Civic Universities and the central South

Dr Simon Eden

There is a lively discussion about the role our universities have in the towns and cities they are part of. As local authorities and other public bodies are forced to cut back, so institutions like universities become more important in civic life. At the same time, Ministers have cautioned against “universities becoming disconnected from the wider world… [and] …seen as distant from their communities” (Sam Gyimah, Universities Minister, September 2018).

Universities are of course educators, but they’re also employers and partners in local cultural life. They can help build thriving communities. February’s report by the Civic Universities Commission (CUC) “Truly Civic: Strengthening the connection between universities and their places” is another prompt to us to think about the role of universities in securing economic, social and environmental regeneration of their towns and cities.

The University of Portsmouth and the Southern Policy Centre wanted to understand how universities in the central South had responded to the challenge of becoming ‘civic universities’. We invited Lord Bob Kerslake, Chair of the CUC, to discuss the Commission’s ideas with senior university, council and LEP leaders from the region. This is SPC’s view of the discussion that ensued.

Lord Kerslake began by reflecting on the history of universities in Sheffield. He had spent ten years as Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council and worked closely with the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. Both had deep local roots, with their origins in the city’s community. Both had played a role in the regeneration of the city in the late ‘90s. This story was repeated in cities across England.

Recent national policy had driven the marketisation of higher education and altered the focus of universities. That risks a diminution of their connection with their home town or city. But, in Lord Kerslake’s view, as HE policy is evolving rapidly that link is becoming more important. Universities need their communities to act as advocates: to say how important a thriving HE sector is for the success of the place.

As they went around the country the CUC found lots of civic pride in local universities. There were lots of good examples of collaboration. What they felt was missing was a strategic approach, creating a narrative for the role the university played in shaping their place. Such a narrative should be place-specific: what mattered in Sheffield would be different from the role the University of Southampton or Solent University played in their city.

The CUC had proposed the relationship be captured in a Civic University Agreement, unique to the place. These Agreements must be bottom up, central prescription would miss the point. They must add value to local relationships. They should not be seen as an obligation but an opportunity. One of Commissioners had captured the spirit exactly when they said their aim was to “get people talking about our university, not the university”.

Participants acknowledged the pride that cities and towns felt in their universities. There were good examples of our universities supporting a wide range of local initiatives. Places which did not host an HE institution were keen to see a university presence in their areas, to help boost aspirations and achievement, and support economic regeneration. There were opportunities to work together to improve access. One participant encouraged universities to draw on the knowledge and skills in local education authorities to help reach all parts of the community. It was generally agreed that the central South’s universities have a key role to play in improving the chances of the “left behind” in our communities.

However, high-level strategy should not be at the expense of addressing more immediate challenges. A local authority participant suggested some sections of our communities were less convinced of the benefit a university brings. They only experience a negative side to universities: the pressure students place on the local rented housing market or the problem of noise or parking. We should not lose sight of these concerns as we try to build a positive civic role. As one participant put it, it pays to focus on the small stuff.

The discussion also touched on the complex geography and politics of the area, with a mix of two-tier and unitary councils, and complicated LEP boundaries. Given the complexities of our administrative geography and the interdependence of our different communities, there is no simple set of one-to-one relationships between universities and local communities. But the fact that our universities reach across administrative boundaries is a potential strength. There is an exciting opportunity to collaborate across institutions and sectors in building our shared future.

One participant ask how far that civic role should extend: for example, should a university take an active role in encouraging the re-use of former student housing to meet local need? The answer, participants agreed, depends on the institutions – councils and universities – involved. What works in one city may be less important or effective in another. However, participants agreed that universities needed to take responsibility for their wider impact on the community, and contribute actively to civic life, rather than simply adopt a reactive, even slightly defensive approach.

All agree our universities are a key part of the wider narrative of the central South and our distinctive identity. And there is a clear appetite for developing our shared understanding of the civic role of our universities. Several are working towards Civic University Agreements to try to capture local opportunities and impacts. In doing so, they should share ideas and approaches, and perhaps use Agreements as an opportunity to build wider partnerships. 

The discussion was a rare opportunity for councils and universities from across the central South to come together. We should seize the opportunity to continue that dialogue, particularly amongst our HE institutions. We can all gain when all the universities in the central South work together and learn from each other’s experience – whether on Civic University Agreements or other shared interests.

Is there a strategy for the central south?

Introduction

Three seminars are being held as part of the Regional Strategy Project to focus on the various challenges facing the central south.

