Regional newspapers pick up story on criticism of LEPs – our LEP fights back

Unfortunately, no mention of our LEP members conflicts of interest and their decision to spend much of our money on Hinkley C nuclear power plan (several board members are involved in nuclear power-related work, one (Midas) is a major player in a contract for Plymouth Docks regeneration).

“A lack of transparency and insufficient resourcing are just some of the criticisms levelled at the Government’s flagship scheme to deliver £400 million of investment in Devon and Cornwall. But at least the media is waking up.

The findings from the new report on Local Enterprise Partnerships also highlight “confusion” about their role in local devolution deals, and difficulties assessing value for money.

The critical report from spending watchdog the National Audit Office, suggests that five years on from their creation, there is still some way to go to ensure LEPs are delivering the economic growth they promised.

But organisation’s operating in South West have welcomed the report – arguing they have made strong progress in the creation of new jobs, homes and investment opportunities in the region.

“The role of LEPs has expanded rapidly.”

The Coalition Government launched the Local Enterprise Partnership programme in 2010 to replace the UK’s nine Regional Development Agencies. Since then, 39 LEPs have been established, including fone or Cornwall and Isles of Scilly (CIOS) and for Devon and South West Somerset (the Heart of the South West, or HotSW).

The aim of these bodies is to boost economic development at a local level, using funding from Local Growth deals to support business and infrastructure improvements. But over time, the NAO notes, they have taken on a “significant” number of responsibilities, including positions on local transport boards and leading roles in devolution deals.

HotSW board member, Tim Jones suggests LEPs have faced a “whirlwind” of changes in recent years. He says this has contributed to a sense of “doing business on the hoof”, as the Government devolves more and more powers.

“The NAO report marks a good time to pause, reflect and make sure we are doing it right,” he said. “Now that the questions are being asked, it’s an opportunity to make sure LEPs are fit for purpose.”

“LEPs do not possess the resources necessary.”

The Government has pledged to make a total of £12 billion available to LEPs between 2014/15 and 2019/20. So far, Cornwall has received £60 million from this fund, with a further £150 million put forward by private investors, HoTSW has been awarded £195.5 million.

LEPs also have an influential say in the allocation of European funding, in the area. This amounts to roughly £470 million for the CIOS area and £92 million for HoTSW.

However, according to the NAO report, only 5% of LEPs surveyed felt they had sufficient resources to deliver the services and projects expected of them. And as they rely heavily on partnerships with local authorities to achieve their aims, the study warns many will struggle as cuts to council budgets take their toll.

Mr Jones said challenges around resources affect all LEPs. But he is not in favour of increasing staff numbers and returning to “the bad old days of big bureaucracy”.

“As an example, the demands around devolution have been huge, around half of the LEP team has been diverted to writing the devolution agenda,” he said. “But the expectations of government need to be managed against the resources that are available, rather than the other way round.”

CIOS chief executive Sandra Rothwell stressed her LEP is keen to make sure as much funding as possible goes to economic growth “not organisation”. “We are a partnership and we work with councils, chambers of commerce and businesses in developing and implementing strategies,” she explained. “Could we use more [resources]? Yes of course. But it should be proportionate to the scale of the programmes we deliver.”

“LEPs… are not as transparent to the public as we would expect.”

Management of LEPs currently consist of a mixture of private sector representatives and local councillors. The NAO report found that the proportion of private sector membership ranged from 45% to 80% across the 39 bodies.

It says the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken steps to improve LEP governance and transparency. But it suggests the department should do more “to ensure that the required standards of governance and transparency are being met”.

At the Cornwall LEP, four of the 16 board members are elected councillors, with remaining members coming from local businesses and other professions. Ms Rothwell believes that this is a fair representation of public, private and voluntary sectors.

She also stresses that the LEP reports back to local authorities on its decisions, and makes information about board members and their registered interests available online.

“Most of our resources are focussed on running an accountable process, because at the end of the day this is public money,” she added. “We were one of just seven LEPs in England interviewed in depth for this report and we received excellent feedback on our own systems and processes.”

At HotSW, six of the 20 board members are councillors – a ratio Mr Jones describes as a “healthy balance”. He also states that prospective board members face a “very rigorous” selection process.

“I think [the mix] has created an understanding about the needs of the business community, and improved their understanding of the needs of the local authority,” he said. HotSW also published information on board members and meetings on its website.

“It is not clear how LEPs fit into devolution.”

The NAO notes that ministers see LEPs as “central” to their plans for English devolution. But it claims LEPs are often “uncertain of their role within a more devolved landscape”, particularly in areas where their boundaries do not match those of the combined authority.

Ms Rothwell said CIOS, which leads on the employment and skills and business supports aspects of Cornwall’s devolution deal, is “very clear” on its involvement. “This one of the strengths that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has in terms of focus and geography,” she said. “So we are in a slightly different place than other LEPs].”

