Transcript total - Enfield Council

New Directions
Economic Renewal:
New national and local policies
www.enfield.gov.uk/newdirections
In partnership with:
Striving for excellence
Enfield Welcome
Cllr Doug Taylor
Leader of the Council
In partnership with:
Conference Background:
• The co-ordinating Council
• Starting the economic debate
• Experimenting with concepts likely to improve our
economic base
• The economic challenges
• Opportunity to think freely
In partnership with:
Welcome from ESRC
Dr Paul Sanderson
Deputy Head of Knowledge Exchange,
Economic and Social Research Council
In partnership with:
The View from the Frontline
Rob Leak
Chief Executive Enfield Council
In partnership with:
Enfield: Location
In partnership with:
Enfield: Growth Corridors
In partnership with:
Enfield: Long Term Decline
•
•
•
•
Population – 300,000
Unemployment –above London average
Inequalities
Skills and education – Great extremes but on
average below London level
• Business Growth – Low net business formation
In partnership with:
Enfield: Decline in Private Sector
LB Enfield: Percentage change in employment by sector 1998-2008
1998: Total =93,826; Private sector =71,467; State & para-state =22,359
2008: Total =92,505; Private sector =62,960; State & para-state =29,545
35.0
Percentage change 1998-2008
30.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
In partnership with:
+32.1%
7,186 employees
25.0
TOTAL
Private sector
-1.4%
-1,321 employees
-11.9%
-8,507 employees
Public & statefunded
London: Increase in Private Sector
London: Percentage change in employment by sector 1998-2008
1998: Total =3,763,873; Private sector =2,945,329; State & para-state =818,544
2008: Total =4,168,468; Private sector =3,217,440; State & para-state =951,028
18.0
16.0
+16.2%
132,484 employees
Percentage change 1998-2008
14.0
In partnership with:
12.0
10.0
8.0
+10.7%
404,595 employees
+9.2%
272,111 employees
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
TOTAL
Private sector
Public & state-funded
Enfield: Low GVA Growth
GVA per head in 2008 split by London regions (£)
120,000
£107,863
(Headline) GVA per head £
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
£35,100
20,000
£33,499
£13,911
£17,874
£22,758
0
London
In partnership with:
Inner London - Inner London - Outer London - Outer London - Outer London West
East
East and North
South
West and
East
North West
Enfield: Response
• Significant regeneration activity
• Engagement with business
• Driving case for investment in infrastructure (rail /
road / decentralised energy networks)
• Innovative & creative solutions (market gardening)
In partnership with:
Enfield: Opportunity
• £2.1bn GVA per annum growth opportunity
• Current planned interventions necessary but not
sufficient
• Need to broaden our thinking
In partnership with:
Michael Moran
CRESC
University of Manchester
In partnership with:
Popular Engagement with Local
Government in the UK
• Where have the party members and voters gone?
• Collapse of popular engagement via party
membership
• Popular participation through voting in Westminster
elections has fallen
• Approximation to regional government in England
• Enfield conforms to the national pattern
In partnership with:
Why The Crisis In Engagement?
• Local autonomy and initiative are also among the
most restricted in the EU
• A decline from the historic importance of the local
authority as key institution in welfare and other
public services
• A Key issue for today’s conference: how can local
authority claim/reclaim a key role in local economic
development?
