Cities and Local Growth inquiry
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“First report Report: Cities and local growth Report with oral evidence: Cities and local growth (PDF 672KB) Government response (External PDF 1.00MB) Second report Report: Devolution in England: governance, financial accountability and following the taxpayer pound Report: Devolution in England: governance, financial accountability and following the taxpayer pound (PDF 340KB) Government response (External PDF 860KB) In England, local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and businesses set up in 2011 by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to help determine local economic priorities and lead economic growth and job creation within the local area. The role and remit of 'Local Enterprise Partnerships' (LEPs) 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 (NAO). 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 could be difficult to assess how they have contributed to economic growth. LEPs themselves have serious reservations The NAO have published a report which concluded 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 required 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. The Public Accounts Committee has previously looked at local economic growth in 2014. Devolution in England Related to the approach to economic devolution, the government has also announced a series of devolution deals from late 2014 onwards, devolving powers, funding and accountability to local areas, mostly coming together as combined authorities. Bids were invited from across the country within the Treasury’s Spending Review timetable. The National Audit Office is drafting an early-stage report that describes the scope of the deals announced to date, and assesses government's role in coordinating and evaluating the devolution bids it has received. It will also consider some of the implications and risks of the new arrangements in terms of accountability and value for money. The PAC will consider this report on the reports publication and hold an inquiry alongside the hearing on LEPs.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
Since 2010 the Government has devolved powers, funding and responsibility to local areas through a variety of means. The last six years have seen the creation of 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships and the agreement of 28 City Deals, 39 Growth Deals and ten devolution deals. This has resulted in rapid change in the local government landscape and the roles and remits of many of the bodies involved. There is wide support for the principle of devolving powers from the centre to local areas, which are often best placed to identify and respond to the needs of local people. However, we are concerned that not all devolution deals are coherent: they lack clear objectives; and are not aligned geographically with other policies or local bodies. There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution. We are clear that while devolution is driven by political decisions, this does not absolve central government departments of exercising sufficient and effective oversight of implementation. This is an untested policy and there are clear tensions emerging, with evidence of some devolution deals already beginning to unravel. As the devolution agenda progresses, in order to maximise the prospects for success, we will want to see greater clarity from government about what they are hoping to achieve and stronger consideration of the issues we highlight in this report.
What the government said
32nd Report: Devolution in England: governance, financial accountability and following the taxpayer pound
No government response is linked to this report.
6th Report - Cities and local growth
No government response is linked to this report.
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 5 April 2016 to its close on 4 January 2018.
- Oral evidence 25 Apr 2016
- Report 2 reports
- Correspondence 18 Jul 2016
What it recommended
The committee's recommendations are not listed here yet. Read them in 32nd Report: Devolution in England: governance, financial accountability and following the taxpayer pound ↗ and 6th Report - Cities and local growth ↗ on parliament.uk.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 25 Apr 2016No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