The Heart of the South West devolution submission is still in the bid stage. As the name suggests, it corresponds with the area covered by the LEP, but Mr Jones said their role is as “an observer and a consultee” in the process. “There is some degree of confusion around the fact that it is not a complete deal… but it is being led quite rightly by the local authorities,” he said.

“LEPs are at the heart of driving local growth”

Both the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the HotSW LEP maintain that they are well on their way to hitting their targets for growth, but it is “too early” to accurately measure their success. They also stress that the NAO report is a “general” comment on the LEP model, and not an assessment of individual bodies.

The DCLG argues the study “misses the point”. A spokesman said: “LEPs are pivotal to driving local economic growth and have an important leadership role in devolution. That is why we have announced this week a further £1.8 billion through a new round of Growth Deals, maintaining our commitment to a £12 billion Local Growth Fund over the course of the Parliament.”

LEP targets for 2020/21

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEP aims to:
Create 20,000 new jobs
See superfast broadband rolled out to 100% of homes and businesses
Build 13,000 homes
Support the creation of at least 336 new businesses
Upgrade the Night Riviera sleeper service

Heart of the South West LEP aims to:
Create 22,000 new jobs
Build 10,000 new homes a year
Reduce rail journeys between Plymouth and London to 2 hours 45 mins
See 95% superfast broadband roll out
Achieve partial dualling of A303/A30 corridor

Further analysis

Torbay MP and Public Accounts Committee member Kevin Foster: “The NAO report highlights the role our local LEPs play in economic development policy, but with this responsibility must come better accountability. It is right that LEPs can decide what reflects local priorities, rather than have them set by government or quangos across artificial regions that do not reflect our actual economic areas. Yet with the amount of money spent via them there needs to be clear measures to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money.”

Devon councillor and HotSW board member Andrew Leadbetter: “The Heart of the South West LEP has successfully enabled the private and public sectors to work together more efficiently to improve the lives of residents by creating jobs, attracting investment and in increasing the diversity of the regional economy. Together we will continue to improve productivity and growth in the region and I look forward to continuing to work with government and our regional partners Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay in the future.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/know-LEPs-New-report-raises-transparency-fears/story-28993422-detail/story.html

Lewisham GP warns against devolution and health care

NHS reform: Devolution is not the only path to integrated healthcare

Plans to devolve control of health services to local areas are moving ahead quickly in parts of England. But handing powers to local authorities [or in our case the Local Enterprise Partnership] is not the only way to achieve health and social care integration, argues Socialist Health Association vice president Dr Brian Fisher – and devolution carries significant risks for the NHS.

In my area of Lewisham, the CCG and local authority have agreed to be a devo pilot. It will result in better services, possibly new powers, more integration. What’s not to like?

Devolution has real risks and I’d like to explore them here. And I am not convinced it’s needed at all.

Integration, on the other hand, is definitely needed. We know that patients fall through boundary cracks, and communication and culture is often a problem between sectors and organisations. Integration means many things. Including spanning the NHS and social care; primary and secondary care; community care and primary care; third sector and the NHS. Patients would benefit from better integration and communication across all those fences.

NHS integration

But integration and devolution are not the same thing. We have moved a great deal on integration without the need for devolution, and we could do a lot more. It seems a convenient elision to automatically link integration and devolution.

Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration. There are two kinds of devolution: the Sporadic kind, such as Devo-Manc and the Lewisham form – and the Systematic variety coming down the road in the shape of a parliamentary bill. This has big implications.

As I understand it, Devo-Manc has not attracted any new powers to either the NHS nor the LA. So, it may stimulate new conversations, but it doesn’t actually change anything fundamental.

It also brings no new money. Quite the opposite – the costs in money, time and resources of another local redisorganisation may be quite high.

There is little democracy or accountability in the NHS in any case, but devolution does not seem to help. The Devo-Manc changes have gone through with no consultation whatsoever, with even a local MP being unaware of them. Similarly in Lewisham. In addition, much decision-making then appears to take place on a much larger scale, with committees-in-common merging CCGs and localities – it takes planning even further from the citizen.

NHS privatisation

People on the ground in Manchester say they see no privatisation now or in the future. Indeed, they say that the Manchester arrangements militate against privatisation. Nonetheless, in principle, devolution is likely to lead to more shifts in contracts, new organisations – and all that, with the mechanisms in place through the HASCA, will lead to more tenders and more privatisation.

I understand that in Manchester, they are using devolution to carry through cuts to as much as a third of their hospital beds and estate. This, led by the leader of the council. In the current climate this kind of group think is very dangerous.

Meanwhile, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act will enable local authorities to run NHS organisations.

The Act enables a transfer of local functions of the NHS to a local authority or ‘combined authority’, with a local authority’s permission. The ‘core duties’ of the health secretary – including roles set out in NHS England’s mandate, cannot be transferred. The local authority could take on a current NHS role, or carry it out alongside or jointly with the NHS. The NHS may or may not continue to provide that service itself. There is provision to abolish the public authority where it will no longer have any functions. It allows for a joint committee of the devolved bodies, including at least one CCG, to establish a pooled fund to manage NHS cash.