In partnership with:
Karel Williams
Director
ESRC Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural
Change
In partnership with:
80s “deindustrialisation”:
(trade) crisis foretold
80s prophets of Brit “deindustrialisation” = foretold pays crisis;
activity mix = structural constraint on growth and jobs
90s and 2000s outcome = the worst did happen and the result was
very agreeable
Male working class lost as manufacturing employment 1979-2009 =
7 -2.5 mill; ex industrial districts of North and West >20% of wing age
population parked up on benefit plus 2 generations of worklessness;
….BUT jobs for everybody else
Trade balance on manufactures negative from 1983 with goods
deficit of £90 billion by 2009; yet no crisis with windfall gain of North
Sea oil and currencies redefined as asset classes (not as index of real
economy)…..So MCs had German cars and everybody had cheap/low
wage manufactured goodies
In partnership with:
Thatcher and Blair:
(financial) crisis postponed
Promised a working future and delivered an unsustainable boom; drivers of
jobs + GDP growth (boosted by dereged finance = priv. profits + liabils = 5X GDP)
1.Jobs creation ex state and para state health, edn and welfare; 1/3rd of all jobs
and > ½ extra New Labour jobs were publically funded;
2.Consumption demand ex housing equity withdrawal: HEW > GDP growth
under Thatcher and Blair; peaking at 5% of GDP.
2008 financial crisis = structural constraint ex activity mix:
end of state job creation / private sector with weak capacity to create jobs
outside London: none in North East or West Midlands
chronic demand deficiency ex (a) pro cyclical housing finance/ mortgage
repayment and (b) trade deficit sucks demand
pays deficit with energy and food insecurity; financial markets now distracted
but not obliged to hold Sterling.
In partnership with:
Structural/econ crisis
also a political/cultural crisis
Westminster and Whitehall can’t stand too much reality
 Deny crisis via demands for return to growth + alibis about the eurozone
crisis
 Rhetorically embrace rebalancing = for Mandelson + Cameron/Osborne
more manufing but not less finance
 Favour policy dualism of restrictive fiscal policy + ultra loose monetary
policy (QE + low interest rates)
Westminster and Whitehall don’t do renewal:
 Political base and calculation: parties are Westminster cliques connected
with electorate via Gouldite politics + allied to London finance… in a
country that is breaking up.
 Technical resource and expertise: renewal needs focus on activity base
via industrial policy + regional policy; does civil service have expertise for
encouraging new activity and managing old
In partnership with:
Problem (1)
legacy of “enterprise” thinking
30 year enterprise experiment ( revn. fails because it is incomplete)
Generic policies : low taxes, privatisation, deregulation, flex. labour
markets, free trade (ignore activity differences)
Unsuccessful regions or groups ? compet. success by improving
infrastucture or training: Centre for Cities etc
Identified important policy levers but never pulled them effectively
 UK infrastructure widens inequality: London + the SE is subsidised
with 84% of planned gov. spending; grand projects for the North like HST
without local connections for desenclavement
Vocational training never recovered from the collapse of the large
socially responsible private employer; less than 2,000 factories employing
more than 200 and ¾ of manufacturing employ is in workshops employing
10 or less;
In partnership with:
Problem (2)
no new thinking about sectors
Civil service has lost the plot:
•Monstered industrial policy as “picking winners” = traducing BL,
ignoring RR; not honouring Norman Smith in N Sea oil procurement
successes like RR
•Lost expertise on private sector (maps + links, capabilities + capacity
gaps); careers made by managing public sector reorganisation + putting
out contracts.
Politicians and think tanks talking but not doing sectors:
•From Mark Prisk to IPPR list big or high tech sectors; neglect
unglamorous private sectors like food processing (probably the largest
consumer of machinery in the UK); and promote disintegration of public
sector health and edn.
•Cultural bias towards point source of value/ outsourcing and
contracting out; what to do when DfT train contracts or Tesco bacon
buyers produce point success and chain collapse? No interest in the
Morrisons model of vertical integration .
In partnership with:
Problem (3)
starting from a low level
Manufacturing is in a bad way
•Problem of broken supply chains: JCB digger 1979-2009 = 96-36 %
Brit by value; Bombardier imports its bogies from Germany;
•No sustained output growth since 1970s + cyclical fluctuations;
manufacturing investment declines in 2000s to < 10% of net output
Multiple delusions of grandeur + come back:
•Day dreams of export success; electric cars today or graphene
tomorrow will be developed by well resourced competitors;
•Unposed question of what to do about UK branch factories; will UK
acquiesce on Opel/Vauxhall Ellesmere Port closure?.