We would like to thank Barker Mill Estates, Build Environment Communications Group (BECG), Blake Morgan, Hampshire County Council and Carey’s Manor for their support.

The project’s conclusions will be presented to a conference at Carey’s Manor, Brockenhurst, on September 20th. For invitation requests please email us here.

The following documents are working documents to stimulate discussion. We welcome clarifications, corrections, and comments. Please email us here if you have any.

Seminar One: The Economic Challenge

The analysis in the paper below draws on documents published by the LEPs and top-tier local authorities. It looks at the economic opportunities and challenges facing the central south, and for both explicit evidence of shared and joint working and of implied shared priorities and perspectives.

Seminar 2: ‘Spaces for Business, spaces for people’

This paper provides a summary of research on strategies prepared by local authorities and other bodies. Its focus is on planning, housing and sustainability.

Seminar 3: Critical infrastructure, critical capacities

The analysis here draws on documents published by the LEPs and top-tier local authorities. It looks at the economic opportunities and challenges facing the study area, and for both explicit evidence of shared and joint working and of implied shared priorities and perspectives.

Help us to move on!

Our report for the Blagrave Trust outlining practical policy recommendations to address some of the issues facing young people in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton can be read below.

Hope4Housing Film: This is a short film made by young people in Hampshire which sets out some of the issues facing them in housing, and how they would like to see local politicians and policy-makers start to address them.

Beyond Brexit: the future of the British economy – free event Mon 11th Feb 11.30am

With only weeks to the 29th March deadline, and amid much uncertainty, this is the crucial time to look beyond the short-term decisions on Brexit to the challenges shaping future of the British economy, whatever our final relationship with the EU and the rest of the world.

This is an invitation to hear Dame Kate Barker, University of Cambridge, (former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, member of the independent Industrial Strategy Commission, and advisor to both the previous Labour and current Conservative governments) speak on the British economy beyond Brexit. Kate will be joined by Larry Elliott (Economics Director at the Guardian) and other academic speakers including Professor John Denham of the SPC.

The Southern Policy Centre is delighted to be supporting this event run in conjunction with the Department of Politics and Society and the Centre for English Identity and Politics, both of the University of Winchester. Date and time: Monday 11th February, 11:30 to 14:30pm

Tickets are free, but need to be reserved via the following link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/beyond-brexit-the-future-of-the-british-economy-tickets-53961114145

LEPs and the central South: a summary of our breakfast seminar in conjunction with PwC

Since their establishment in 2010, Local Enterprise Partnerships have been integral to economic growth across England, providing a channel for government investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation. A joint Southern Policy Centre/PwC seminar held at the beginning of December exploredhow our local LEPs see their future role and discussed how they can help fulfil the needs of the Central South of England.

Julian Gray of PwC opened the discussion by suggesting that the urban South Coast was a great place to live, but that it underperformed economically. The session’s Chair, John Denham, reminded us that LEPs are big spenders, but that their activities were ‘under the radar’ for many, and they needed to be accountable to business and local communities.

John reflected on the suggestion of Lord Jim O’Neill, former Treasury minister, at a recent Southern Policy Centre seminar that the central South lacked ‘a distinctive, “stand-out” proposal which built on unique local strengths and offered …. a clear sense of local identity and place’.

Gary Jeffries, Chair of Solent LEP, saw a compelling vision of the central South coast as a ‘world class coastal economy’, building on our existing strengths. He suggested that a strong component of that vision should be the marine and maritime economies, but without neglecting other strengths in medicine, space technology and the wider knowledge economy.

Gary noted the proposed changes to LEP boundaries (now approved by ministers) which would see the New Forest area become part of Solent LEP. The parts of Test Valley, Winchester and East Hampshire districts which were currently part of Solent LEP would join the rest of their district in EM3. This would strengthen Solent’s coastal focus.

The LEP want to shape a distinctive local industrial strategy which builds on what we do well, and provides an investment plan which will support the growth of these sectors and of our economy, tackling infrastructure under investment and low productivity.

Alastair Welch, director of ABP’s Southampton port, highlighted the significance of the port in the UK’s global trade. Southampton was not ‘the end of the line’ but a ‘gateway to the world’. We should lobby hard for the investment to help us maintain this pre-eminence, which has many wider benefits for the central South’s economy.

We should be ‘thinking big’ and ensuring we invest in what is already excellent in our local economy to maintain our world-leading status. That will ensure we send a message about the success of our local economy, rather than a gloomy assessment of weaknesses. They could only be addressed, Alastair suggested, by building on our local strengths.