In principle, it makes sense for NHS services to be run by a local authority: they are structurally democratic; they understand commissioning; much of our health is determined by areas under the control of local authorities; there could be a rapid integrative process; everyone knows their local authority, but is often ignorant of their CCG.

Deregulation of NHS services

But, do you really want your local NHS run by a politician – and particularly a Tory – in the current climate of austerity? Do you want an organisation, your local authority, which has privatised virtually every public service to do the same to the NHS? Do you want an organisation whose life blood is means-testing, trying to do the same to your health services?

The Devolution Act could lead to the deregulation of NHS services, too. The Act mentions ‘standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to the national service standards and the national information and accountability obligations’. The phrase ‘having regard to’ is weak in legal terms. It becomes possible for the nationalised standards of care and practice to be slowly abandoned. Surely highly dangerous. And we have seen this in so many other areas of work, for instance banking and food.

The kind of integration we should seek includes the following:

Integrated national standards with nationally recommended treatments.

Integrated methods of allocating resources to areas of greatest need.

Integrated funding through national taxation.

National accountability, democratic control over commissioning, effective PPI, shared power with communities.

An integrated national system of pay, terms and conditions for NHS and social care staff.

Meanwhile, making social care free at the point of need is an essential prerequisite for integration. It would transform the whole scope, scale and landscape of care. The King’s Fund think tank has calculated that it is possible – and we need this to be the direction of travel. It may take some time, but it is absolutely necessary.

So, in short – integration definitely yes. Let’s do more. Devolution, however, seems to have far more risks than benefits, so, in the current climate – beware.

Dr Brian Fisher, GP News, 15 March 2016

UK winter floods cost councils £250 million -what is our LEP’s role in building flood resilience ?

“The final tally could be even higher, as councils are still counting the cost of the winter devastation. The total cost to households and businesses hit by the winter floods could be as much as £5bn, KPMG said in December.

The worst-hit council was Cumbria, which saw around £175m in damage to local authority-owned infrastructure, with costs for flood-hit bridges, landslips, carriageway damage, survey work and the need to build a temporary road on the A591.

Calderdale has a bill of £33m, Northumberland £24m and Lancashire has suffered £5m damage due to the floods.

The LGA said government funding had been important in helping local authorities and communities recover from the floods, but warned councils will need more help as the full cost of damage emerges.

The organisation also called for new flood defence funding to be devolved to local areas so authorities can work with communities and businesses to ensure money is spent where it is most needed.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/25/uks-winter-floods-land-councils-with-nearly-250m-bill-survey-shows

This is what our LEP said in February 2014:

Given its strategic role on both economic and funding matters, the Heart of the South West LEP has been asked to lead the Economic Impact and Funding workstream. The workstream will provide an underlying case for funding of immediate mitigation measures and wider assistance, as well as set out evidence for investment in longer term solutions for the levels and moors area.”

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

In June 2014 a £50,000 grant was given to establish “work hubs” in areas that had experienced flooding in the Mendips:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/flooding

The only other mention of flooding is in the LEPs response to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement last year on the same webpage”

We are pleased that the Exeter Flood Defence Scheme, which will help protect around 3200 businesses and residents across the city is taking shape. It’s vital that we take proactive flood alleviation measures to reduce the potentially disastrous consequences that flooding can have for the economy throughout the HotSW area.”

So, don’t hold your breath on the LEP being proactive with funding for flood resilience infrastructure – it has too much invested in the Hinkley C nuclear power plant and far too many “hubs” of all kinds to fund for business (wo)men for “growth” opportunities.

Could our Local Enterprise Partnership end up running our schools?

They have already collared post-16 training under the general heading of “investment in skills training” and at least one college and one university head is involved with its board.

A small step to schools.

In the meantime Tory shires still very unhappy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35897430

And recall they already embrace the remit of “health” already (though “growth” in health probably means involving more private enterprise).

How long before undemocratic, unelected, non-transparent LEPs run everything?

National Audit Office criticism of Local Enterprise Partnerships in more detail

“The National Audit Office has expressed concern at the level of transparency provided by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and the failure to test their governance assurance frameworks.

In a report on LEPs, the spending watchdog also warned that the approach taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government to overseeing Growth Deals risked future value for money.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “LEPs’ role has expanded rapidly and significantly but they are not as transparent to the public as we would expect, especially given they are now responsible for significant amounts of taxpayers’ money.

“While the Department has adopted a ‘light touch’ approach to overseeing Growth Deals, it is important that this doesn’t become ‘no touch’. The Department needs to do more to assure itself that the mechanisms it is relying on ensure value for money are, in fact, effective.”

The NAO report acknowledged that the DCLG had acted to promote standards of governance and transparency in LEPs, and all 39 LEPs had frameworks in place to ensure regularity, propriety and value for money by March 2015.

But it noted that the Department had yet to test the implementation of such assurance frameworks at the time that Growth Deals were finalised. The watchdog said it had found “considerable gaps” in LEPs’ compliance with the DCLG’s requirements in this regard, and that the availability and transparency of financial information varied across LEPs.