•No focus on import substitution in mundane activities ( vis a vis
North European competitors);
•No commitment to maintain public employment as the only credible
short term palliative in eg West Midlands (where LEPs are doing
renewal without institutions or resources )
In partnership with:
Implications?
(1) the scope for fiscal policies
Policy response to crisis?
How to change the UK activity mix (run industrial policy +
regional policy) when the civil service lacks expertise +
Westminster politicians are likely to resist serious
changes?
(1) Much more reliance on selective sector specific fiscal policies/
break with generic pro enterprise policies
•Incentive packages for sector specific objectives eg we ‘d want
value added promotion via corpn tax concessions for organic output
growth in manufacturing + for vertical integration in supermarkets; in
manufing add investment incentives via deprecn. allowances +
employment incentives via national insurance.
•Policies which require specific justification but don’t require lots of
expertise; neither of the left nor of the right; what ‘s good enough for
Rick Santorum …….
In partnership with:
Implications?
(2) the revolution in government
(2) We need a different and more active kind of government:
•Not governance but old fashioned government ( ie elected
politicians + civil servants) with an economy wide agenda, committed
to acquiring sector specific knowledges and varying policies
accordingly
•This is more than central government can cope with (at least until
populist discontent intrudes); and much more than local government
aspires to….
•Given the politics of Westminster and Whitehall much will depend
on regional and local experiment ……..
In partnership with:
David Green
Director - CIVITAS
In partnership with:
The Political Case for New Policies:
Political Benefits and Possibilities for Local Action
Ben Jackson
University of Oxford
In partnership with:
Sukhdev Johal
Royal Holloway
University of London
In partnership with:
Local Possibilities and Guerrilla Economic
Development
• Why national policies from central government are
unlikely to be the active, initiating force
– National government can’t pay and won’t pay
– The civil service has lost any sectoral expertise
– The default remains non intervention except to make
markets work better
In partnership with:
Local Possibilities and Guerrilla Economic
Development – continued
• If the aim is renewal, import substitution, job
creation etc, local government is an unlikely hero
• Let’s start with several policies that cost little and
make a difference
• Then get some funding so local government can
build social housing and invest in infrastructure and
also think about moving back into running
businesses which yield a surplus
In partnership with:
Open Discussion
Will Davies
Centre for Mutual and Employee-owned Business
University of Oxford
In partnership with:
Comments and Overview
Sir Peter Hall
Professor of Planning and Regeneration
UCL and President Town and Country Planning
Association
In partnership with:
Comments and Overview
Tony Jackson
Contributing Editor
Financial Times
In partnership with:
Introduction to Afternoon Activities
Neil Rousell
Director of Regeneration, Leisure & Culture
LB Enfield
Kevin Hughes
Deputy Assistant Commissioner
London Fire Brigade
In partnership with:
Redressing the balance:
Are Enfieldans getting as much from the big
corporations as they are getting from us?
Cllr Achilleas Georgiou
Deputy Leader, Enfield Council
Cllr Alan Sitkin
Chair, Sustainability scrutiny panel
(European Business School London)
In partnership with:
Supply side economics:
the voodoo that you do so well…
• Background: Reagan/Thatcher paradigm shift 30 years ago leading
to:
a) Fall in global ‘wage share’ (compensation/value added)
b) Fall in corporation tax rates (Laffer curve? Rather the laughing curve)
• Consequences:
a) Squeezed middle (weaker multiplier effect); Disparities (we’re all in it
together?)
b) Deficits (destabilised financial systems); Capitalism for the poor,
socialism for the rich?
• What to does this mean for our borough?
