Meeting documents

Members will receive an update on the work of the Bucks Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP).

In particular, Members will review the BTVLEP’s response to, and progress towards the recommendations made in the Government review of Local Enterprise Partnerships and the key challenges and opportunities.

Members will also have an opportunity to consider the draft Local Industrial Strategy.

Background information required for this item can be found below:

·         Government LEP Review July 2018 - Full report and Recommendations

·         BTVLEP response to the governments recommendations-Implementation Plan

·         BTVLEP Response - Board Meeting Paper

·         Local Industrial Strategy - BTVLEP Website

·         Local Industrial Strategy Prospectus 

Other useful information can be found in BTVLEP Board Meeting Minutes

·         BTVLEP Board Meeting Report to agree Response and Implementation Plan

·         BTVLEP Accountability and Assurance Framework

Contributors:

·         Martin Tett, Leader Buckinghamshire County Council

·         Neil Gibson, Executive Director, TEE

·         Richard Harrington, Chief Executive BTVLEP

The Chairman welcomed Mr Tett, Leader of the Council; Mr Harrington, Chief Executive of Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP) and Mr Gibson, Executive Director for TEE Business Unit.

Mr Harrington introduced the item with a verbal presentation and provided an overview of the current work of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The full discussion can be viewed on the webcast of the meeting.

Mr Harrington highlighted the following points:

·         There had been £100m government funding into LEP’s over the last 5 years.

·         The government review of LEPS was reported on in November 2017.

·         In January 2018 government had produced guidelines around governance and transparency of LEPs.

·         In July 2018 there was a strengthening LEPs review. 

·         BTVLEP responded in September 2018 around geography and in October in relation to governance recommendations.

·         In December 2018 BTVLEP circulated their first draft of their Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) – (details and links to the LIS can be found in agenda pack).

·         The BTVLEP would be finalising their economic vision in June 2019.

Mr Harrington provided a summary of the government’s LEP review and the BTVLEP response and progress towards the recommendations. The full response could be found on their website (links within the agenda pack). The overview highlighted the following:

·         The review was in two parts: 1. Geography and 2. Governance and BTVLEP responded in October 2018.

·         There had been no official response from government. However, BTVLEP had moved forward on the recommendations.

·         In relation to the governance recommendations, BTVLEP now published all of its decisions and papers on their website and they had held their first annual general meeting on the 8^th March 2019. They had also put in place urgent decision making processes.

·         The LEP review recommended private sector dominance on LEP boards. The guidance required two thirds majority of private sector Members. To retain the 5 public sector members, they had increased the number of board members to 15 and a recruitment process had been completed with an ongoing process for other vacancies.

·         LEPs were under the control of local authorities so they were required to have an independent secretariat. The BTVLEP were therefore revising a suite of secondments and service level agreements.

·         There had been significant improvement around governance and movement towards incorporation.

Mr Harrington also provided a verbal overview of the Local Industrial Strategy (LIS). The following points were raised:

·         BTVLEP was 1 of 3 trail blazing areas.

·         The purpose of the LIS was around increasing productivity and increasing earning potential.

·         A steering group had been established  and  stakeholder workshops were held to build the propriety areas for the LIS.

·         The draft LIS had been created and it was designed to be distinctive of place, identifying what the economic assets of place were and creating industries of place. Examples of Pinewood, Silverstone, Life sciences and future mobility and transportation were given.

·         The draft went to the Growth Board on the 11 January 19 and it would be on the website from 25^th January for wider consultation.

·         The areas where there had been most progress were; space and space propulsion and space application, and Westcott investment.

·         The underpinning economic assets and economic drivers were: skills scale up, working as a test bed location, innovation and research and development.

Mr Tett highlighted the following points in an overview of the BTVLEP:

·         BTVLEP was one of the highest performing LEPs, and was recognised nationally.

·         The fact that it coincided with the County’s geography was helpful.

·         The Board were dynamic in terms of its representation of business and Bucks Business First was a key player around the table.

·         There had been two new appointments from the business sector.

·         Mr Tett supported keeping the BTVLEP together and did not feel there was a need to merge with any other LEPs as it was successful in its own right. A point was raised about the geography and a single unitary area. Members heard that civil servants had asked ministers for advice. There was a perception that you can’t have one LEP within a single unitary boundary, but this wasn’t written down. Members heard how it was believed that the LEP should follow constituency of our business in Bucks, focussing on what business want and what works for Bucks.

Mr N Gibson highlighted the following:

·         The County Council was supportive of the government’s review and changes.

·         All the improvements were good practice and provided for good accountability and transparency and passed all the national tests.

·         There would be integration of Bucks Business First and the LEP officers as we move into a unitary authority ensuring capacity to come together and work smarter to deliver the LIS.

·         Bucks was place based, locally owned, locally driven on the ground and where it makes sense to collaborate with neighbours to drive larger areas forward (e.g. the Oxford to Cambridge ARC) they would do so. Mr N Gibson said that it would be suboptimal to be driven by government to merge into larger geographies.

Member’s questions and discussions raised the following points:

·         Members asked about the board make up and representation. They heard that there had been a call and invite for suitable candidates for board directors. Gender representation was in line with recommendations at present due to the female leaders of local councils. BTVLEP had highest female representation on the board nationally. There would be an issue going forward into the unitary authority. The LEP were aware of this risk and were working to ensure the requirements were balanced.

·         A question was asked about the LEP overlap issues in relation to funding. Members heard that the funding used to be allocated per population of Aylesbury Vale and was divided in half between SEMLEP and BTVLEP. This had been less of an issue recently as it was more of a competitive process for funding now. The unitary transition would mean that the issue would disappear.

·         Members heard that the government wanted LEPs to be financially stable in 5 years. Bucks LEP had taken on this challenge and as a lean organisation focussed on delivery, allocation of Enterprise zones and had made them work hard.

·         A Member asked how much of the £200,000 government funding available BTVLEP received. They were told that Bucks received £100,000. Government recognised the issue with the overlap of LEPs, but acknowledged it was not a matter within the BTVLEP’s control.

·         BTVLEP was pushing government for a decision on the overlap.

·         Members asked about the role of LEP going forward. They heard that LEPs needed to mobilise strategy and thinking and obtain funding from the various pots of money. The rules around funding kept shifting. They had a role in pre-determining pots of funding and orientating the needs of the county to those various funding streams. The LEP was looking to secure £100’s of millions, therefore they needed to have the strategic thinking right in order to position themselves for the funding.

·         A Member asked about transparency to the public. It was explained that BTVLEP had designed the infrastructure to be lean to avoid bureaucracy. There was a federated route to work closely with partners, with effective communication channels. The website had been refreshed and all decision making, successes and challenges were all published.

·         The Leader added that it was more important for the public to see delivery on the ground. The LEP was the vehicle and mechanism to getting the strategy right.

·         Members asked about the impact of the lack of responses from the government review. The BTVLEP’s focus remained to create a strategy in the LIS to put a clear proposition to government and an evidence base to secure a bespoke growth deal on the back of the strategy.

·         Members asked about the how the LEP will work within the unitary authority. It was said that the LEP were forming a secondment agreement to all staff which would be novated to the unitary local authority. There would be a period of change, and they would need to look at what economic development resource would look like in a new unitary council aligned around the vision and intent.

The Chairman thanked the Leader and Officer for their informative overview of the LEP review and the Local Industrial Strategy.