Agenda item

(i)        Report of the Interim Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth.

(ii)       Presentation by the Vice-Chair of the County Durham Economic Partnership. 

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy & Growth which provided an overview of the County Durham Economic Partnership (CDEP), including detail of governance arrangements, priorities identified, current activity and future plans (for copy of report and slides of presentation see file of Minutes).

The Chair welcomed S Parkinson, Vice-Chair of the CDEP who was in attendance to provide a presentation on the work of the partnership including detail of:

·         The role of the CDEP Board and it’s key areas of activity

·         Partnership and collaboration work; including detail on the Shared Prosperity Fund and;

·         Future priorities

Councillor Earley raised a point regarding the Shared Prosperity Fund guidance, and commented that he understood that it requires environmental/green topics/areas to be taken into account. He asked whether his interpretation was correct.

In response S Parkinson advised that his reading of this was correct and the CDEP was obliged to follow the guidance. She added that the partnership had an eye on net zero on everything they did. She further went on to provide some detail surrounding how the fund operates around the three core themes which are focused around 41 investment priorities where SPF can be invested and that within the three core themes there are green areas.  She gave an example of DCC and the partnership taking a joint decision to focus on business start-ups then DCC with the support of the partnership could say that any proposals would need to understand the opportunities for Net Zero. However, there were some questions over how this would be commissioned, and whilst we want to support the start-up of any business, there was a challenge there as to how net zero was built into this.

S Parkinson reported that an event had been scheduled for the business community in respect of the Shared Prosperity Fund on 4 July 2022 and that a member briefing on the subject arranged for 8 July 2022.

Mrs M Morris, Co-optee noted that she was not aware of the event planned on 4 July and if possible, would like to be forwarded the link for invitation to attend. In addition, she asked that detail on the members briefing being held at County Hall also be forwarded to her. She furthermore asked why there was no representation from schools on the Partnership and in addition, in terms of new businesses a skills audit would be useful to help determine what skills businesses needed in the future.

In response S Parkinson advised that the 4 July event was for both partners and stakeholders and she would be happy to include Co-optees in the invitation. In response to other points made, she explained that membership was not in her gift to amend, however took the point on board regarding education representation at school level and advised that she would feed this back to the partnership board. With regard to skills audits she acknowledged and appreciated how difficult the skills agenda is, noting this was a national issue and is also about the economy rebalancing. In terms of how the CDEP were addressing this she explained that opportunities were currently being reviewed, looking at opportunities in the UK SPF to undertake a piece of audit work.

Councillor McKeon asked several questions, the first being in relation to Trade Union engagement/representation on the partnership board, a query regarding transport being a barrier to employment particularly in rural areas, who could attend the UK SPF event on the 4 July and a further query regarding innovation, business ideas generated at Durham University and how these were being translated into business opportunities.

In response S Parkinson advised that the event on the 4 July is open for anyone to attend who has an interest in the UK SPF.  She continued that transport was an important topic, however explained the issues arose due to bus companies being privately operated businesses, driven by profit. She added that without subsidy it was difficult for the partnership to address this topic. In response to the question and translating ideas into business opportunities, she provided an explanation as to how the partnership were able to support, influence and provide the vehicle to progress business ideas, including support provided through DurhamWorks. It was further asked whether any data was available on the economic benefits of Durham Works and S Parkinson advised that she could provide this data outside of the meeting.  She confirmed that the Partnership Board does not have TU representation and assured members that she would raise this with the Board. 

At this point the Chair commented that he was concerned that the partnership sets the economic strategy across the county however DCC has its own economic strategy how do they fit together.

S Parkinson responded that it is about ensuring that the separate strategies align.

The Chair then raised several questions relating to targeted outcomes, asking what was being done to address the below average economic performance of the county and suggested that in relation to the Shared Prosperity Fund that more focused work, investment and monitoring needed to be undertaken with funding focused on a small number of larger projects.  

In addition, he acknowledged the current skills shortage and asked as to whether the committee could work with the partnership to find out what work is currently taking place to link schools, FE colleges and universities with employers. He further made a point of clarification regarding the way in which the strategy was determined by Cabinet.

S Parkinson responded that the partnership is not an organisation, it is very much a partnership, a group who have an interest in the economy of County Durham, looking at doing things differently to achieve better outcomes.  She continued that DCC’s economic strategy is different from the County’s Economic Strategy and continued that the partnership is driven by outcomes and has collective responsibility.  She confirmed that in relation to the SPF, she would not want this funding spread too thinly and that the partnership’s advice would be to concentrate funding on few and big rather than many and small. 

Councillor Abley asked as to how the work of the partnership is currently translated into business opportunities.

In response, S Parkinson commented that the partnership has no money and no direct control over money/resources and that they can only influence partners.  She continued that out of the European Programme, the DurhamWorks Programme (DWP) had been funded.  She continued that this programme had existed because of EU funding allocated to the county which was the result of extensive lobbying.  The DWP programme has created opportunities for 1000s of young people in the county and she suggested that members look at the Durham Enable website.  She continued that the programme had given opportunities to those that need it most, to find education, training and employment.

Cllr Abley commented that he was not familiar with the DWP and could the information on the programme, the benefits to the county in pounds and jobs created be forwarded to him.

S Parkinson agreed to send all the outcome data on the DWP following the meeting.

Councillor Jackson asked as to whether the partnership has any targets and key performance indicators and if so could they be shared following the meeting. In addition, he referred to previous comments regarding transport and more specifically into enterprise parks and queried whether those business parks had ever been approached to consider subsidising transport links to their sites.

The Managing Director, Business Durham responded that the partnership does have key performance indicators and she would be happy to share those with members.  She continued that in relation to transport to business parks, this topic had been discussed with business groups previously, noting that suggestions had been made about car sharing and companies working together however questions remained over whether the number to sustain routes would be there and also how this impacted upon net zero targets. She advised that work was ongoing looking at different options and conversations are taking place at NETPark to actively explore solutions.

Councillor Surtees expressed her thanks for the presentation noting her admiration for the Vice-Chairs passion and drive on this this topic. She noted however that the Shared Prosperity Fund was going to be a huge challenge for County Durham going forward, the County would not receive what was originally promised and the figure had been significantly diluted and is nowhere near the amount of funding the county would have received via EU funding.  It would be important to maximise on that limited funding, to do the best for the people of County Durham. In response S Parkinson agreed that the SPF did come with challenges noting that people and skills money could not be accessed until year 3 and of course more funding would be preferable, but ultimately Cabinet would determine its priorities for the allocation of this funding source.

The Chair at this point suggested that the committee write to the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holders to request that when the UK SPF investment plan proposals are developed that this information is shared with the committee for their views and comments. 

Resolved:

(1)  That the content of the report and presentation be noted.

(2)  That the Committee write to the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holders and request that when the UK SPF investment plan proposals are developed that this information is shared with the members of the committee at a future meeting, for comment.