The NAO highlighted how, with the advent of the Local Growth Fund, the amount of central government funding received by LEPs was projected to rise to £12bn between 2015-16 and 2020-21 via locally negotiated Growth Deals.

“The Department, however, has not set specific quantifiable objectives for what it hopes to achieve through Growth Deals, meaning that it will be difficult to assess how they have contributed to economic growth,” it suggested.

The report also revealed serious reservations among LEPs themselves about their capacity to deliver and the increasing complexity of the local landscape.

The NAO said: “To oversee and deliver Growth Deal projects effectively, LEPs need access to staff with expertise in complex areas such as forecasting, economic modelling and monitoring and evaluation. Only 5% of LEPs considered that the resources available to them were sufficient to meet the expectations placed on them by government. In addition, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that their staff were sufficiently skilled.”

The report revealed that LEPs relied on their local authority partners for staff and expertise, and that private sector contributions had not yet materialised to the extent expected. In addition, there was a risk that projects being pursued would not necessarily optimise value for money, the watchdog said.

“Pressure on LEPs to spend their Local Growth Fund allocation in year creates a risk that LEPs will not fund those projects that are most suited to long term economic development. Some LEPs reported that they have pursued some projects over others that, in their consideration, would represent better value for money. LEPs have also found it challenging to develop a long-term pipeline of projects that can easily take the place of those that are postponed.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/

Financial Times exposes devolution anxiety amongst Tories

George Osborne’s “devolution revolution” has become the latest Treasury policy to run into trouble in the face of Tory opposition, piling pressure on to the chancellor as the row over his Budget drags into a second week.
Launching the latest wave of devolution last week — which extended plans to counties and cities in the south of England — the chancellor said during his Budget speech that “the devolution revolution is taking hold”.

But just days later a Conservative-controlled council decided to reject the devolution deal that Mr Osborne claimed had been agreed.

Cambridgeshire County Council voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday not to accept the East Anglian plans proffered by the Treasury, making it the latest in a string of councils to knock back the chancellor.

Mr Osborne is understood to have postponed a planned visit to East Anglia to launch the devolution deal after the local doubts became clear. Cambridge’s city council had already demurred.

The chancellor is facing pressure from Tory MPs to revise his plans. They have urged him to send out a signal to local councils that he understands that the deal for Manchester — his flagship devolution project — does not suit all parts of the country.

Many councils and Westminster Tories are unhappy about the chancellor’s insistence that devolved areas must install elected mayors.

Another Tory-run county council, Hampshire, withdrew its support for a deal in the Solent area earlier this week, while Cumbria County Council turned down a devolution offer earlier this month.

Gateshead Council also rejected a devolution deal earlier this week, a decision which leaves a hole at the heart of the planned North-East Combined Authority and could see the wider area’s plans called off altogether.
That risk intensified on Wednesday when Durham council, whose leader Simon Henig is also chair of the Combined Authority, deferred a decision about whether it would participate in the deal.

The Sheffield city region is pressing ahead with plans for a mayor although three of the nine authorities declined to participate fully, meaning the mayor’s writ will not run there.

An aide to Mr Osborne said on Wednesday that it was up to local councils how they structured their devolution deals, but elected mayors “bring local accountability to a particular area, and is a successful model”.
“If they don’t want to go ahead with that structure, then they don’t have to,” she said.

Not all the devolution deals are in trouble: a deal with the West Midlands is expected to go ahead, while Manchester already has an interim mayor.
The councils still have time to revisit the offer from Westminster by renegotiating the deals’ terms. Steve Count, leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, said he would renegotiate and return to the council with “the best deal I can get”. The council has until the end of June to take up any further offer, he said.

One of the party’s most experienced figures, Lord Tebbit, said on Tuesday that “we do not need an elected mayor for East Anglia”. The plan would “only raise costs [and] introduce another layer of government”, he said.

Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, a think tank part-funded by local authorities, said that councils voting against the devolution deals they were meant to be part of “reveals a fragility in the process”.

The secrecy surrounding the deals and last-minute changes driven from central government “have left many councils feeling bounced into deals they are not convinced by”, he added.

Individual local authorities risked finding themselves isolated and financially exposed if they were left out of successful combined authorities, but if enough councils voted against deals “it risks derailing the whole devolution agenda which we desperately need to improve public services and grow local economies”, Mr Carr-West warned.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3b859fec-f0f8-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a.html

Devolution continues to cause chaos

Chesterfield Borough Council has called a second meeting to consider its devolution options, in what the local authority says is “a bid to prevent tax payers’ money being wasted on an unnecessary legal challenge”.

The move comes after Derbyshire County Council earlier this month said it had taken legal advice from a QC about legal action over Chesterfield’s plans to join the Sheffield City Region as a full member.

Chesterfield also intended to become a non-constituent member only of a potential North Midlands devolution deal, of which Derbyshire is part.
According to Chesterfield, the county council had demanded that the borough council reconsider its decision, on the basis that the report which councillors originally considered should have included an equality impact assessment.

