Minutes of the Shadow Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP (GBSLEP) Area ESIF Committee
meeting
Date: 15 October, 3.00 to 4.30pm
Venue: Committee Room 2, Birmingham Council House
Present
Cllr Ian Courts (Chair)
Liz Grove
Tony Clabby
Jo Jury
David Draycott
Andy O’Brien
Phil Extance
Mark Reed
Peter Clarke
Brian Carr
Lloyd Broad
Mark Foley
Elaine Priest
Apologies
Cllr Sir Albert Bore
Cllr Mike Wilcox
Gerard Coyne
Nicola Kelly Vice Chair
Representing
Local Authority (Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council)
Solihull MBC (observer)
Social enterprise sector (Digbeth Trust,)
Rural Payments Agency
Further Education sector
Transitional area alternate (East Staffordshire Borough Council)
Higher Education sector, alternate (Aston University)
Birmingham CC (observer)
Environment Agency sector
Voluntary Sector (Birmingham Voluntary Service Council)
Birmingham City Council (observer)
Managing Authority alternate (DCLG)
Managing Authority (DCLG minutes)
Representing
Local Authority (Birmingham City Council)
Transitional Area (Lichfield District Council)
Trade Union (UNITE)
Managing Authority (DCLG)
1. Welcome and Introductions (Cllr Ian Courts)
Action
Cllr Ian Courts welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologies were given.
2. Matters arising (EU Leadership Board, 4.9.14) Paper 2
Action
Cllr Courts went through the 3 matters arising, noting that all actions had been
addressed.
3. Terms of Reference and purpose of Committee, Paper 3 (Mark Foley)
Action
1. Mark Foley presented the Terms of Reference paper, giving an overview of
the new programme, the governance structure and the role of the ESIF
Committee. The following points were highlighted:
2. The new programme is a national, not regional, programme overseen by the
Growth Programme Board, to which the 39 LEP area ESIF Committees are
accountable. The GBSLEP allocation is c. £230M, with the ESIF Committee
and local partners being responsible for determining the investment priorities.
The ESIF strategy drafted by GBSLEP sets out the investment priorities to
achieve economic growth and this will be further finalised once the
Operational Programmes have been agreed. The Local Implementation Plan
(LIP) is the plan setting out how the ESIF strategy will be delivered.
3. Referring to page 3. the main Committee functions were highlighted:
supporting delivery of the OP at local level by agreeing an Implementation
Plan with the Managing Authority (MA); determining a schedule of calls;
operationalising the LIP; agreeing Opt-Ins for ESF and the ERDF national
business support products; developing a pipeline of operations; assessing
outline and full applications; and making recommendations for investment to
the MA. Only on agreement of the ESIF Committee will projects proceed. In
terms of veto, the MA can only veto an application on the grounds of noncompliance. If a project is deemed a local priority by the ESIF Committee and
is eligible and compliant, the MA cannot reject.
4. In delivery, the focus will be upon monitoring performance of operations in
delivering against the ESIF strategy; spend; outputs and impacts; and
meeting N+3 which is the national Programme spend target set by the
European Commission. Failure to meet N+3 results in de-commitment of
funds from the Programme and meeting the N+3 targets triggers a
Performance Reward at Programme level. Other important aspects of the
Programme which were noted were: Financial Engineering Instruments, with
plans to work with other West Midlands LEP areas; Sustainable Urban
Development (SUD), with Birmingham receiving a SUD ‘allocation’ as one of
the ‘core’ cities and Community Led Local Development (CLLD).
5. Membership needs to reflect the breadth of partners specified in the Common
Provisions and Code of Conduct for Partnerships. The term is for 3 years,
and members are respresentative of their sector rather than their
organisation. Experts may be invited to specific meetings by agreement with
the Chair. Mark confirmed that working groups do not necessarily have to be
cross-representational and that these will be driven by the subject matter.
6. Meeting arrangements will be quarterly but may need to be more frequent in
the early stages of the Programme. Business can be conducted via written
procedure if time is of the essence. All secretariat papers will be published on
the gov.uk website, with the option of the Committee publishing more locally if
so desired.