START BY MEASURING BIG COMPANIES’
TRADING PROFITS IN ENFIELD
In partnership with:
The Big Retailers
(AND WE DON’T EVEN HAVE STATS FOR 3 BP STATIONS, 2 SHELL STATIONS, ETC)
2010/2011 UK
extrapolated pretax trading profit
Stores in
Enfield/
Total stores
Tesco
£2.5 bn
(UK)
11/2,715
(UK)
£10.1 mil
Asda
£739 mil
(total)
4/523
(total)
£5.7 mil
Sainsbury’s
£827 mil
(total)
6/1,000
(total)
£4.9 mil
Every Sainsbury’s store chooses a local
charity to help with fundraising
i.e. Highlands Village - Chickenshed
Morrison’s
£874 mil
(total)
2/455
(total)
£3.8 mil
Charity partner – N. Ldn Hospice
Hosts fundraisers
Waitrose
£275 mil
(total)
3/250
(total)
£3.3 mil
“Community matters”, i.e. Enfield Chase
gives £6k/yr to 36 causes
In partnership with:
Prorata annual
profits from
Enfield stores
…and the only Corporate Responsibility
actions we could find in Enfield were..
Community toilet scheme
Charity fundraising stalls
Schools and Clubs scheme
“Wants to play an active role”
Edmonton store donated £26K but to
Starks Field Primary School
The Big Utilities
Conversion factor: 300k inhabitants in Enfield vs. 60 mil in UK = .005
Southern Electric
British Gas
N. Power
E.On UK
(+ Brimsdown
Power station)
2010/2011 UK
extrapolated annual
pre-tax trading profit
Prorata annual
profits from
Enfieldans
£1.3 bil
£6.5 mil
£742 mil
£3.7 mil
£277 mil
£1.4 mil
No indications found
£1.1 mil
Hosts school visits, helps w/curriculum
Donated £1k to LBE Volunteering Event
‘HeatStreets’ – energy efficiency installations
Free energy check-ups
£226 mil
…and the only Corporate Responsibility
actions we could find in Enfield were..
No specific indications found
Swimfit – sponsored national campaign
‘Green streets’ £2mio nationally (£10k here?)
Support for MIND in Enfield
EDF Energy
£92 mil
£0.5 mil
No specific indications found
Scottish Power
£82 mil
£0.4 mil
No specific indications found
(not to forget)
BSKYB
£1.1 bil
£5.5 mil
No specific indications found
(not to forget)
Thames Water
£750 mil
(conversion factor:
300K/30 mil = .01)
£7.5 mil
No specific indications found
The Big Banks
Enfield
branches/
Total UK
branches
Lloyds TSB/
HBOS
Barclays
HSBC
5/2,902
10/1,675
7/1,500
Santander
6/1,300
RBS
6/2,250
In partnership with:
2010/2011 UK
Extrapolated
annual pre-tax
trading profit
Prorata
annual
profits from
Enfieldans
…and the only Corporate Responsibility
actions we could find in Enfield were..
£8.3 mil
-Sponsored 2007 Enterprise Enfield ‘Innovative
business of the year award’
- Contributed to N. Ldn Hospice gift appeal
£1.1 bil
£6.6 mil
-Sponsored 2008 & 2009 Enterprise Enfield
‘Innovative business of the year award’
-Support for Wooden Spoon rugby charity
-Enfield Children in Need match funding
£1.4 bil
£6.5 mil
No specific indications found
£5.1 mil
Social Enterprise Development Award –
available in Enfield (No indications found
£3.5 mil
NatWest Community Force:
(2011) New roof for 12th Enfield Scouts
£4.8 bil
£1.1 bil
£1.3 bil
The status quo needs to change…
• While Enfield de-industrializes, these 18 companies make an est.
£84.4 mil annually in pre-tax trading profits, i.e. even after accounting
for wages paid to their (very few) full-time local employees
• After average FTSE 100 tax rate of 26%, they make an est. £62.5 mil
annually in net profits from Enfield alone. Split into:
- retained earnings/fixed investment? UK among lowest in OECD
- dividends? UK amongst highest in OECD (financialization?)
SO WHAT KIND OF NEW DIRECTION CAN WE TAKE?
In partnership with:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
building brands…but how?