Chesterfield said its report followed a similar format as every other district and borough council in Derbyshire which took devolution deal decisions, and no other council – including the county – had published an EIA. It noted that Derbyshire had only issued a legal challenge against Chesterfield.

The second meeting will be held at 5 pm on 6 April.

Cllr John Burrows, leader of Chesterfield, said: “The only people who benefit from judicial reviews are the barristers presenting the cases. We could have opposed this legal challenge but that would have cost Derbyshire’s tax payers a lot of money and wasted a huge amount of time and effort.

“So we have decided to look afresh at our 3 March decision but this time taking into account the full Equality Impact Assessment that we have now developed and other developments that have happened since the original decision was taken, including the decisions taken by other councils across Derbyshire.”

Cllr Burrows added: “The council will then make a fresh decision on what delivers the best outcomes for both Chesterfield and Derbyshire’s residents and businesses. This will then go to public consultation before the Government makes a final decision.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26418:chesterfield-calls-second-meeting-in-bid-to-see-off-legal-action-over-devolution-plans&catid=59&Itemid=27

LEP statistics – not good news

These were in notes for Editors but are too important to languish in notes:

Notes for Editors
39
Number of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England

£12bn
Local Growth Fund available to LEPs between 2015-16 and 2020-21

Up to 419,500
Jobs to be created by LEPs’ Growth Deals according to LEPs

£7.3 billion
Amount of the Local Growth Fund which has been allocated as of March 2016

£2 billion
Annual funding to LEPs from the Local Growth Fund from 2015-16 to 2020-21

£627.5 million
Largest Growth Deal awarded to a single LEP: Leeds City Region

45% to 80%
Range of private sector board membership in LEPs

87%
Percentage of LEPs for which we were unable to obtain information on senior staff remuneration from publicly available accounts.

68%
Estimated real-terms reduction in local authority net expenditure on economic development between 2010-11 and 2015-16

42%
Of LEPs say that they do not publish a register of interests

49%
Of LEPs agreed or strongly agreed that there are clear lines of accountability from the LEP to the local electorate

£85 million
Estimated underspend on Local Growth Fund projects for 2015-16

5%
Percentage of LEPs agreed or strongly agreed that resources available to LEPs are enough to meet the expectations placed on them by government

8
Median number of full-time equivalent staff employed by LEPs.

https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/local-enterprise-partnerships/

National Audit Office raises concerns about Local Enterprise Partnerships

Nice to see that the NAO agrees with Owl!

“The role and remit of Local Enterprise Partnerships has grown significantly and rapidly since 2010, but as things stand, the approach taken by the Department of Communities and Local Government to overseeing Growth Deals risks future value for money, according to the National Audit Office.

The government encouraged the establishment of LEPs as private sector-led strategic partnerships which would determine and influence local growth priorities. With the advent of the Local Growth Fund, the amount of central government funding received by LEPs is projected to rise to £12 billion between 2015-16 and 2020-21 via locally negotiated Growth Deals. The Department, however, has not set specific quantifiable objectives for what it hopes to achieve through Growth Deals, meaning that it will be difficult to assess how they have contributed to economic growth.

Today’s report found that LEPs themselves have serious reservations about their capacity to deliver and the increasing complexity of the local landscape. To oversee and deliver Growth Deal projects effectively, LEPs need access to staff with expertise in complex areas such as forecasting, economic modelling and monitoring and evaluation. Only 5% of LEPs considered that the resources available to them were sufficient to meet the expectations placed on them by government. In addition, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that their staff were sufficiently skilled. The NAO found that LEPs rely on their local authority partners for staff and expertise, and that private sector contributions have not yet materialised to the extent expected.

In addition, there is a risk that projects being pursued will not necessarily optimise value for money. Pressure on LEPs to spend their Local Growth Fund allocation in year creates a risk that LEPs will not fund those projects that are most suited to long term economic development. Some LEPs reported that they have pursued some projects over others that, in their consideration, would represent better value for money. LEPs have also found it challenging to develop a long-term pipeline of projects that can easily take the place of those that are postponed.

The Department has acted to promote standards of governance and transparency in LEPs, and all 39 LEPs had frameworks in place to ensure regularity, propriety and value for money by March 2015. The Department, however, had not tested the implementation of such assurance frameworks at the time that Growth Deals were finalised. The NAO found that there are considerable gaps in LEPs’ compliance with the Department’s requirements in this regard, and that the availability and transparency of financial information varied across LEPs.

LEPs’ role has expanded rapidly and significantly but they are not as transparent to the public as we would expect, especially given they are now responsible for significant amounts of taxpayers’ money. While the Department has adopted a ‘light touch’ approach to overseeing Growth Deals, it is important that this doesn’t become ‘no touch’. The Department needs to do more to assure itself that the mechanisms it is relying on ensure value for money are, in fact, effective.”

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 23 March 2016″

https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/local-enterprise-partnerships/

Hinkley Point C update

… Is it a good deal?

