Agenda item

There will be a powerpoint presentation by the Director and Vice Chair of the LLEP for this item.  The Leader of the Council has also been invited to attend.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which provided an update on the governance and function of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP), including recent changes following the Government’s review.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 14’ is filed with these minutes.

The Director of the LLEP, Mandip Rai, and Vice Chairman, Andy Reed, gave a presentation on the emerging priorities, consultation process and approval timeline for the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Industrial Strategy (LIS).  A copy of the slides forming the presentation is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman also welcomed Mr N J Rushton CC, Leader of the County Council and the Council’s representative on the LLEP Board, to the meeting for this item.

Arising from discussion and questions the following points were raised:-

(i)          It was confirmed that the LLEP involvement in the business rates pool was to manage the fund.  Only the nine local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire that contributed to the pool were able to bid for funds from it.  This year, approximately £22 million was available but bids totalling £80 million had been received.  The local authorities would therefore be asked to prioritise their bids before they were assessed by an officer group.  The officer group would then make recommendations to a panel comprising the four elected members who served on the LLEP: the Leader of the County Council, City Mayor and two district council representatives.

(ii)         The operational financial position of the LLEP was healthy, with the key issue being where future growth funding would come from.  The LLEP managed £250 million of public money, all of which was committed to various projects and schemes,  Its running costs, including staffing, were met by the £0.5 million core funding it received from the government and the £250,000 match funding provided by local authorities.  The LLEP had 26 members of staff.  This was a relatively high number but reflected that work was not usually outsourced. Funds to support programme management were top sliced from relevant budgets. 

(iii)       Between 2014 and 2019, 30,000 jobs had been created in Leicestershire.  It was not known how many of these were full time and the data was not readily available.  However, it was known that less than 7,000 people were currently on out of work benefits.  Although positive, this created a challenge in terms of the recruitment of local people when new jobs were created.

(iv)       The LIS had to respond to four Grand Challenges which had been set by the Government.  The evidence gathered to develop the LIS demonstrated that the additional local challenges to growth were the relatively low wages and levels of productivity, low levels of graduate retention and the profile of local businesses.  97% of these were Small and Medium Enterprises, mostly employing under five people.  The LIS would seek to address these challenges through attracting investment and developing skills in areas such as science and space technology, to match the profile of the enterprise zones.

(v)        The strength of partnership working on the LLEP was welcomed.  LLEP directors had a positive attitude to their differences and were working collaboratively on the wider strategic issues affecting the city and county.  It was noted that female representation on the Board was an issue and the LLEP had set a target for a third of the Board to be female by next year.  There were difficulties in encouraging people to put themselves forward as it was an unpaid position and required a time commitment.

(vi)       LLEP funds tended to be directed to support areas which were not growing as fast.  Every project had to demonstrate that it would deliver economic benefits for Leicester and Leicestershire.  The wide range of partners involved in the LLEP had given strength to the evidence base used to support decisions.

(vii)     The purpose of the LIS was to act as a framework; it would not set out details of projects to be taken forward.  All partners had been involved in its development, including through roundtable discussions.  Work was also underway to establish a youth panel.  However, a deliberate decision had been taken not to undertake public consultation.  Wider consultation with partners would take place once the Government’s views on the LIS were known.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the report and presentation on the governance and function of the LLEP and development of the LIS be noted;

(b)  That officers be requested to provide the Commission with an annual update on the work of the LLEP.