• Corporate brand and reputation are important
• But CSR thinking needs to change
c.f. GDF SUEZ: Corporate image – ‘Aims to set the benchmark in
corporate social responsibility. The challenge is realised by
setting concrete, quantified objectives and action plans
implemented across the Group’s various entities.’
Heading towards a professionalisation of CSR?
In partnership with:
The Power of CSR and Branding
• 65% of executives believe product brands benefit from a
company’s reputation
• 55% of executives believe people care about the
companies behind the brands
• 70% of consumers avoid products if they don’t like the
company
• 67% of consumers check product labels (‘company
identification’)
• 86% companies are making greater efforts to build
reputation
In partnership with:
Source: Weber Shandwick (2011) ‘The company behind the brand: in reputation we trust’
What CSR measures are companies taking at
present to enhance their reputation in Enfield?
•
•
•
•
•
Tesco – charity fundraising stalls
Asda – donations to a local school
Santander – ‘Social Enterprise Development Award’
RBS – ‘NatWest Community Force’
etc.
And we are thankful.
Of course…
In partnership with:
But what else might be done?
See what is being done elsewhere
• Barclays, in different countries - Supports young people starting their own
businesses
• RBS, in India - Sponsors community setting up an eco-tourism centre
• BP, in Egypt – Offers technical skills training programme
• Allianz, in Romania - Provides vocational training for 16-18 year olds at
technical college
• Tesco, in South Korea - Funds 107 schools of extended education (total
940,000 (!!) places)
In partnership with:
The scale of the challenge in London and Enfield:
Un/Employment, Graduates and NEETs
• National unemployment: 8.4% and rising fast (c.f. ONS, 15 February 2012)
(London average – 10%: second highest in UK) (c.f. ONS, 15 February 2012)
ENFIELD OVERALL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE = 11% !!
• Youth Unemployment (aged 16-24): 22.2% across UK (c.f. ONS, 15 February 2012)
(London average>23% in autumn ‘11 – higher now!)
• Graduates: 27.7% across UK without full-time jobs after three years
(c.f. BBC, 2 Sept. 2011)
• NEETs in Enfield: aged 16-18 > 5%
aged 16-24 >20%
In partnership with:
The scale of the challenge in Enfield:
Un/Employment, Graduates and NEETs (cont.)
• Total number of people looking for work in Enfield has risen by 17.9 per cent
in the past year to 10,721
• Just 1,296 vacancies for people to apply for in Enfield vs 10,721 jobseekers
• Across London 233,673 people are looking for work vs.32,843 vacancies
• Nr. young people out of work (18-24 years, claiming Job Seekers Allowance
for 6 months) in Enfield has risen by 156 per cent in the past year to 770.
• The number of young people out of work of across London is now over 1 mio
Source http://joannemccartney.co.uk/2012 (20 January 2012), usi ng JobCentre Plus statistics
In partnership with:
Economic and Social Responsibilities go together
• "We believe that our status as leader in the Romanian
insurance market obliges us to be socially active over
the long term... We hope our project will be exemplary
in showing that companies with economic goals and
interests also have a social responsibility towards
the market or area they are operating in.”
Christian Constantinescu, Director, Allianz-Tiriac
Insurance.
In partnership with:
The opportunity (and need) for deeper CSR in
Enfield
Supporting youth training and local employment:
Putting people at the heart of CSR
After all, business also benefits from an upgraded workforce (advanced skill set;
higher productivity; greater creativity)
One example:
October 2012 LBE/Southgate College Environmental Techniques Fair
• Tomorrow’s industries:
- environmental construction (refurbishment, new technologies)
- complex products and infrastructure (electric vehicles; fibre optics)
In partnership with:
Investing in workers to drive industrial regeneration
The LB Enfield Initiatives
Local regeneration and tailoring policies to
meet local aims
Cllr Del Goddard
Cabinet Member for Business and Regeneration
LB Enfield
In partnership with:
Local regeneration and tailoring policies
to meet local aims
• What is local
• Understanding the historical wealth of Enfield
• Mitigating and utilising external policies and
strategies
• The current approach
The LB Enfield Initiatives
Harnessing finance to foster economic growth
Cllr Andrew Stafford
Cabinet Member for Finance & Property
LB Enfield
In partnership with:
What’s going wrong in Enfield
• The Borough has been starved of finance from
governments over the last 30 years
• Europe has failed to play its part in economic
regeneration in Enfield
• Large business have only been concerned with
private profit not the ‘Public Good’.