7. For the meeting to be quorate, 60% attendance is required. Mark stressed
Liz Grove to
provide
meeting dates
for the next 12
months
the importance of attending so as to avoid delays in having to rely overly on
written procedure. In response to Andy O’Brien’s query regarding whether a
60% response rate was required, Mark confirmed that no response is taken
as agreement. Members are given a 2 week notice period to respond.
Agreed: That the written procedure would be sent to the nominee’s
alternate as well as the nominee.
8. The role of the chair, deputy and secretariat were referred to, as set out in full
at Annex A of the paper. Nicola Kelly, DCLG will be Deputy Chair and DCLG
as the secretariat will provide administrative support. Lloyd Broad stressed
the dual key approach and that DCLG and the ESIF Committee will work in
partnership.
Agreed: Cllr Courts to continue as Chair of the Shadow ESIF Committee.
4. Status of Programme – current position (Mark Foley)
9.
A. UK Partnership Agreement - formal agreement is expected by the 17 Oct.
Contentious elements of the PA have been extracted and will be included for
discussion in the English Operational Programme.
B. Operational Programme - Mark gave an overview of what the OP covers
and an update on progress. DCLG are awaiting a formal response from the
Commission on the draft OP. Mark highlighted concerns raised by the
Commission, around relevancy of certain thematic objectives (TOs), namely
transport, broadband and flood defence.
10. Lloyd Broad emphasised that GBSLEP is fully mindful of the impact of
flooding on economic growth and how it also affects the GBSLEP area. It
was clarified that broadband concerns were around infrastructure and not
digital inclusion. The importance of digital inclusion was noted, particularly in
relation to the employment, social inclusion and skills agenda. Lloyd
confirmed that where these contentious TOs are identified by the Committee
as investment priorities for the GBSLEP area, these could be adapted to give
a more acceptable focus, e.g. low carbon rather than transport initiatives.
11. David Draycott asked what would happen to monies allocated to rejected
TOs. Mark confirmed that the ESIF committees have a crucial role in
determining how the local ESIF strategy would be realigned. Lloyd Broad
confirmed that the Committee has the opportunity to amend the ESIF
strategy prior to final sign off. Upon approval of the Operational Programme,
ESIF strategies will be reviewed to ensure alignment.
12. The status of the ESIF committees was then discussed, focussing upon the
tension between the Commission which does not recognise the LEPs as
having a formal role within the governance structure, and national
government policy of localism. Mark Foley confirmed that the MA regards
the ESIF Committees as the vehicle for local decision making in the Growth
Action
Programme. There are no plans to abolish the Committees, nor change the
ToR. Lloyd confirmed that at the last Growth Programme Board, it was
made clear that the Commission do not recognise the role of the ESIF
committees, and their remit and expectations as outlined by Mark in the
previous agenda items is therefore caveated.
13. Bryan Carr suggested a risk register be established. This is contained within
the LIP and Mark Foley confirmed that the Committee would be kept up to
date on developments and especially any fundamental changes.
14. Mark Foley gave an overview of the business process and progress to date.
A new IT system is under development and the first suite of application and
appraisal forms have been drafted and shared with the LEP Sounding Board
and OPAG. Model office testing is scheduled for later this year with an
anticipated release date for documentation early next year.
15. Technical Assistance (TA) is the subject of an on-going conversation
between the commission, MA and the LEPs as to what can be funded
through TA.
Partners cannot receive TA for anything which is the
responsibility of the MA. Lloyd provided more detail on eligible and ineligible
activities undertaken by the Committee which could be funded through the
TA budget, e.g. capacity building and investment prioritisation but not
secretariat or back office functions.
5. Next steps:
Action
A. Local Implementation Plan (Lloyd Broad)
16. Lloyd set out the two phased approach to LIP submission: 1) the high-level
LIP was submitted at the end of Sept. which set out the anticipated spend,
outputs and outline nature of the calls for the next 3 year period. Caveats to
this submission relate to uncertainty over details e.g. output definitions were
not available at the time, with formal guidance expected in Nov.. 2) The
finalised LIP is due by the end of 2014 and needs to be endorsed by the
Committee. This will provide greater clarity on the nature of investments
against the Partnership Agreements, with Investment Priorities identified.
Lloyd highlighted that the main pressure point is the Youth Employment
Initiative (YEI) which has a two year spend window 2014 and 2015.
