Agenda item

Daniel Gardiner, Adviser, introduce item five. 

Daniel stated that the paper provides an update on recent developments with the Government’s Industrial Strategy and outlines proposed next steps relating to the key place-based elements of the Industrial Strategy:

·         the Government’s Review of Local Enterprise Partnerships;

·         the development of Local Industrial Strategies; and

·         the design of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

Given the pace of developments across these three areas of policy, officers will provide a verbal update on any further developments at the Board.  Officers concluded that LEP geography is playing a big part of the review.

Following on from this, members discussed the following:

·         The differences in merging and overlapping LEP’s, including the advantages and disadvantages of both.

·         Members stated that the government has ignored some parts of the country that have huge economic value and potential, using boundaries formulated in medieval times.

·         Members discussed how devolved areas should be able to formulate their own LEP boundaries. 

·         It was discussed how LEP’s need more flexibility, particularly around membership.  Members agreed LEP’s need further transparency and local accountability. 

·         Further discussions were held over LEP’s membership. 

·         Members agreed that the board needs to take an active, watching brief on this work, as there will be a danger that if local government doesn’t push for good place-based outcomes LEP’s will fail to meet local economic needs.

·         Daniel Gardiner, Adviser, then updated members regarding Local Industrial Strategies (LIS).  Daniel stated that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have confirmed that every area in England will get a LIS by early 2020 (further details can be found in paragraph 19-20 in the report).  Daniel also advised members that LIS policy has now been published, including for the West Midlands LIS. 

Daniel drew attention to paragraphs 20-21 in the report, and asked members if they agreed with these proposals. 

Members then went on to discuss the following:

·         The Chair stated that this was a significant win for the LGA.

·         Members remarked on the potentially tight timeframe to submit LIS proposals. 

·         Members discussed the capacity of government in relation to the roll-out of LIS. 

Jasbir Jhas, Senior Adviser, then updated members on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), drawing member’s attention to paragraphs 23 – 31 set out in the report.  Members raised a number of issues, including:

·                concerns over the democratic accountability of LEPs, and their capacity to deliver; 

·                that while European funding and its successor UKSPF is absolutely critical, it needs to be seen as part of a wider economic development landscape post 2020 which will see the end of the Transforming Cities and Local Growth Funds; and 

·                that allocations and distributions will be a key issue going forward, particularly the need to address pockets of deprivation within larger administrative geographies. 

The Chair thanked members for their input and the officers for their updates. 

Action and Decisions

·         Officers to progress policy work in order to address issues raised by Members.