That depends who you ask. EDF, the UK government or British consumers.
EDF: The ex-CFO has voted with his feet. It’s not hard to see why he has such misgivings. Despite being the experts, EDF’s recent track record on building reactors is poor. Smaller but similar projects in France, Finland and China are years behind schedule and massively over budget.

On its own, EDF could not take this on as it could ruin the company. The government has agreed in principle to underwrite it by giving EDF the freedom to sell off the family silver (like a stake in the French equivalent of National Grid) and it may need to raise more cash by creating efficiencies (code for sacking people).

French unions hold seats on the EDF board. On the other hand, if it pulls it off, it will be the most profitable project it has ever done. …

… What does it mean for UK Government?

Some of the high risks have been removed. The UK government won’t pay a penny if the project isn’t completed. EDF is on the hook for the risk of delivering a fiendishly difficult and delay-strewn process. What is clear is that the UK government has placed great political capital in infrastructure capital.

The message seems to be – please for goodness sake build something. The earth movers are standing by – can it afford to keep them idle much longer?

What does it mean for UK consumers?

This is a tough one. The price EDF has negotiated for the electricity that Hinkley will one day produce looks very high by current standards. £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity is nearly three times the current price.
Sounds mad – but the reality is that NO ONE knows what the average price of electricity will be in the decades between 2025 and 2060. Add to that when the decommissioning costs are factored in, the future carbon penalties for coal and gas are unknown, and that nuclear counts as a near zero carbon source of energy, and the maths is practically impossible to do.
This sleeping giant is due to wake in May. Whether it crushes EDF underfoot or makes a colossal contribution to its bottom line will take at least a decade to determine. The UK and French governments are in this up to their neck and it’s hard to see them pulling out now.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35877071

Devolution and “more jobs” – smoke and mirrors

“The following statement by the Core Cities Group is fairly typical of the statements of intent by advocates of devolution:

“Grow the whole of the UK economy, contributing to the elimination of the deficit, for example by generating the potential £222 billion and 1.16 million extra jobs across the eight English Core Cities alone by 2030, which independent forecasts demonstrate is possible with more devolution. That’s the equivalent of adding Denmark to our economy.”

There is neither realism about the growth outcomes of devolution nor much concern about generating particular benefits for local economic stakeholders, such as residents, local workers, and business owners. NEF’s work on local economies has shown that if cities are to ‘meet their full economic potential’13 in terms of benefiting local economic stakeholders, this will involve:

Supporting people to be financially strong individuals in terms of income-to-cost-of- living ratios and being able to have savings.

Developing a strong local business sector with supply chains connecting small enterprise to big business.

Making more efficient use of distribution of resources, with positive local circulation of money, low levels of wasted resources in local supply and production systems, a high level of staff retention in jobs, and falling levels of inequality and poverty.

In the documents, these sorts of economic outcome for local people are only rarely discussed. For example, reducing poverty is mentioned four times in a total of 1,129 arguments and cost of living is not mentioned at all.

This is a gap in the debate. ‘More jobs’ is the overwhelming focus,14 rather than ‘better jobs and wages’.”

Click to access 1888588d95f1712903_e3m6ii50b.pdf

“Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate”

“Key findings

Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving power.

Only 12.9% of arguments make the case for devolution in order to shift power, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen involvement in decision-making.

Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities in wealth and power between regions.

Environmental sustainability is part of just 0.8% of arguments.

Only 2.9% of arguments address the potential downsides and risks of devolution.

Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes less than central government or think-tanks.

For full report, see:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/democracy-the-missing-link-in-the-devolution-debate

Housing Minister to be questioned by Lords’ Select Committee this afternoon

” The Economic Affairs Committee holds the final public evidence session of its inquiry into the economics of the UK housing market by taking evidence from Housing Minister, Brandon Lewis, and Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Damian Hinds.

Inquiry: The Economics of the UK Housing Market
Select Committee on Economic Affairs
Witnesses
Tuesday 22 March in Committee Room 1, Palace of Westminster

At 3.35pm

Mr Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Communities and Local Government
Mr Damian Hinds MP, Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury
Possible Questions
The Committee questions the witnesses on a range of policy issues including:

The Government’s aspiration for a million new homes by the end of the Parliament and how this figure was decided on
Why the Government is confident there will be a sharp increase in private sector house building
Whether the Government’s housing policy focus should move from demand side measures to helping to increase the supply of housing
What the Government can do to support the building of new homes on public land
How the Government can support local authorities ‘huge ambition’ to get involved in housebuilding again
Why the Government has such a clear preference for home ownership over other tenures?
The Chancellor announced in the Budget that Government will take measures to speed up the planning system. The Ministers will be asked for further details on how this will be achieved.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/economic-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/ministers-evidence-session/

All previous sessions (this is the last one) are available on the site with full transcripts

Devolution: more concerns

” … The All-Party Political Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution concluded that a significant shift of power from national to local level is essential as part of a coherent and ambitious approach to devolution. This would need to include much greater fiscal autonomy for local areas to overcome decades of centralisation.
Today’s Devolution and the Union paper warns that greater localism can only succeed if members of the public believe their local areas – not Whitehall – are leading it.