Presentations concluded with an assessment from Zoe Green from PwC of what would make a good local industrial strategy. Zoe’s experience with the national pilot on these strategies made clear that government ministers wanted to see investment in areas and sectors which can unlock local, regional and national growth. The best strategies would be ambitious and offer a distinctive vision for a place – highlighting its brand, assets, talent and even ‘liveability’.

A good strategy would also be based on robust partnerships between the public and private sector, which allowed the area to explore new ways of working. In Zoe’s view, collaboration across boundaries was vital to realising the vision for what the central South can be. That transcends organisational boundaries and presents a picture of how partners can deliver change at a scale which will have real economic impacts. In some areas, neighbouring LEPs in the pilot programme had taken a more strategic overview of their local industrial strategies, making a persuasive case for investment by highlighting shared aspirations and ambitions.

The discussion that followed these presentations echoed the need for an ambitious vision that businesses could get behind. One speaker endorsed the need for our area speaking with a coherent collective voice, and the need to avoid being parochial. Others spoke about our shared identity and the many things that bind us together.

Many of the businesses present were keen to get behind an ambitious vision for our future, and there was some discussion about the process for developing local industrial strategies, including the timetable – with Zoe pointing out that Government’s aim was to have all in place by early 2020.

The LEPs are already building the evidence base for their strategies, and will want to involve local businesses and communities in shaping their vision. Attendees at our seminar reflected the enthusiasm for that collaborative approach, and the desire for an ambitious, positive statement about what the central South can achieve.

SPC and PwC hope to arrange further events as our local industrial strategies progress. We look forward to working with our LEPs and businesses to help shape our shared future.

Next-door neighbours – collaborative working across the London boundary

Local government obsesses about boundaries: we think they’re always wrong.  We spend hours, and pounds, looking at options for council reorganisation or Combined Authorities, and rarely agree where lines on maps should be drawn.  We seem intent on imposing our own version of order on a complex world which doesn’t respect those lines.

Nowhere is that more true than in and around our capital city. London’s economic and social networks stretch beyond the GLA’s administrative boundaries into neighbouring districts.  Nearly 900,000 people travel into London to work every day, about 1 in 6 of the capital’s total workforce.  Around 1 in 7 of workers living in the South East and East of England have their jobs in London.  Many more living outside the city’s boundary travel in for theatres, events and exhibitions, or just to shop, London residents head in the other direction, for similar reasons. Businesses have intimate links with suppliers and customers across the London boundary.  And none of them see that administrative boundary as a barrier, it’s irrelevant to everyday life.

Work with your neighbours is the key message of a report launched by the Centre for London and Southern Policy Centre on 24 January [1].  Our research, sponsored by the GLA, Hampshire and Surrey County Councils and the London-Stanstead-Cambridge Consortium, shows the intricate web of economic and social connections between London and neighbouring Counties and Districts.  It demonstrates how interdependent London and her hinterland are.

Our report highlights the common challenges we face.  The pressing need for more housing affects us all: the Government estimates that, over the next ten years London, the South East and East of England need to build over 150,000 new homes a year, yet in the past ten years the area has average just 75,000. The area surrounding London is also starved of funding, and so falling short in infrastructure investment: spending between 30% and 60% less than is needed, leading to a predicted shortfall in investment of over £10bn by the 2030s.  Yet that infrastructure is essential to keep the regional economy, including London, working.

The report also explores collaboration across the London boundary, and finds a very mixed picture.  Some local partnerships work well, and there is an emerging council-led partnership – the Wider South East Political Steering Group – which aims to bring together London Boroughs with their neighbouring shire councils.  But that partnership is in its early days and doesn’t yet have the buy-in of all who should be at the table, indeed some are unaware of its existence. Nor does it include influential bodies such as LEPs.

Our report encourages councils in and around London to strengthen the Wider South East partnership, without subsuming individual identities.  We suggest that partnership should build a shared vision and lead a more integrated approach to tackling shared challenges: housing, infrastructure, the economy.  The draft London Plan, currently out to consultation, should catalyse closer collaboration.  A shared vision and voice is particularly important as our big regional cities build increasingly powerful combined authorities.

Central Government must also play its part.  Policy making should acknowledge the Wider South East: perhaps the area needs its own Ministerial champion.  Centralised mechanisms for funding housing and infrastructure investment need to recognise the case for strategic investment across boundaries.