Lloyd Broad to
present LIP
draft to the
next ESIF
Committee
meeting on
17.12.14
B. ERDF – European Regional Development Fund (Paper 5B) (Mark Reed)
Action
17. Mark Reed presented the paper on ERDF, emphasising the importance of an
early start, encouraging larger scale projects, projects with impact, and the
possibility of cross LEP collaboration where achievable, as in the case of
MAS for e.g.. Discussion points on this paper were around the third sector
requiring TA to build capacity and submit larger scale/LEP area bids; the
potential to commission joint ERDF and ESF bids; and the process and
mechanisms to support cross LEP working being unclear at present. Mark
Reed highlighted s. 4.4 of the paper, indicating that transition areas would
need assistance.
18. Brain Carr queried whether certain voluntary sector organisations who do not
class themselves as social enterprises would fall within the definition of
SMEs. Mark Foley confirmed that the definition of an SME is set out by the
Commission, EU Recommendation 2003/361/EC. Further information can be
accessed at
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/sme_definition/sme_user_guide_en
.pdf
19. Discussion then focussed on the SUD allocation, with Cllr Courts confirming
that GBSLEP has a strategy focussing on Birmingham and Solihull and HS2.
David Draycott enquired whether this included a skills dimension. Lloyd
Broad updated the group on discussions with Government regarding the use
of ESF and Article 7 powers in respect of the SUD allocation, confirming that
the current position is that ESF can be ringfenced for skills relating to HS2
SUD project activity. Mark Foley stated that while no additional monies are
available, ESF can still be used to fund complementary activity. Lloyd Broad
confirmed that a SUD sub-committee is to be set up.
C: ESF – European Social Fund (Paper 5C) (Mark Reed)
Action
20. Mark Reed presented the paper on ESF, highlighting the issues of Opt-Ins
and the YEI. Referring to s4.1 Mark Reed reiterated GBSLEP’s position in
respect of Opt-Ins. Mark Foley raised concerns that this stance
disadvantaged the smaller Local Authority partners in terms of finding match
for ESF project activity. Cllr Courts confirmed that this has been identified as
a concern and requested district councils to identify their priorities.
21. The YEI funding comprises 3 tranches of funding, £19.5m match, £19.5m
ESF and £19.5m YEI grant. The two year timeframe presents challenges
and explains why ESF is front loaded in the ESIF LIP. Youth unemployment
is a critical issue in certain areas of the GBSLEP. Brian Carr queried
whether anything could be done to support discussions with the Big Lottery
Fund (BLF). Lloyd Broad confirmed that discussions are progressing with
BLF and that a decision on match funding is expected week commencing 20
Oct. The finalised LIP will identify sources of match funding. Tony Crabby
asked whether volunteer time would be eligible as match and Lloyd
confirmed that while it is not eligible for ERDF, it may be eligible under ESF
‘within a controlled environment’.
D: EAFRD – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (Paper 5D)
(Mark Reed)
Action
22. Mark Reed presented the paper on EAFRD. Jo Jury requested indicative
spend and outputs targets.
Mark Reed to
provide details
to Jo Jury
E: Principles of pipeline & communication channels (Paper 5E) (Liz Grove)
23. Liz Grove presented the paper on pipeline and communications channels.
Phil Extance cautioned against the terminology of ‘pipeline’ as this may give
the wrong impression of there being a predetermined list of projects.
'Priorities of investment' was suggested as an alternative. Cllr Courts
enquired about the marketing strategy in respect of ‘calls’ and it was indicated
that the prospectus for calls is expected to be reviewed in Dec.
F. Technical Assistance strategy – verbal update (Lloyd Broad)
24. Lloyd updated the group on discussions with the Commission in respect of TA
allocations for use by ESIF Committees. TA overall represents 4% of the
Programme, with 2% of that 4% reserved for national MA TA activity. The
remaining 2% may be available for ESIF Committees for localised TA activity
but this is still to be ratified. A paper is being prepared which sets out a range
of options, including the types of activities which TA could support, e.g.
voluntary sector capacity building, SUD activity, localised communications
activity, cross LEP activity. The outline draft will be tabled at the next
meeting.
6. Date and time of next meeting – 17 December 2014, 1.30pm – 3.30pm at
Birmingham Council House, Committee Room 1
25. Cllr Courts thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting.
Lloyd Broad to
provide
outline TA
paper for next
meeting.