In partnership with:
The 7th Cavalry are not coming……….
In partnership with:
It’s going to be down to Enfield to get finance
In partnership with:
Daring to think……………………..
“The conventional view serves to protect us
from the painful business of thinking.”
John Kenneth Galbraith
In partnership with:
Where is the finance coming from?
Traditional methods
• Government – No it’s probably going to be reduced.
• Land sales
• The Council’s cash reserves – already committed
and spent.
• Partnership with the private sector
In partnership with:
So where is the finance coming from ?
Some radical ideas
• Wealth distribution –taxing central London to finance
regeneration in deprived areas within London
• Relaxing local government planning regulations to aid land
sales.
• Taxing Companies locally where they are exploiting ‘the Free
Rider Principle’ where businesses do not contribute to the
‘public good’ of the Enfield local economy.
• Unlocking the resources contained in Pension Funds
In partnership with:
Leading the way – we are ready to jump
In partnership with:
Breakout sessions:
The Enfield Initiatives
1. Local procurement, CSR, Business Trusts, Clearing House
for Entrepreneurs. Session facilitated by Johnna
Montgomerie, CRESC
2. Social Enterprise, Collaborative Utility Charges,
Collaborative Purchasing. Session facilitated by Andrew
Bowman, CRESC
3. Bond Issue, Pension Funds, Equity Release and Banking
charges. Session facilitated by Adam Leaver, MBS and
CRESC
In partnership with:
So what can work for Enfield?
Reports by facilitators from breakout
sessions
In partnership with:
Overview
David Bailey
Chair of Regional Studies Association and
Coventry University Business School
In partnership with:
Reflections on today
• Manufacturing – ‘rebalancing’
• Broader Economy
• Shift from RDAs to LEPs; ‘localism’ agenda where does it leave us?
In partnership with:
1. Manufacturing
• Manufacturing output contracted by 15% during the recession.
• In late 2009, our survey work with Deloitte highlighted 3 key
issues: Growth in export markets, skills and credit availability
• These could help the UK rebalance its economy and export its
way out of recession: BUT need for a more supportive
industrial policy
• What actually happened over 2008 – 2011 ?
• 7.4% fall in GDP, unemployment didn’t rise as much as in
previous recessions
In partnership with:
Firms’ Responses to Recession
– Revenue generation; cost reduction; or asset reduction.
– Cost control – but different to past recessions:
– Labour hoarding, pay freezes, limits on overtime, shorttime working, recruitment freezes, banking of hours, pay
cuts, reduced shift-patterns, more flexible working, and
use of fixed-term, temporary and agency staff,
tele/remote working where possible.
– SMEs: revenue generating activities.
In partnership with:
Manufacturing
2010-11 2010-11
Manufacturing
• Rapid ‘bounce back’ until early 2011: around a half of the
manufacturing output fall had been recovered.
Depreciation of sterling helped.
• Confidence: PMI held up above 50 until early 2011.
• BUT manufacturing growth ran out of steam over 2011: Big
fall in PMI; by Q3 below 50. Why?
• Figures deceived anyway, plus...
• UK: squeeze in real incomes, consumer confidence, plus
fiscal squeeze.
• Externally: Eurozone, US, world economy?
In partnership with:
Spare Capacity?
• Spare capacity so manufacturers able to increase output
rather than prices, but for how long?