With the Industrial Strategy and Budget showing the Government intends to channel significant investment towards Mayoral Combined Authorities and other place-based partnerships, the case for that closer collaboration across the Wider South East is becoming unarguable.  If our Councils, LEPs, Universities and other major players cannot convince the Government we can deliver in partnership, then we risk losing investment in skills, infrastructure and housing.

No re-drawn boundary is ever going to reflect how London and her neighbours depend on one another.  The only solution is to build a partnership which allows the Wider South East to thrive. In the words of singer Jack Johnson “It’s always better when we’re together”.

[1] Next Door Neighbours: Collaborative Working Across the London Boundary – Centre for London/Southern Policy Centre, January 2018: Centre for London_Next-doors Neighbours Report

Next door neighbours – collaborative working across the London boundary

Local government obsesses about boundaries: we think they’re always wrong.  We spend hours, and pounds, looking at options for council reorganisation or Combined Authorities, and rarely agree where lines on maps should be drawn.  We seem intent on imposing our own version of order on a complex world which doesn’t respect those lines.

Nowhere is that more true than in and around our capital city. London’s economic and social networks stretch beyond the GLA’s administrative boundaries into neighbouring districts.  Nearly 900,000 people travel into London to work every day, about 1 in 6 of the capital’s total workforce.  Around 1 in 7 of workers living in the South East and East of England have their jobs in London.  Many more living outside the city’s boundary travel in for theatres, events and exhibitions, or just to shop, London residents head in the other direction, for similar reasons. Businesses have intimate links with suppliers and customers across the London boundary.  And none of them see that administrative boundary as a barrier, it’s irrelevant to everyday life.

Work with your neighbours is the key message of a report launched by the Centre for London and Southern Policy Centre on 24 January [1].  Our research, sponsored by the GLA, Hampshire and Surrey County Councils and the London-Stanstead-Cambridge Consortium, shows the intricate web of economic and social connections between London and neighbouring Counties and Districts.  It demonstrates how interdependent London and her hinterland are.

Our report highlights the common challenges we face.  The pressing need for more housing affects us all: the Government estimates that, over the next ten years London, the South East and East of England need to build over 150,000 new homes a year, yet in the past ten years the area has average just 75,000. The area surrounding London is also starved of funding, and so falling short in infrastructure investment: spending between 30% and 60% less than is needed, leading to a predicted shortfall in investment of over £10bn by the 2030s.  Yet that infrastructure is essential to keep the regional economy, including London, working.

The report also explores collaboration across the London boundary, and finds a very mixed picture.  Some local partnerships work well, and there is an emerging council-led partnership – the Wider South East Political Steering Group – which aims to bring together London Boroughs with their neighbouring shire councils.  But that partnership is in its early days and doesn’t yet have the buy-in of all who should be at the table, indeed some are unaware of its existence. Nor does it include influential bodies such as LEPs.

Our report encourages councils in and around London to strengthen the Wider South East partnership, without subsuming individual identities.  We suggest that partnership should build a shared vision and lead a more integrated approach to tackling shared challenges: housing, infrastructure, the economy.  The draft London Plan, currently out to consultation, should catalyse closer collaboration.  A shared vision and voice is particularly important as our big regional cities build increasingly powerful combined authorities.

Central Government must also play its part.  Policy making should acknowledge the Wider South East: perhaps the area needs its own Ministerial champion.  Centralised mechanisms for funding housing and infrastructure investment need to recognise the case for strategic investment across boundaries.

With the Industrial Strategy and Budget showing the Government intends to channel significant investment towards Mayoral Combined Authorities and other place-based partnerships, the case for that closer collaboration across the Wider South East is becoming unarguable.  If our Councils, LEPs, Universities and other major players cannot convince the Government we can deliver in partnership, then we risk losing investment in skills, infrastructure and housing.

No re-drawn boundary is ever going to reflect how London and her neighbours depend on one another.  The only solution is to build a partnership which allows the Wider South East to thrive. In the words of singer Jack Johnson “It’s always better when we’re together”.

[1] Next Door Neighbours: Collaborative Working Across the London Boundary – Centre for London/Southern Policy Centre, January 2018: Centre for London_Next-doors Neighbours Report

Rail passengers in southern England forced to subsidise passengers in rest of Britain

Rail passengers in southern England are being forced to subsidise passengers in rest of Britain – paying 16p a mile more than the cost of running their service

In 2016/17 South West Trains (SWT) passenger were forced to pay 16.6p per mile travelled more than the cost of running the service.  (The overpayment totals £662m.)  Passengers on Southern trains paid 10.5p per mile more than the cost of running their service.  At the same time passengers in northern England, Scotland and Wales receive huge subsidies, up to more than 40p per mile.

