If Politicians of all parties were prepared to build on one anothers hard work, there would be a great deal less waste and even in a time of austerity there would be more resources available to solve the real problems we all face. I have written previously about the schemes that were literally thrown in a skip when the coalition came to office. I am certain the same is true of Labour in 1997, although I did not have friends in the Westminster of the late 1990’s so can only speculate. I have also written before about my concern at the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies and Regional Assemblies by the coalition. It now transpires that my concerns were well founded. According to a report by the Smith Institute, a think tank established in the name of John Smith who died 20 years ago this month, the RDAs did a good job of raising economic growth in the ‘poorer’ regions at a rate that was comparable of the rate of growth in the ‘richer’ regions. This levelling up or maintenance of the existing disparity has since been eclipsed with the poorer regions performing less well than those with already stronger economies.

However the running of the RDAs was an expensive business, and the Assemblies too, but they brought a coherence to strategic planning that has retreated back to a distant Whitehall, that is a great deal less accountable to local people than the Regional Assemblies were. Whitehall decision making takes place behind closed doors unlike the planning processes for the Regional Assemblies, and the people concerned are not elected by you and I to take responsibility for what happens in our place of residence. This means that although there was always a distancing from collective responsibility by those who were members of the Regional Assembly (Henry Smith, then leader of West Sussex County Council was particularly guilty of this), that in the end the Regional Plan and the Local Plans did have some level of coherence.

The report by the Smith Institute has argued that it would be a mistake to destroy the good work carried out under this Government in establishing the LEPs (Local Economic Partnerships replace RDAs in some senses, although most work at a much more local level) and instead an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach is needed. This is less about ideology and more about pragmatism. However the authors want to see more planning power going to the LEPs and it is clear that an incoming Labour Government (several shadow Ministers have written parts of this report) will not replace them with different bodies, but instead do as I suggested in my first sentence of this blog. This is very welcome but what is vital is that if these bodies are to be given greater powers, that the existing calls for voluntary sector involvement is heeded. LEPs are meant to be business led bodies, and yet they have a substantial level of local Government involvement. The report is calling for them to remain small, so those invited to participate bringing the voice of voluntary sector into the frame will have to work very hard. LEPs also need to become a great deal more transparent than has been the case so far. It is encouraging that this report recognises this. It will be interesting to see if a future Conservative Government will respond positively to these ideas, rather than rubbishing them!