As a result, the reports concludes that there should be no limits put on what might be devolved in England, but agreement on what functions remain at a UK level within a “reserved powers” model, similar to the approach adopted with the Scottish Parliament. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/03/kerslake-calls-radical-and-far-reaching-devolution

…‘‘The devolution of power to local areas in England must not be seen as an end in itself but a process aimed at tailoring local business environments to make them better places for business growth,’’ saidTerry Scuoler, chief executive of EEF.
‘‘Ultimately, local decision makers and businesses will need a sustained dialogue on how they can make their local areas places in which businesses can prosper.’’
‘‘To date, however, business has felt disengaged from the process of devolution. For it to succeed in England, business must be fully signed up as partners in the negotiation and delivery of devolution deals.’’
‘‘This must include a key role for LEPs and a focus on areas where tangible outcomes can be delivered in the near term, especially in transport infrastructure,’’

SME Insider, October 2015

East Devon Alliance evidence to National Audit Office on devolution

“Local Enterprise Partnerships accountability and value for money
Comments by East Devon Alliance submitted 18 March 2016

1. Lack of regional logic to LEP grouping

1.1. The key problems limiting growth in the South West are inadequate communications: road; rail; air; broadband and mobile telecoms, through the narrow peninsular. These are limited by a topography that becomes progressively more challenging the further west you go. Yet, instead of treating the peninsular as a single entity, it is split. Cornwall, which is already a unitary authority, has gone it alone and already been given limited devolved powers covering: bus services and local investment; and integrated health and social services. Devon and Somerset LEP have just submitted a bid which is much more ambitious.

1.2. What is the value and regional logic underpinning these LEP groupings?

2. Constitutional Issues and lack of engagement

2.1. “Heart of the South West” (HOTSW) (Devon and Somerset including Plymouth and Torbay unitary authorities) LEP lodged a bespoke articles of association (constitution) and became incorporated at Companies House on 6 Feb 2014; adding clauses, for example, that removed the asset lock, fundamental to Community Interest Companies (CIC), in certain circumstances.

2.2. It is a private CIC company run by a board of 21 Directors who are self-selecting. Six of these are elected councillors from six of the 17 local and unitary authorities across the two counties. There are only four women and no ethnic minorities on the board. No minutes of meeting have been available in the public domain until the last few days. First information began to filter out in Sept 2015 with publication of a statement of intent. Even politically savvy individuals are essentially still in the dark. Little publicity has been given to the submitted bid so far.

2.3. County Councillors, not part of the controlling group, claim that the first they knew of what was going on was around October 2015 when final proposals were debated. They certainly knew nothing at the time the LEP held its first meeting in July 2012. One Independent Councillor tabled an amendment at the October 2015 meeting to allow for public consultation. This seems to have been accepted but no consultation had taken place before the bid was lodged with Central Government. Local district councillors were similarly kept in the dark. In East Devon District Council it seems that the leader, who is a LEP Director, was given fully delegated authority to negotiate. He may have reported to cabinet but not to members. Local authority whipping, with highly constrained debate in some councils, ensured that all councils signed up to the deal. There has been no engagement with the public. The residents of the two counties are not even considered stakeholders in the company.

2.4. How accountable and transparent has this exercise been? What negative effect has it had on democracy?

3. Governance and transparency

3.1. In a 2011 survey, 47% of people felt that UK local government was affected by corruption. We, in East Devon, are particularly sensitised to this possibility following a Daily Telegraph sting operation in 2013 when a local councillor, one time Chair of the local business forum, claimed he could help to secure planning permission, but that he didn’t come cheap. He eventually resigned.

3.2. It seems inescapable that Directors of LEPs will, and should, have close connections to the businesses in their region; and the HOTSW constitution contains the usual requirements to declare interests and conflicts of interest. There appears, however, to be no scrutiny or public audit mechanism to oversee this, and according to the 17 November minutes “Feedback from business indicates that they are not very concerned about governance”.

3.3. To date we have found no details of contracts or service level agreements made. We have been unable to discover how much is being spent on salaries, pensions, admin, etc. Yet HOTSW has been given £65.2M in the second round of the growth deal. HOTSW has a PO Box number but no address

3.4. Is an adequate system of checks and balances in place to scrutinise, account for and control LEP expenditure?

4. Representation

4.1. The business enterprises, other than utilities and health, represented on the Board are Defence (2), Universities (2), Developers (2 or 3 depending how you classify a planning lawyer).

4.2. How effectively can this LEP represent and promote the interests of the small businesses typically found in a rural area (tourism, agriculture, distribution, small builders etc)?