With rail passengers facing the largest fare increases for five years, new analysis by the Southern Policy Centre reveals how the burden of paying for the UK rail system falls unfairly on passengers in central southern England, who are being forced to pay a premium in order to reduce ticket costs for passengers in other parts of the UK.

Professor John Denham, Chair of the Southern Policy Centre said:

‘Rail passengers in the south are not only being asked to pay for their own rail journeys, but are being forced to subsidise rail services across the rest of England, Scotland and Wales. There may well be a good case for subsidising some services but, if there is, surely the cost should fall on taxpayers as a whole, not just on one group of passengers in one small part of the country?’

‘If local passengers were treated fairly, the cost of their season ticket would be falling, not rising.’ 

Background

The study uses data from the Office of Rail and Road to identify the key payments that finance the rail system.  Train operating companies (TOCs) have a franchise from the Department for Transport (DfT) that determines how much passengers pay.  Government subsidies to rail operators fall into three discrete categories:

(1) The net franchise payment or subsidy measures how much passengers pay, or are subsidised, for the basic running costs of their service.

In 2016-17, every single passenger on South West Trains paid the government 16.6p per mile more than the cost of running their service.  This was up 16% from 14.3p in both 2014/15 and 2015/16.  The total subsidy paid was £662m – which accounts for 55% of the entire total subsidy paid by operators of £1.19bn.

On the same basis, Southern rail passengers paid 10.5 per mile ‘too much’ in 2015-16.  (A change of ownership after 2015/16 means comparable figures for the most recent year are not available).

By contrast, passengers in the north, Scotland and Wales received subsidies of between 8p and 17p per mile, amounting to a total cash subsidy of £625m.

(2) The revenue support/share is a payment made by or to the TOC depending on whether the company does better or worse than the franchise agreement.  In 2016-17 SWT was paid £275m by the DfT.   Passengers do not benefit directly from this payment, but the SPC analysis shows that even if it is regarded as a subsidy, SWT passengers were still paying 9.7p per mile more than the cost of the service.

(3) Finally, the DfT makes network grants to cover the capital costs of improvements to the rail system.  In most parts of England, Wales and Scotland, this is a direct public investment in the rail system. But in central southern England, passengers are required to pay for the cost of the capital investment too.  SWT passengers paid 3.5p per mile more than the running and capital costs of their service.  Including network grant, Southern passengers received a tiny subsidy of under 1p per mile.  In contrast, passengers on Arriva Trains Wales rail services received subsidies of over 42p per mile.

The chart below shows the contrast between the subsidy paid by SWT and those received by selected other operators in £m:

Open Data publishing workshop

What data publishing tools do you use?

A few months ago lots of people helped the Open Data Institute (ODI) crowdsource a Long List of Open Data Publishing Tools. Many of those tools now appear in the ODI’s Open Data Publishing Tools Audit.

On Wednesday 27th September ODI Hampshire is running a workshop on behalf of the ODI for people and organisations who publish data. The emphasis is on statistical data, but anyone who publishes data is welcome to attend, and there’s still time to register via Eventbrite.

Which tools?

We’ll be discussing which tools people use for different stages of the data publication process, and what they’re used for. As reference we’ll use the Tools Audit, as well as the themes within the Open Data Maturity Model, and the open data publishing principles that Leigh Dodds wrote about on the ONS Digital blog. We are also interested in any tools which aren’t already on the list.

Where does it hurt?

Then, we’ll talk about the gaps – or ‘pain points’ – in the process.

We are trying to find out what makes publishing data slower, more tedious, and/or more costly, so we’ll explore questions like:

  • Do we need better tools (e.g. for cleaning data), or simply better integration of the various steps of the publishing process?
  • Is there a particular stage of publishing data that you really hate, which is slow and clunky and could be speeded up, if only…?

Steps to (publishing) heaven

Lastly, we will identify some practical ways these issues can start to be addressed. We want to propose a concrete set of ‘next steps’ which can be shared across the entire ODI network.

Quick Draw

We will take comprehensive notes throughout the workshop, which we’ll share with you afterwards. We’ll also produce a summary report for the ODI so they can share it more widely, and Drawnalism ‘In the Moment’ will be on-hand, live-drawing your ideas .

Register for the workshop