Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 129)
WEDNESDAY 21 MAY 2003
MS JANE
HENDERSON, MR
PHIL MCVEY
AND MS
ALISON BIDDULPH
Q120 Mr Stewart: What about Alison
and Phil?
Ms Biddulph: I can only support
what Jane says. The consultation period on the UK Government's
position does not end until 4 July, so the Government is still
receiving views on this issue. I would also underline that the
processes we are managing now, through ESF and co-financing, are
indeed locking many organisations into some mainstream, key strategic
organisations within their sub-region, so that by the end of the
programme they will be better positioned to secure their future,
post-2006.
Mr McVey: Yes, I would agree.
This might be too micro an answer to what you were anticipating,
but I think, in terms of the voluntary and community sector, particularly,
and the longer-term engagement in programmes, the way that ESF
is operating through co-financing offers a real opportunity for
them to build that capacity, so that in the longer term they are
able to deliver programmes and services to disadvantaged people.
Q121 Mr Stewart: I think this Committee
has had some evidence of some fantastic programmes in the UK,
and indeed in Portugal and Spain, which we have visited recently.
My own personal concern is that I feel there is a good deal of
overdependency on ESF, which could come to a great shock in 2006
when we come to an end. You have hinted already that there are
some exit strategies, do you think this is reflected across Europe,
are organisations ready for the shock when the ESF is going to
be reduced dramatically?
Ms Henderson: I would not want
to say across Europe, what I would say though is in the UK the
proportion of money coming from ESF, when you set it alongside
the budget of a Learning and Skills Council, or even an RDA, looks
quite modest. I think, in my region, Objective 3 will deliver
£136 million over seven years, which is about the same as
one year of the RDA's budget, and about the same as one LSC's
budget for one year, to get it in perspective. It may be different
in Spain, I just do not know.
Q122 Mr Stewart: Do you think there
is strength in the sense that you can get ESF's horizontal programme
in Objective 1, 2 or 3, there is a bit more protection there,
if you use Objective 1 you can get it under some other Objectives?
Ms Henderson: I think it is a
strength; well, what is a strength is that the people and employment
aspects go hand in hand with the more physical aspects of investment;
and we know, from long experience, through previous regeneration
programmes down the years, that regeneration does not succeed
unless you attend to the human aspects and build up a skills base.
In fact, all the regions, I think, when they did a submission
to the Treasury for the last Spending Review, highlighted skills
issues as one of the key factors for prosperity for the future.
Q123 Mr Stewart: There are still
going to be, of course, considerable political barriers before
this discussion goes through. As you will know, the UK and Germany,
as net contributors, are quite keen on repatriation of ESF, while
other countries, such as Spain, Portugal and, indeed, Italy, will
be fighting to the last breath to stop this happening. But let
us assume we do have repatriation in the UK and we are responsible
then for ESF internally, do you see any advantages of that, for
example, do you see less bureaucracy being involved, more flexibility,
is it going to be more creative, or what are the implications
of taking on these bills?
Ms Henderson: There are pros and
cons. Some of the benefits of European Funds one would not want
to lose: one is the fact that it is a partnership approach so
it involves lots of people and locks them into a strategy for
an area, or a theme. The other advantage is that it is generally
cross-cutting, going back to the question you asked a moment ago,
we are not looking just at skills alone, or building alone. But,
inevitably, there are bits of process associated with European
Funds, even though we are mitigating some of them, and match funding
used to be the bugbear but co-financing is helping address that.
The other one tends to be the monitoring regime, which sometimes
can seem to people rather onerous, though we try to make sure
that it is not excessively onerous in relation to the risk.
Q124 Mr Stewart: Alison, or Phil,
do you have anything else to add?
Mr McVey: I think Jane mentioned
earlier on the Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action,
and, in a sense, whatever scenario arises, those regional documents,
and the partnership working that is coming out of those, will
ensure that funding on a regional basis meets the needs of that
region, and indeed sub-regions as well. This is because of the
way the partnership approach can work as a result of the Framework
for Regional Employment and Skills Action.
Ms Biddulph: We have a well-developed
regional architectural infrastructure now, from which to administer
important funding, to improve skills and also to promote economic
development and physical regeneration, and I think there are many
advantages in ensuring that the human resource element of that
is welded into our regional policy.
Q125 Mr Stewart: Do you think there
are any dangers then, if we do have repatriation, of losing some
of the European-wide Objectives, which ESF is all about, for example,
benchmarking of best practice and equal opportunities?
Ms Henderson: I do not think the
Government's consultation paper implies that there would not still
be a European dimension to a lot of what we do; in particular,
that kind of benchmarking and learning would need to continue.
Ms Biddulph: I would just agree
with Jane and say that, yes, there is a clear intention of the
Government's position to link any approach to an EU-wide framework,
and indeed the Lisbon Agenda, which is very important to the Government
and which we are trying to progress at the moment.
Mr McVey: I will just refer again
to the Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action process,
where, in the South West Region, I cannot speak for the other
regions, benchmarking, both within the UK and outside the UK,
has been identified as something that needs to be built into that.
Q126 Chairman: You do not think that
you are keeping all this too secret, do you? There is a sense
that, maybe, if more people knew of the opportunity that is afforded
through access to some of these Funds, you might find that you
shared the opportunity a bit more widely. It is not really meant
to be a criticism, because obviously you are pedalling very hard
to stay within the rules and get all this sorted, and there are
only so many hours in every day, but do you take steps to try
to broadcast the news, the prospect for new opportunities for
capacity-building within the work that you do?
Ms Henderson: Very much so. A
couple of months ago I chaired a conference on ESF in our region,
which was designed to showcase successes and demonstrate to other
potential bidders what was there for them, if they wanted to come
forward. Also we have a regional newsletter, I think Yorkshire
and Humber has something similar, and numerous other types of
workshops are mounted. Phil, you can give examples.[8]
Mr McVey: Specifically in the
South West Region, we work with the voluntary and community sector,
for example, to hold a continuing series of workshops to let people
know about ESF, particularly in the context of co-financing as
well, how to engage with co-financing organisations, the sort
of process that you need to go through, as well as the publicity
that Jane has mentioned already. Also we work very closely with
the Regional Development Agency and their Regional Observatory,
which is about collecting information and intelligence about the
region, sharing that with people through publications such as
this, that I can leave with the Committee, that let people know
what ESF is doing in the region.
Q127 Chairman: Are there extant other
projects that you are supporting currently, in your various regions?
Is there something on a website somewhere that says, "Little
Puddleduck Disability Forum";
Ms Henderson: Yes, we have a database
on that.
Q128 Chairman: Can we get access
to that, if we make arrangements with you?
Ms Biddulph: Yes, certainly.
Q129 Chairman: Is there anything
that you think we have not covered that you would like to tell
us about? We are running a little bit late and I apologise for
that, and we have got another group of witnesses; but is there
anything that you think we should be thinking about in the course
of the inquiry?
Ms Henderson: I think the ones
that we have talked a little bit about, bureaucracy and monitoring.
Just to put it all in perspective, I think probably the total
direct costs of all the administration in the programme we have
been describing still come to only about 2% of the total value
of the programme the value of the programme nationally is, what,
£460 million about half of which is expenditure in the Government
Offices, half back in Whitehall headquarters; That's £10
million altogether, half in headquarters, to administer the programme.
So I do not think it stacks up too badly, despite all the reservations
people inevitably have about monitoring and appraisal.
Chairman: Thank you very much. That has
been very useful.
8 Please refer to the supplementary memorandum (ESF
20), Ev 56. Back
|
