RELOCATION


transport connections where the workforce enjoys better working conditions and an improved quality of life. There is no reason why these benefits cannot be realised at the same time.


However, the Lyons relocation programme showed that this does not happen automatically.


The programme that commenced in 2004 delivered on its target of 20,000 jobs relocated out of London and the south east but was less successful at bringing efficiency savings and regeneration benefits.


That is according to Ian Smith’s independent review of civil service relocation published in March. For us in Leicestershire, one finding stands out. The East Midlands had the lowest level of reported relocations of any English region.


The Smith Review analysed the key drivers for relocation, the challenges, the potential benefits of relocation and a number of case studies, including the relocation of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to Coventry, a short hop along the M69 from Leicester.


The review considers the scope for more civil service relocations in the medium term, looking at government departments, non- ministerial departments (such as the Food Standards Agency), executive agencies (such as Jobcentre Plus) and executive non-departmental public bodies (such as the Care Quality Commission).


The Smith Review concluded that there remains considerable scope for further relocations out of London (but not the south east). In the first Budget of 2010, the then chancellor announced that the government accepted Ian Smith’s recommendations, including reducing the number


Sep/Oct 10


of civil servants in London by a third over the next 10 years, and relocating 15,000 jobs out of London within five years.


The focus of relocation out of London should be to 21st century, scale efficient, competitive and fit-for-purpose public sector clusters in the regions – though not necessarily to a single campus or city.


In Leicestershire, we are already making progress to prepare the city and county for such relocations and working with East Midlands Development Agency to make the case that this area is a good fit for key clusters.


We welcome the


recommendation of greater transparency and longer term planning in departmental relocation plans to help the regions improve how they bid for decentralised activity. As one of the most multicultural cities in Europe, we are pleased that the review highlights the need to continue to improve the diversity of the civil service.


The review describes this as a key consideration at the organisational level when relocations are planned and at the strategic level when considering the optimum relocation of civil service activity within each region.


The review recommends that regions should plan more strategically and take a longer- term view on the types of activity they wish to bid for. Regions should target relocation activity that complement existing capabilities, enhance regional competitive advantage, encourage private sector investment and exploit the synergies with the wider public sector in their region.


We must not just lobby for jobs but be specific about how we


will create campuses and scale efficient clusters that build regional competitiveness.


Of course, there will remain an element of uncertainty over how these recommendations will be implemented until the new government endorses the plans.


It is clear that Leicester and Leicestershire have a strong case to attract relocations and that this could bring significant economic and regeneration benefits for the sub-region.


So we will be closely involved in developing the regional case for relocation to the East Midlands. We are developing the case for relocation to Leicester and Leicestershire, including updating a commissioned report on the subject and revising factsheets of relocation data.


We are also identifying the property offer and potential clusters and campuses to be promoted as part of our campaign to attract relocating civil service organisations. Potential locations include the city’s new business quarter around the main rail station, science parks at Loughborough and Leicester, business parks and an innovation centre in the county.


As we identify the appropriate property offer to attract civil service organisations, we are considering the criteria outlined in the Smith Review, for modern, fit for purpose general government office space.


In developing the case for relocation to Leicester and Leicestershire, we must show that it will:


a) Help diversify the local economy;


b)Not make the area too reliant on the public sector, nor


pse 31


displace private sector activity;


c) Bring greater confidence to the local property market, unlock further development activity (hotels, theatre, restaurants, offices and housing developments) and attract private sector investment;


d)Support urban regeneration


e) Bring employment opportunities and create additional local jobs;


f) Help develop the core skills and enhance the sub-region’s competitive advantage;


g) Improve the general local economic confidence and confirm the underlying priority of the sub-regional economic strategy of moving away from traditional manufacturing industries towards more knowledge-based hi-tech industries and services, providing a wider choice of jobs for the graduates from the sub-region’s three universities;


h)Contribute to the development of linked clusters of activity in the region.


This requires a considerable amount of work to be done, but it is work we are committed to doing well. Public sector relocation has the potential to bring economic and regeneration advantage for those areas receiving relocating government activity, and we are determined that Leicester and Leicestershire should share in those benefits.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68