- Apologies for Absence
Ken Bodfish, SEEDA
Peter Jones, South East Partners
Alex King, Kent Partnership (Frank Fox attended as substitute)
- Minutes of Previous Meeting on 7 April 2003
The Minutes were agreed as
a true record of the meeting.
- Matters Arising
Barry Wheatley advised the Committee that there had been around 20 substantive
responses to the consultation so far; the final version of the response would
be drafted at a meeting the following Monday, 23 June.
Several points were made
and questions asked during the discussion of the paper:
- Overview and Introduction: this is a very entrepreneurial region and is
therefore in a very strong position to make a contribution to
this.
- Question 1: business support needs to be sufficiently signposted.
- Question 3, Point 1: market regulation is necessary - e.g. employment
law, health and safety etc; the problem arises where regulation is excessive
or uneven.
- Question 4: there is no acknowledgement that people will be working until
they are 70; this needs to be taken into the equation.
- The concept of clusters at a European level should be explored.
- Question 5, Points 2 and 3: these do not answer the question; the whole
response needs to be re-written.
- Point 1: it is unclear what
is being agreed to.
- It was thought to be a bit presumptuous to say what is necessary in candidate
countries.
- It was suggested that points 1 and 2 could be deleted from this section.
- Question 6, Point 2: should it not be society's? This is rather
a glib point.
- The wholly negative attitude to bankruptcy needs to change; this is a
fundamental difference between the UK and the USA.
- Question 7: the answers to this question needed review; the key role of
banks and venture capitalists should be included.
- Question 8: there should be more input from SEEDA on this particular question.
It was agreed that this draft would be amended to take account of the
discussion at this meeting, and would include the expansion of
Question 3.
ACTION: BW
- a) Report of South East Consultation Meeting
Stella Bellem, speaking to the paper, said that some of the
strengths in the UK Government's position were not
sufficiently reflected.
During the discussion the comment was made that attendance
at the meeting had been patchy and therefore it may not be
a fully representative position.
b) Report Back from 12 May 2003 RDAs' Meeting
with Commissioner Barnier
Liz Brighouse reported that it was quite clear that Commissioner
Barnier was trying to put space between the RDAs and the UK
Government on the question
of Structural Funds.
The following points were made during the discussion:
- The RDAs collectively are supportive of the UK position.
- Value could be added if funds could be distributed alongside
single pot funds.
- The Government is very clear that the policy initiatives
should still be those of the EU and not central Government.
- There is great reservation that the South East will not
get its fair share of funds if the Government allocates them.
Liz Brighouse advised the Committee that some of these points
had been raised at the meeting with the Commissioner. It is
being stressed to him that
regional development is being seriously addressed in this country
and that funds from
the single pot can be distributed in a far more cohesive way.
c) South East Response to Government Consultation
on Cohesion
Liz Brighouse advised the Committee that there were differences
in this paper to SEEDA's position which needed
to be resolved if there was to be a
regional response
to this
consultation. It was
noted that
the paper
as
it stands
is not likely to be supported by the
SEEDA board.
Marie Dancourt-Cavanagh reported that, as agreed at the 7
April meeting of this Committee, a consultation exercise was
undertaken. The local
authorities' European
Officers had agreed this draft; there was some concern that
these proposals might isolate the UK, particularly given the region's
gateway role to mainland Europe.
In response to the question about what kind of process was
being undertaken by other partners in the region, Marie
Dancourt-Cavanagh advised the Committee that the local authorities' European
Officers have an advisory role to the JEC, and that their
local authorities should have consulted
with other bodies, not just within their authority,
to develop their views. It was noted
that the Government had also circulated
its consultation paper to
local
authorities for their direct response.
Several points were made during the ensuing discussion:
- There was clearly concern about the quantum of resources.
On balance, SEEDA thought they had at least as good a chance
to acquire resources through the Government's proposals.
- The
struggle involved in getting the UK's financial
contributions back from the EU in the form of regional
funding could be avoided through the re-nationalisation proposals.
This followed the principal of subsidiarity.
- From the tone of the paper there seems to be a greater
trust amongst local authorities in Brussels than in the Government.
- There is no question that the resources both to the UK
and the South East will be reduced, whatever the arrangements.
This could be mitigated by
joining up with other programmes of regeneration, skills, etc
as
the Government proposes.
- While supporting the paper, both Paul Bevan and Marianne
Neville-Rolfe suggested that the response could be made
more positively and clearly with minor
rewording. It was suggested that adjustments to the wording might
be negotiated at this
meeting, but some members of the Committee felt they were
not empowered to amend the position of their nominating partnerships.
- National position papers were being developed by both
the RDAs and English Regions Network, although neither was
yet
available.
- As the deadline for responses is 4 July there is no time
for the paper to be revised and brought back to the
JEC before submission to the SEEDA Board and the Assembly's
Executive Committee.