5. Is the proposal soundly based and good value for money?

5.1. The bid to Central Government made by “Heart of the South West” is to build 179,000 more new homes in the next 15 years; boost productivity and create 163,000 new jobs, adding around £20 billions to the local economy through better jobs and higher skills; improve roads and railways, reducing travel time; and reshape the health and care system to meet social, economic and financial pressures. This represents a planned annual growth of 3%+ which by their own admission even Bristol, Birmingham and Nottingham collectively have not achieved in the last 15 years. These three cities have a similar population to the rural one of Devon and Somerset. Regrettably, in Devon and Somerset, we start from an un-competitively low base with productivity only 80% of national levels. Hinkley Point C, located in the north east corner of Somerset and well connected to the Midlands, is claimed to be one of the Golden Opportunities to make this transformation. The gain in jobs across the whole UK from this project is estimated at 25,000, well short of the 163,000 quoted above. Hinkley Point C is years behind schedule and slipping.

5.2. Overall the proposal is lightweight, lacking detailed evidence, risk analyses, targets, critical success factors etc.

5.3. Many of the 17 Local Authorities in the two counties have just gone through a painstaking analysis of housing and economic growth assessment. They have conducted formal Strategic Housing Market Assessments which have been scrutinised in public by a Planning Inspector. These appear to have been replaced by assumptions lacking a realistic economic assessment.

5.4. What is the value for money of this duplication of effort concerning growth assumptions? Is the bid of 3%+ annual growth over 15 years based on realistic and sound economic assumptions, given that all the other LEPs across the country are making similar assessments and projections for long term UK growth are much lower? How is success to be monitored?

5.5. As a matter of curiosity we have examined another bid from D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnership (promoting economic growth in Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire). There appear to be some marked similarities to the HOTSW bid.

5.6. To what extent is effort being duplicated across the country by LEPs all essentially doing the same thing? Is this good use of scarce public funds?”

Austerity so we can subsidise Hinkley C – thanks, George

It is totally right that south-west Tory MPs should have grave reservations about cutting payment to severely disabled people.

But not one of the has spoken out about how devolution, our Local Enterprise Partnership and Hinkley C nuclear plant and the decision to bail out EDF with LEP money will affect ALL of us negatively in the south west, with disabled people then getting a double whammy.

Hinkley C £22 bn ” poison pill” for UK

“The Hinkley nuclear power deal contains a “poison pill” which could leave taxpayers with a £22bn bill if a future UK government closed the plant before 2060, according to an official document seen by the Guardian. .

… This is a dreadful agreement for the nation,” said Prof Catherine Mitchell, an energy policy expert at the University of Exeter. “The government is already paying a high price, index-linked for an incredibly long 35 years. This should be more than sufficient for a professional, business contract.

“The £22bn ‘poison pill’ effectively reduces the risk to zero for EDF and its backers, which is great for them. But from an outside perspective, it smacks of desperation.”

“There could be so many reasons over 35 years that you would want to close the plant,” she said, including rising costs, changes to the UK’s energy system or loss of public confidence. …

…Former Conservative energy secretary Lord Howell has criticised the Hinkley dealas “one of the worst deals ever” for British consumers and industry and has protested against “endless government guarantees for risk-free returns to the investors”.

Tom Burke at thinktank E3G, a former special adviser to three Conservative environment secretaries, said: “Why would a Conservative government want to buy 35 years of electricity ahead of time? They are supposed to believe in the market. But they have tied themselves in knots and now it is too embarrassing to untie it.”

The UK government argues that new nuclear power is essential to provide large amounts of reliable, low-carbon energy.

But Mitchell said: “Energy economics are changing rapidly and so the momentum is towards decentralised, smart and flexible energy systems. It is moving away from large, inflexible power plants like Hinkley. If it ever gets funded, it will be a white elephant before it is even finished and this government, with this £22bn ‘poison pill’, will have tied the next generation into paying for it, for no reason that I can understand. If it is simply political saving face, it really is pitiful.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/18/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-deal-22bn-poison-pill-taxpayer

French government to bail out EDF – south-west to do the same via its Local Enterprise Partnership

Not real money from French government – just taking more shares instead of dividend. Real money from the south-west to prop up the company so it can charge us three times the going price for electricity for 60 years – assuming the already out-of-date nuclear reactor ever gets built.

Still, those members of our LEP board with nuclear or allied industries (several of them) will be mighty relieved. Though a Brexit could throw thousands of spanners into the works.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/17/french-government-edf-united-front-hinkley-point-money-nuclear-plant-union

Thoughts on Hinkley C and Brexit

If Britain decides to leave the EU will French workers at Hinkley C have to go through immigration procedures to be allowed to work there? Will they need visas every time they cross the Channel? Will they be economic migrants?

Will Brexit push up costs in the supply chain?

With all the LEP spin about how great the project will be (for them personally in some cases) is anyone considering these problems?

Success! LEP produces retrospective minutes AND an agenda!

Here is the agenda for what they discussed yesterday:

Click to access LEP%20Board%20Agenda%2C%2015%20March%202016_0.pdf

Not surprisingly it began with:
“Presentation Nuclear / Hinkley Update – David Hall and Paul Taylor”