COMMENT
Growth Background S
ince the Treasury’s response in March of this year to Lord Heseltine’s report ‘No
Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth’ (October 2012) it has become clear that the Government is starting to put its money where its mouth is in terms of localism. Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) were given a boost last autumn with the confi rmation that core funding of up to £250,000 would be available to each LEP for the next two fi nancial years. Central government has made it clear that LEPs should be using this time to negotiate longer term funding deals (Growth Deals) to begin in 2015 when the Local Growth Fund, championed by Michael Heseltine but smaller than he would have liked, goes live.
Governance
“ The scope of the Public Sector Equality Duty is wider than many decision makers appreciate…”
Whilst central government has said that it is not necessary to have constant monitoring of LEPs, the Guidance shows that it will become increasingly important to have properly documented partnership arrangements to give confi dence in the ability of the partners to provide strong leadership and effective governance.
The Guidance mentions ‘democratic accountability’ on numerous occasions and acknowledges that this can only be through the elected members of the LEPs. At the same time, the Strategic Economic Plan that will
be used to negotiate an area’s Growth Deal must show that the private sector is on board, without allowing any single contributor to have too much control.
The challenges that were laid down in the All Party Parliamentary Group ‘Where Next for LEPs?’ are the same ones that we are now seeing in the latest guidance on Growth Deals and European and Structural and Investment Funds (published in July 2013).
For LEPs to ensure maximum success in the bidding for the Local Growth Fund and the next round of EU funds, they will have to show a level of joined-up working, accountability and leveraging in of support from the private sector that in many cases goes beyond what LEPs are currently doing. But this is achievable by negotiating a good Growth Deal with central government. A possible sticking point for many LEPs will be demonstrating acceptable levels of accountability, given the very light- touch approach that central government has adopted (as demonstrated in its July response to the report by the BIS Committee on LEPs). Moreover, accountability doesn’t stop at those issues highlighted in the Guidance. This article looks at four areas of ‘accountability’, assesses the threat posed to the successful operation of an LEP, and how the risk might be managed.
20 | public sector executive Sep/Oct 13
From a local authority’s perspective, these are some considerations that may help in planning their involvement:
• Assess the current arrangements between the LEP and the local authority acting as the accountable body against the delivery criteria set out in the Guidance to see whether anything needs to be changed or improved;
• Plan to have arrangements in place dealing with confl icts, whistle blowing, declaration of interests, decision making, delegation, access to and disclosure of information;
• Continue to show prudent use of public money as part of their own obligations;
• Consider how they can pool resources, rationalise assets and promote economic development (and this includes the smaller district councils), as the Guidance suggests will be looked on favourably;
• Take a long-term and strategic assessment of
deals for LEPs
Threats to the accountability of LEPs and how to manage the big four – by Sue Chadwick, corporate lawyer at Essex City Council, and Anja Beriro, part of the government and infrastructure team at law fi rm Browne Jacobson LLP.
their own aims and objectives and then talk to their LEP partners, and possibly those in other LEPs as well, to ensure that such things can be planned into individual strategies;
• Consider how the governance structure of a shared services arrangement (the Guidance encourages these) could include elements of the work that the local authorities will do for the LEP;
• Consider whether a combined authority would be the best way to show strong accountability over the whole LEP area. This may not be appropriate, particularly where local authority boundaries span two LEPs, so what other joint decision-making structure could work?
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)
This duty – or more specifi cally, lack of compliance with this duty – is a live and enduring issue, most commonly in the context of cases such as South Tyneside1
where a local
authority considers changes to a service such as provision of care homes.
The scope of PSED is wider than many decision makers appreciate, and could potentially affect decisions made by or on behalf of a LEP.
The PSED is contained in s149 of the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any ‘public authority’ in the ‘exercise of its functions’. LEPs are not included within the list of public authorities specifi ed in Schedule 19 of that Act.
However, the meaning of ‘public function’ is broadly defi ned, with reference to its use within the context of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Where an LEP has made a decision involving the use of public funding, and needs a further decision by a local authority acting as its ‘Accountable Body’ to take that decision forward, it should ensure that the local authority in question has made that decision in compliance with the PSED.
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84