Stunted ambitions

December 7, 2012 8:13 am

Lord Heseltine’s report, No Stone Unturned paints a vivid picture of the problems that have characterised our economy for decades: comparatively low productivity, skills gaps, and poor translation of basic research into goods and services.

But the issue his report brings most to light is the staggering scale of regional inequalities of growth and income. Britain has the biggest disparities between regions of any of our major competitors – and is the most unequal of any EU country. GDP per head in the richest region of our country is nine times greater than in the poorest (in Germany, the gap is a third).

And this gap is widening, not shrinking. Since the 2008 global recession began, poorer areas have seen income per head fall twice as fast as in the wealthiest. In London alone, the richest 10% have 273 times the wealth of the poorest 10%. It is shocking. But it’s not just unfair, and not just corrosive of social solidarity. It is holding our economy back, and the impact affects us all.

What can be done? At the heart of the 89 recommendations in Lords Heseltine’s report are three central principles he urges on the government.

First, the indispensible need for a growth strategy. This, says Lord Heseltine, “must send a loud and unequivocal message to the country that the government takes growth seriously and has a credible strategy”.  I think it is fair to say that so far the Coalition has sent not so much a “loud and unequivocal message” as something oscillating between a mumble and total silence. We urgently need an industrial strategy. But this government, sadly, refuses to get one.

Heseltine’s second principle is the importance of devolution of policy responsibility to our regions and localities. His report details a familiar story of excessive centralism, Whitehall silos and a patchwork approach to regional policy. He recommends devolution of funding, moving to a single funding pot, for which Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) could bid.

We should encourage imaginative ideas about rationalising and decentralising funding streams. What a shame then that the bodies that would have been best suited to bear the weight of this agenda, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), were hastily scrapped two years ago – in a move that, as Lord Heseltine himself said last year, provides yet another example of short-sightedness in industrial policy.

Earlier this week we heard that the government is minded to make some progress towards single pot funding for LEPs. This could be promising. But for such funding to work, the bodies that power is devolved to must have the capacity to do the job properly. Yet concerns about LEPs governance, their ability to leverage funding, whether they have procurement/contract management skills, underrepresentation of SMEs are widespread. Building up this capacity is a crucial precondition for any serious attempt to build regional growth strategies.

But worries about LEPs seem positively minor compared to the concerns about the Regional Growth Fund that replaced the RDA system. This Fund aimed to create 330,000 jobs in its first year. In the end, it created 40,000. Two years into its life, only £60m of the £1.4bn allocated has actually reached the front-line. About half a billion is parked in banks and local authorities’ accounts, doing not much for growth at all. The Public Accounts Committee said its value-for-money was “scandalous”.  Everyone outside the Coalition agrees: it needs a fundamental overhaul.

The final principle at the heart of No Stone Unturned is a belief that active government, far from being the enemy of enterprise and growth, is indispensible to it. Lord Heseltine stood up for this idea when it was deeply unfashionable under a Tory government in the 1980s, just as Peter Mandelson stood up for it in the last few years of the Labour government when it was equally unfashionable.  If there is one legacy of this excellent report for all of us, I hope it is that we rid ourselves of the prejudice that an active industrial strategy is bad economics, and the error of believing that a laisser-faire approach is good economics.

Lord Stewart Wood of Anfield is Minister without Portfolio in the Shadow Cabinet and a frontbench Labour Peer. his article first appeared at the Labour Lords blog

 

  • Martinay

    It’s sad and bad that Stewart hopes “we rid ourselves of.. the error of believing that a laissez faire approach is good economics”.

    Sad because it means that a fair number of leading party members have not understood that world has changed since the 2008 crash. That change means that policies that were right or inevitable then are no longer right or inevitable (e.g. light touch regulation of the City).

    Bad because it means those members are only paying lip service to the party’s call for responsible capitalism and One Nation.

Latest

  • Comment Reaching new communities

    Reaching new communities

    This article is from Our Labour, Our Communities – a pamphlet of 10 essays by Labour PPCs, published by LabourList in partnership with Lisa Nandy MP. I am proud to be standing as the candidate for my hometown of Hastings & Rye, but I am equally proud to stand as a parliamentary candidate who is also half Chinese and half British. My mother is Chinese Malaysian and came to this country 41 years ago to be a nurse in Hastings and continues to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue. Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Lord Ashcroft has told him he shouldn’t have done it in 2010. Lynton Crosby has told him not to do it in 2015. It’s no surprise that David Cameron is trying to wriggle out of televised leader debates during the General Election – even though he has said he is willing to take part “in principle”. Time perhaps to dust off one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite barbs “He’s frit.” Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 to try to goad John Major into […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    By Stephen Timms MP and Ian Murray MP The Christmas period reminds us that modern life can be busy, hurried and demanding. The pressures of work, demands of family life and hectic Christmas schedules can prove stretching as we juggle competing demands. Increasingly the need for flexible work is driven by the complex shape of people’s lives; as parents go to work, struggle to make ends meet, perform career roles, take their children to school and activities and try and carve […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    As the start of the long campaign begins today, curbing the amount of money parties can spend between now and May 7th, Labour MP Jon Ashworth has sought to clarify what precautions are being taken to ensure publicly-funded government advisers are not using their time campaigning. Ashworth has sent a letter to senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood, asking him to answer a number of questions about what kind of campaigning activity was permitted and undertaken by special advisers (SpAds) in […]

    Read more →