As agreement on a joint response could not be reached, it
was agreed that the paper, as it stands, should be taken to
the separate boards of SEEDA
and the Assembly for consideration and the agreement of separate
responses; the
local authorities would make their own responses. ACTION: MNR
and PB
- Committee of the Regions Report
Paul Bevan explained the aim of connecting more strongly to
CoR members. Cllr Keymer attends the JEC regularly and the
Assembly had briefed him on
transport issues; however this level of dialogue did not seem yet
to be replicated with
other CoR representatives. Looking at the CoR agenda, there
were opportunities for briefings on economic policy issues
too.
Gordon Keymer then gave a verbal report, referring to the
Constitutional Committee's
work on better law making, and to the Committee of Administrative
and Financial Affairs (audit committee) examination of members' expenses.
- South East England House Report
Marie Dancourt-Cavanagh introduced the paper.
In response to the question about an event around Structural
Funds, the Committee was advised that the event will be based
on the regional position paper
on Cohesion; the main theme of that seminar would be around the perceived
prosperous regions; there had already been some interesting
feedback about contributions
to a seminar like this.
Points made during the following discussion were:
- SEEDA would like to make a contribution to that seminar,
particularly around the PSA target.
- Until this year everything had been paid in Pounds Sterling;
this year it was agreed that all billing should be in Euros
in order to avoid the
Brussels operation suffering as a result of currency movements.
- GOSE Structural Funds
Elysia Compton introduced the paper. It was noted that the
information on EQUAL that was missing from this report would
be circulated with the
Minutes.
ACTION: EC and IC
Elysia Compton advised the Committee that at the end of last
summer there had been an attempt to engage partners
in drawing up a strategic plan to look ahead at how programmes will be
deployed, particularly given the possibility of a match fund
shortfall. The European
Officers
Group
had been
approached
about this and she was now asking
for this Committee's
support for preparing such a Strategic
Plan.
Several points were made during the ensuing discussion:
-
The Strategic Plan approach was supported and the direction
already taken is probably the best starting point, i.e. via
the European Officers Group.
-
Funds cannot be drawn down from the EU without match funding;
if there is going to be a shortfall, the question needs
to be asked who can contribute
to the objectives - more sources of funding are therefore needed.
-
There are no easy answers, but obviously the RDA has an
important contribution to make to the dialogue.
-
A proposal was needed which could be circulated to partners
indicating what would be the role and scope of a Strategic
Plan and how they might be
engaged.
-
GOSE's reports on the current European programmes
are becoming increasingly useful to this Committee
in terms of
what is being spent and the outcomes being achieved. They demonstrate
that a substantial
amount
of
money
is
coming from
Objective 3.
-
It is believed that the National Health Service is the largest
employer but it does not tap into this funding.
This could, perhaps, be a source
of match funding.
-
It was suggested that although GOSE does not manage the
innovative activities programme, it could be
included. Elysia Compton concurred.
-
The South East has done particularly well from the Interreg
IIIB; there are three big projects which are
broadly in the South East and three
others.
It was agreed that the Strategic Plan approach
should be pursued.
ACTION: EC and SB
- Common Agricultural Policy Reform
Stella Bellem advised the Committee that an event for local
authorities on CAP reform would be held on 31 July 2003 at
the Coach House, Green Park,
Aston Clinton, Near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The programme is
currently being
drawn up; there would be national and regional DEFRA speakers.
- Enlargement - Draft Report of Consultants
Stella Bellem advised the Committee that more detailed sections
had now been received. More needed to be included
about the South East's
business perspective.
The following points were made during the ensuing discussion:
- Institutional Links for SEEDA (page 51) - the main thrust
is right but there also needs to be some sort of political
engagement; this is an opportunity
for the Assembly to assist SEEDA if necessary.
- It is worth identifying the future business leaders in these
countries and to get them involved in the South East now, e.g.
higher education institutions
in the South East could offer, say, bursaries for them to come
here to study, particularly topics where there is an opportunity
to feedback knowledge
to
aid their countries. Inward placement schemes could also be
used.
- Rural and other industries had now been included. An LGIB/LGA
invitation event on tourism is being organised by the LGIB
in Brussels.
It was agreed that the final report should be brought back
to this Committee.
ACTION: SB
- Future Meetings
It was noted that the next meeting will be on Friday, 10 October
2003 at 11.00; the venue will be the Institute of Materials,
1 Carlton House Terrace,
London, SW1.
It was agreed that meeting dates beyond that should be set
and notified to the Committee. ACTION: PB and IC
- Any Other Business
Paul Bevan advised the Committee that a number of people,
including himself, had been invited to a meeting on Cohesion
and the Constitutional Role
of the Regions on 8 July in Brussels at which Commissioner Barnier
would be present.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 12.55.
