonus Funding from Local Authority to LEPs would not only fail to ‘unleash the dynamic potential’ of LEPs but potentially damage growing local relationships. Both sides are a pragmatic bunch though and they intend to make the best possible use of the resources coming their way in the next financial year.

Before parting it was agreed that ADEPT and the LEP Chairs would keep in touch and work jointly at the national and local level where it was mutually beneficial. The next Autumn Statement seems like a good time for us both to remind Government about the recommendations in the Heseltine Review yet to be implemented by Government. We can also share best practice across England on what works and doesn’t work when it comes to implementing LEP’s Strategic Economic Plans, as well as jointly commissioning research and policy thinking in areas of common interest. Watch this space!

To find out more about Ngage Solutions Ltd go to www.ngagesolutions.co.uk, and for ADEPT go to www.adeptnet.org.uk.


Neil Gibson is the Strategic Director at Buckinghamshire County Council, Non-Executive Director & Chairman of Ngage Solutions Ltd, and Secretary & Treasurer of ADEPT.

A list of LEPs’ draft EU Funding Strategies – see link

LEP Draft EU Strategic Investment Frameworks

 

http://www.dorsetlep.co.uk/news/press-releases/draft-eu-structural-and-investment-funding-strategy/

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/SIFfirstdraft

http://www.cornwallandislesofscillylep.com/eu-investment-strategy.html

http://www.marcheslep.org.uk/document-library/cat_view/11-marches-lep-draft-esif-strategy-2014-2020

http://www.semlep.com/eu-investment-strategy/

http://www.newanglia.co.uk/Activities/European-Investment-Strategy

http://www.blackcountrylep.co.uk/news/Draft-strategy-for-EU-investment-in-the-Black-Country

http://www.oxfordshirelep.org.uk/cms/sites/lep/files/folders/Oxfordshire_EU_SIF_FINAL_for_BIS_pdf.pdf

Summary Of Sir Andrew Witty’s report . Universities to co-chair LEPs? @The39LEPs @TheLEPNetwork #witty #LEPs

Recommendations relating to LEPs by Sir Andrew Witty:

6. LEPs have up to €1 billion of European Structural and Investment Funds to invest in innovation. They should look to direct a large share of innovation funding towards excellent universities and research centres in order to nurture sustainable growth founded in comparative advantage, including through universities supporting innovative SMEs in their localities. LEPs should do this within frameworks which relate funding to economic outcomes. They should collaborate, and support university collaborations, beyond their own areas wherever these will deliver an economic or research benefit.

 7. Ministers should write to the chairs of all LEPs with universities in their areas setting out the expectation that these LEPs should have a university presence on the Board. Where a LEP is participating in an Arrow Project led by a university in its area then it may well be appropriate for the university to provide co-chairmanship of the LEP. University members should be prominent in, and may often chair, LEPs’ Innovation or R&D and Innovation sub-committees.

8. The Government should ensure that all the funds available to LEPs to invest in Innovation and R&D are spent on these areas. It should establish an authoritative advisory capability to advise it and LEPs and other relevant decision-takers on how strongly LEP proposals are based in a sound assessment of comparative advantage, and to identify and communicate the best practice of the most effective of LEPs so that the Government and LEPs can work to bring all LEPs up to the level of the best.

Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth puts a lot of onus on LEPs. All LEP Chairs should read

See link for full report.  All LEP Chairs should read.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/249720/bis-13-1241-encouraging-a-british-invention-revolution-andrew-witty-review-R1.pdf