Business leaders react to Lord Heseltine’s Rebalancing Britain plan Bill Gleeson reports

LORD Heseltine made one of his frequent return visits to Liverpool last week.

He is without doubt the city’s favourite Tory, seen as responsible for kick-starting the local economy after the Toxteth riots of 1981.

But last week’s return visit was a bit different from the numerous others that have gone before. This time, he was not here to see the ongoing progress of the city or to receive the adulation of grateful local dignitaries.

Instead Lord Heseltine was here with former Tesco’s chief executive Sir Terry Leahy to launch a plan for the next phase of the sub-region’s economic development.

The plan Rebalancing Britain: Policy or Slogan? seems to see Liverpool as a test bed for ideas that, if successful, could be repeated in other major provincial cities.

Ideas contained in the plan include an elected mayor, locating the proposed green investment bank in the city, staging an international expo, moving civil service jobs to the city and harnessing the potential of the city’s universities and other research resources.

One idea is to merge the region’s various chambers of commerce into a single city region chamber. Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry argue this would strengthen the leadership potential of the private sector in the region, which could help with improving the rate of business start ups and with inward investment.

The two authors highlight in particular the strengths of Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and St Helens Chamber of Commerce.

However, the proposal is seen as a non-starter in some quarters.

Jack Stopforth, chief executive of Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, said: “Chambers of Commerce are independent commercial businesses and any merger or formal co-operation between us would be a matter for our chairs and non executive directors to determine in the first instance.

“Local chambers already combine effectively on cross-boundary issues but if our boards wished to look more closely at formalising that arrangement, they are free to do so. I will put the report to my board of directors and enjoy the debate.”

Mr Stopforth is more welcoming of the other recommendations in the report. He added: “The Heseltine-Leahy report is a thoughtful contribution to the promotion and governance of Liverpool city region.

“I like the commercial approach of the report. It says, for example the proposed high speed rail link, known as HS2, would be an asset only if Liverpool has a direct connection, otherwise we would disadvantage ourselves relative to Manchester.

It also demands that Government delivers on the Second Mersey Crossing and supports the Atlantic Gateway. Hear, hear.

“Securing major civil service relocations, winning the Green Investment Bank, promoting Daresbury Science Park as a candidate for the next generation light source project and maximising the potential if the Bio-Innovation Centre are ideas that have been around for a while and their endorsement in this report is welcome grist to the mill for those of us already lobbying for those things.

“There are new ideas, too, like staging an International Expo in Liverpool and, most controversially, having a so-called Metro Mayor with the level of powers and resources currently enjoyed by the Mayor of London and covering the same area as the LEP, ie all six local authorities.”

Kath Boullen, chief executive of St Helens Chamber of Commerce, took a similar line to Jack Stopforth on the issue of merger. She said: “I am neither for it or against it.

“It is a matter for the chamber’s board to debate. We would have to decide whether it would benefit St Helens or not.

“It is something we have looked at in the past, but it wasn’t agreed.”

Other local commentators have welcomed the suggestions in the report.

Frank McKenna, chairman of business lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, said: “Downtown has suggested an awful lot of these proposals for a long time now, so we were delighted with the report.

“For example, we have long argued for the merger of Liverpool Vision and The Mersey Partnership.

“We have also been big campaigners for an elected mayor, whether that is for the city or the city-region

“The most positive thing in the report is the outline of the potential the city has for things like the Green Investment Bank and housing growth.

“When Lord Heseltine turned up for the first time in the 1980s I don’t think he would have imagined in his wildest dreams that he would be able to produce this type of report.

“The only caveat I would add is that we have seen lots of reports and strategies produced by good people only to be forgotten after six months and be replaced by somebody else's report.

“It’s about maximising what’s here. What they are recognising is the existing asset base and existing resources that can be used more effectively.”

Professor Tom Cannon, head of strategic development at the University of Liverpool Management School, told LDP Business: “I think it’s great that the progress made in the past 10 years is being recognised nationally.

“Heseltine is a friend of the city.

“I have supported the idea of mayor of Merseyside for years.

“We need that kind of leadership and the drawing together of the whole of Merseyside.

“That’s a big area of 2m people. When you have just the local authorities it can become a bun fight.

“We are far stronger when we think of it in those terms.

“If you look at the most successful regions of Europe, like Barcelona or Berlin, they are all big.

“And you need a strong personality to pull all of that together.

“It’s right to focus on the creative and knowledge industries. I’m very positive about the whole thing.”

Another recommendation contained within the report is that Liverpool Vision and The Mersey Partnership should merge. The authors argue that the work of these two organisation is duplicated and the region would benefit from combining their efforts.

However, as one observer put it, the ideas contained in the report about new local government structures seem naive because they lack any awareness of their political implications.

Liverpool Vision, for example, acts solely on behalf of the city of Liverpool, while TMP is meant to act on behalf of the entire sub-region.

The authors, however, urge local officials to put aside political differences and parochial concerns and “think big” instead.

In the words of the report: “Liverpool has accomplished a great deal, but much more remains to be done for it to achieve its full potential. The following key recommendations combine ideas that have real potential to generate growth. These are not ‘pie in the sky’ ideas but practical suggestions as to how the city region can build upon its existing strengths and shape its future to ensure that it remains competitive and prosperous.

Liverpool needs to be bold in its ambition. It has great potential and it needs to capitalise on this.”

Whether these exhortations are acted on or lost in the mire of local bureaucracy will have to be seen.