• How much capacity was lost or will be lost for good? If
capacity loss significant then capacity limit will be hit
sooner rather than later.
• Risk that prolonged weak demand will make temporary
losses in output structural and permanent.
• GROWTH and INVESTMENT is critical
In partnership with:
IfIf we
to to
‘rebalance’
the economy...
wereally
reallywant
want
‘rebalance’
the
economy...
• Industrial Policy targeted at manufacturing
• Capital allowances
• Focus corporation tax cuts for manufacturing firms that
increase output
• National insurance holidays for firms that take on workers
• Better R&D tax credits
• Better support for exporters
• Manufacturing loan fund? (Automotive – Relocalisation /
Repatriation of supply chain)
• Green Investment Bank?
In partnership with:
2. Broader Economic Issues
• Level of demand in the UK economy: impact of fiscal
tightening. Assumption...
• ‘Balance Sheet recession’ (Japanese experience) + ‘Paradox
of Thrift’ + ‘Prisoners’ dilemma’?
• Money Supply – M4 falling – need for more ‘QE’ ? (‘PLAN
A+’?)
• ‘credit easing’ ? (bank lending - £9.6 bn in 2011)
• Level of Sterling?
In partnership with:
Summary
Summary
• Macro position worse than looks? (lost decade?)
• Manufacturing slowed down in 2011: retail,
services?
• Headwinds from international economy
• Consumers squeezed
• Makes it difficult for growth ‘plan’ to stack up –
deficit reduction?
• Autumn Statement: ‘Plan A+’ enough??
In partnership with:
4. From
RDAs to LEPs
4. From RDAs
to LEPs
• ‘Old’ system of RDAs not perfect BUT...
• Proposals do not make clear what regional
growth drivers / levers LEPs will be able to
influence
• What’s the Offer? Localism bill, RGF,
Enterprise Zones, faster planning...
In partnership with:
Recentralisation / Decentralisation
 Current proposals imply a substantial
recentralisation to Whitehall
 Centralised industrial policy not likely to work
 LEPs: transport, housing, planning, enterprise (?)
 Skills? Business engagement?
 RGF big cut in funding – need scope for LEPs to
raise own finance (TiFs / Business Rates?); slow;
lack of transparency
 RDAs assets  back to Whitehall / HCA.
In partnership with:
Cont’d...
 Risk of excessive fragmentation – functional
economic geography?
 Capability/capacity to make strategically
informed decisions on economic
development?
 Need for ‘intermediate level’: Intelligence,
monitoring, accessing EU funding, regional
planning, clusters and innovation
In partnership with:
Summary
• LEPs need genuine powers and the ability to raise funding:
for some cities, govt listening?
• Right scale? Intermediate ‘join up’ of work of LEPs between
local and national level critical to use public monies
effectively – minimum: intelligence and info gathering base,
pursuing effective cluster and innovation strategies and
accessing EU funding
• ‘Duty to cooperate’? (Draft NPPF)
In partnership with:
What can be done locally?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘presumption of competence’ – ‘proceed until apprehended’
‘well being powers’
Chance of greater revenue raising powers?
Bond issuing – local authority pension funds (change rules?)
2010: Local Authority Pension Funds Assets: £161 bn
1% = £1.6bn + fee saver: +£300m  £1.9bn a year for 5 years
Enterprise Zones: keep business rates, and B’ham; borrow against rateable
value to raise money for econ development
• TiFs – but dangers?
• Procurement Policy – intelligent, local where possible, small firms,
encourage private firms
• Wealth tax? Duke of Westminster: 2009: £26.5bn  £30 bn: additional
‘freehold tax’ of 1.1%?
In partnership with:
Thanks for listening.
• Comments, Questions welcome!
[email protected]
In partnership with:
Overview
Dan Milmo
Industrial Editor
The Guardian
In partnership with:
Next Steps for Enfield
Rob Leak
Chief Executive
LB Enfield
Doug Taylor
Leader of the Council
LB Enfield
In partnership with: