UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 406-iii

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE THE

EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL COMMITTEE

 

EAST MIDLANDS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY

MONDAY 8 JUNE 2009

(TUPTON)

DR. ROGER BROOKS, PROFESSOR JOHN COYNE , JENNY KENNING and PROFESSOR PHILL DICKENS

SARAH FOWLER, CHARLOTTE GAULT, MADDY JAGO and BETTINA LANGE

 

Evidence heard in Public

Questions 85 - 156

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 

 

Oral Evidence

Taken before the East Midlands Regional Committee

on Monday 8 June 2009

Members present:

Paddy Tipping (Chairman)

Mr. Bob Laxton

Judy Mallaber

 

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Dr. Roger Brooks, Deputy Director of Research Innovation Services, University of Nottingham, Professor John Coyne, Vice-Chancellor, University of Derby, Chair of East Midlands Universities Association, Jenny Kenning, Executive Director, East Midlands Universities Association, and Professor Phill Dickens, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Enterprise), Loughborough University, gave evidence.

 

Q85 Chairman: Welcome to Tupton village hall. The Committee was keen to get out of Westminster and Whitehall and to go around the regions. We have been to the big cities and we were keen to come to more rural areas, so we are here. Thanks to our three witnesses for coming. It would be helpful if you introduced yourselves briefly. We will start with Professor Dickens.

Professor Dickens: I am from Loughborough university, where I am Pro-Vice-Chancellor for enterprise. I have been in that position since 1 December 2008. Previously, I was mainly connected with running research centres at the university. I have worked at three different universities in the east midlands.

Professor Coyne: My day job is as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Derby, but I am currently also the Chair of the East Midlands Universities Association, which represents the 10 universities in the region.

Dr. Brooks: I am Roger Brooks. I am Deputy Director of Research Innovation services at the University of Nottingham. Prior to that, I managed the optical portfolio for Marconi worldwide.

 

Q86 Chairman: Shall we start at the beginning? Tell us a bit about the relationship between the East Midlands Development Agency and the higher education sector. What is the relationship? What do you talk about?

Professor Coyne: If I can place that in a little context, the relationship with EMDA operates very effectively on two levels. There is a strong formal relationship between the EMUA and EMDA. We meet regularly to exchange ideas and we informally consult each other on issues fairly frequently. We also meet formally with a clear agenda, and each in turn takes responsibility for setting that agenda so that we better understand the issues that the other faces. The university sector is integral to the prosperity of the region, and we are deeply embedded in many of the thought processes about the region's future evolution. That is supported by effective one-to-one university-level relationships. Every university is regularly and frequently in contact with EMDA on a needs-driven basis. Every university also has a regular periodic consultation, in which EMDA will visit to discuss issues in general.

 

Q87 Chairman: What is on the agenda at the moment?

Professor Coyne: The major issue in the very short term is how we can galvanise activities and work together to ensure that the recession that we now face is as short as possible and that the economy emerges from it as strongly as possible. That is a very short-term variation on a broader theme. Our principal engagements are around innovation, technology transfer, leveraging the exploitation of the scientific and engineering base into the new technologies, and serving some of the priority sectors. I imagine that some of the most manifest engagements are those where the work of the university touches priorities in the regional economic strategy most closely.

 

Q88 Chairman: You have just mentioned the regional economic strategy. It is an interesting document. How far were the EMUA, as a body, and individual organisations involved in drawing it up?

Professor Coyne: Quite extensively. As individual universities, we had an opportunity to provide expertise, opinions and our balance of priorities. As the EMUA, we also formally engaged in the process to ensure that the university body's collective view was well represented. However, we found EMDA to be very proactive in seeking our advice, expertise and support.

 

Q89 Chairman: Just tell us how the process worked. Was there a draft paper? Did you submit ideas?

Professor Coyne: Both. There were many drafts. There were drafts that we liked better than others and there were sections that we liked better than others. Not surprisingly, perhaps, we were keen to ensure that the weight of the university sector was fully represented, because we are not only active agents in the region's economic fortunes, but active recipients of the consequences of any strategy because we are a significant sector. Some 4% of the region's gross domestic product is in the university sector. We employ 60,000 people and we have £1.4 billion of turnover. We are a net importer of young people into the region, although, regrettably, we are also a net exporter of graduates, and we would like to keep more of them in the region. We were keen in our engagements to ensure that not only the weight of the sector was represented, but our expertise, which could help as a key driver in areas such as environmental technologies and innovation.

 

Q90 Chairman: In your evidence to us, you mentioned two pieces of work-the regional innovation strategy and the regional technology framework. Just explain what those are.

Professor Coyne: The innovation strategy looks at the way in which the future of the region's economy can progress more quickly and more substantively by the application of innovative new ideas, products and processes across the piece. Our engagement with the strategy has been to ensure that the universities have a higher impact as sources of potential innovation, homes for potential innovation and agents of change in other people's innovations. Part of that has been through access to university expertise and particularly things such as the energy technologies at Loughborough. If my colleagues from Northampton were represented today, they would talk about the work that they are doing on sustainable construction and waste management-new ideas in fairly established industries. The technology framework operates in a not dissimilar way.

 

Q91 Chairman: Professor Dickens, do you want to talk about how the innovation strategy impinges on Loughborough? You are doing some work on energy, are you not?

Professor Dickens: Yes. EMDA has been tremendously helpful in that work. We have now developed a cluster of activities in energy. For example, EMDA has been helpful in the development of the science and enterprise park that we are running, which will have quite a large energy technologies institute. People such as Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems are also there. EMDA has also engaged with other regional development agencies, and particularly Advantage West Midlands. Working with the RDAs has been of particular benefit, because universities tend to work quite a lot at national and international level, and it is useful to work across regions with regional development agencies, as well as within regions.

 

Q92 Chairman: Dr. Brooks, do you have some examples?

Dr. Brooks: Yes. EMDA's innovation strategy is underpinned by the innovation networks, or iNets for short. Nottingham, because of its width and breadth-it comprises 40% of all higher education institutions in terms of research income-has subscribed to all four networks. EMDA has shown some foresight in putting its strategies together, because HEIs can work together, and our work with Loughborough on energy is a case in point. So EMDA is quite supportive in that way, in addition to funding to much larger, more strategic bids. Phill has talked about innovation partners, and there is also biomass generation.

Chairman: You just mentioned funding, and that leads on to Judy's questions.

 

Q93 Judy Mallaber: You have been very positive up to now about the relationship between EMDA and the university sector. John, you specifically talked about the good regular bilateral discussions. However, I noticed, particularly in the Nottingham university evidence, some concerns about the processes for individual project appraisal. Would you like to expand on that and your experience, and perhaps the others could also tell us how they feel on that?

Dr. Brooks: It impacts bids in terms of two areas. One is that very small bids, particularly as far as the RDF funding is concerned, can, because of the time it takes to administer them, be less effective. Therefore, there are certain bids-let us say sub-£50,000-that would not normally go forward that would be seen to be quite important. Equally, there is a process issue. When large bids come into EMDA, we do not get a definite no or a definite yes. We move then to the next stage. With any university-I am sure that the professor would support me in this-it is a case of engagement with the academics first, so you try to build a pipeline of engagement within the university, and bad news early is good news. We would rather have a definite no.

We also think there has been a very strong-overly strong-application of state aid. We are public bodies. Therefore, we are for the good of the public as well, and we would like to see things a little more relaxed and a little more latitude to be shown as far as that is concerned. There are a lot of hoops to jump through, and some of them can be quite off-putting.

 

Q94 Judy Mallaber: How does it work? Do you come up with a project and then see whether you can fit it into some EMDA objectives, or do you look at EMDA objectives and say, "We could meet the regional objectives by doing this"? Which way round does it work or is it a bit of both? What is the process? Are you trying to shoehorn your pet projects into those objectives?

Dr. Brooks: It operates in various ways. If you look at EMDA's innovation network strategy, it is very clear what is required. It needs to suit four of the sectors, and therefore projects need to be managed within those areas. Equally, we would talk to academics to get their ideas and move them forward. EMDA is quite supportive in this. If we can bring a lot of industrial sponsorship-there is large biomass going in shortly, via the European regional development fund-that gets a positive viewpoint from EMDA for obvious reasons, because of the outputs. It is two ways. We will clearly take the regional innovation strategy and the regional economic strategy into account when we look at the projects coming forward.

 

Q95 Judy Mallaber: You comment that the appraisal is inefficient "by design". What can be done to make the process simpler and more efficient?

Dr. Brooks: Speed, in terms of how quickly we could know what is going on, would help tremendously. Again, a definite yes or a definite no at the start of the projects would also be quite useful. I guess those ones have the largest impact; I do not know what my colleagues would say to that.

 

Q96 Judy Mallaber: Are all the universities facing a similar problem with that, or does it relate more to one type of programme than others?

Professor Coyne: Individual universities' experience probably does vary, but generically, through EMUA, we have been made aware of some frustration about the speed of evaluation in the ERDF in particular and possibly sometimes an over-zealous application of the rules framework, which is not necessarily matched either in other regions or in other states administering similar funds. Inevitably, there are some frustrations about that. We must be honest: when universities have projects that they feel passionate about, we are sometimes a little impatient and it is a little difficult to see why other people cannot share our enthusiasm for those projects. On occasion, you will have something that is wholly originated in a university where support from EMDA is sought.

What we have tried to do, however, through the engagement process, both university to EMDA and organisation to EMDA, is to try to get a much stronger framework of alignment, so that neither party wastes time and frustration by us proposing projects that do not fit or EMDA having expectations on universities that they are not equipped to deliver. So we have worked very hard to get an alignment in relation to the regional economic strategy.

To be perfectly frank, EMDA is very firm in telling us that its task is investing in projects that will deliver the regional economic strategy more fully, more quickly, or with the broadest benefit. So we have tried to say, "Well, what are your key priorities and what is it that you think the universities can do best?" We have then tried to align and simplify our own internal processes. One classic example is the higher education innovation fund, where we agreed a framework with EMDA. If universities chose to deploy their higher education innovation fund, which they are perfectly free to do, in matters that would more readily help EMDA deliver the regional economic strategy, it would then consider match funding in those projects so that there was at least a kind of predetermined alignment. But there are always frustrations if the process takes a little longer than perhaps our enthusiasm would like it to.

 

Q97 Judy Mallaber: You said "we", but in this process how far are you working collectively to put things forward, and how far is this about competition between the universities trying to put in new bids?

Professor Coyne: It is always a healthy balance. Universities are autonomous institutions. As institutions we are quite single-minded and mission-driven, and academics by their very nature are independent in mind and spirit, so getting all of us pointing in the same direction at once is not always easy.

Chairman: Just like the Labour party.

Professor Coyne: I sometimes think that when I became chair of the East Midlands Universities Association I had hair, but those who know me realise that that is not true. It is difficult, but we work hard at it. There is a very clear recognition that as autonomous institutions with our own mission-driven agendas we will compete. There is a competitive streak in pursuit of excellence in all the universities. By the same token, we have had great successes, in part facilitated by EMDA and in part by the hard work of colleagues within institutions, in trying to make sure that we come together where we can achieve added value and a higher impact. Then you compete where it is appropriate. I think the energy technologies initiative that is housed at Loughborough is a good example. It is a very strong collaboration between the universities of Nottingham, Loughborough and Birmingham. EMDA was pivotal in securing that for our region. The work there, however, has a plan that over the years will be more inclusive of all the universities in the region, but only where the specific expertise can bring something to the party. All of us realise that you only make progress if you can find the best, and then you can leverage that and get greater added value. If other universities have something to bring to the party, they will add value.

 

Q98 Chairman: Roger, you made a point earlier about state aid. Were you saying that EMDA was not applying the rules properly or was over-rigorous?

Dr. Brooks: No, I think EMDA applied the rules exactly. There is a degree of over-rigour.

 

Q99 Mr. Laxton: When you have funding in place by EMDA, do you think it is more interested in the short-term rather than the long-term benefits of a project? Have you found that, or is it a mix of both?

Dr. Brooks: Nottingham currently has a portfolio funded by EMDA of about £15 million, which is fairly substantial. A lot of the projects are three years in nature and therefore there is in some cases an expectation of pump-prime activity. We have a GNSS/GPS-type technologies institute being set up at the moment and that will have sustainability beyond that.

There are other projects where EMDA has effectively taken existing initiatives. The Lachesis fund is one; Innovation Partnerships is another. EMDA backed that and that was driven by the universities, anyway, since 2001. That is a much longer-term set of projects, which is working fine. In terms of Lachesis and Innovation Partnerships, what started up as very small projects now includes a lot of the universities, so some short term, some long term.

 

Q100 Mr. Laxton: Have you any evidence that they are perhaps more interested in short-term results?

Professor Dickens: My experience is not that. I think they have a mix. If anything, I would say it probably tends more towards the longer-term results. Certainly most of the things that I can think of have got an expected life after a number of years. There might be some immediate short-term benefits, but my feeling is that they tend to look more for longer term.

 

Q101 Mr. Laxton: Have any of you had any experience other than, for example, pulling the financial rug from underneath the project if it thinks that it is not progressing well or not getting rapid enough results?

Dr. Brooks: In all contracts there is a clawback facility and we have yet to see it exercised at our university. I am sure it is the case for others as well. But I have no doubt that if the outputs are not met, EMDA will quite rightly exercise that clawback.

Professor Coyne: There is a very clear focus and expectation on monitoring, delivery and outputs, and all parties exercise their obligations under that. Speaking across the piece, if there has been any frustration over the past six to nine months, it has possibly been that, with the rapid onset of the recession, we might like to have seen a little more flexibility to deal with the short term. All universities were very active in making submissions to the Economic Challenge Investment Fund nationally. There was quite an imaginative package of measures that we felt could have a bigger impact.

In some respects, we have certainly had colleagues represent the view that they would like to have seen EMDA be a little more flexible in getting some short-term boosting, but by and large that balance between short term and long term has been reasonable and acceptable. Indeed, the real returns to the two principal arms that we have spoken of are at very best medium term, but most likely long term, in order to get the kind of changes in the structure of our economy that are driven by innovation, new technologies and knowledge transfer. They are not things that just get a quick win overnight.

Professor Dickens: The other thing to bear in mind is that the business that universities are in tends to be more longer term. If you think of the educational aspect, doing a degree takes three or four years and then research projects-say with EPSRC, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council-probably take three or sometimes five years. So, there is more of a culture of long-term working anyway. I am pretty sure that EMDA recognises that, so it is happier to deal with universities on a longer-term basis than it might be with some other organisations. For some organisations, two years is a long time, whereas for a university it is not. That probably sets some of the tone as well.

 

Q102 Mr. Laxton: Do you think that EMDA is good at maximising the impact of its funding? In your experience, how good is it at pulling in match funding as well?

Professor Coyne: Taking a general view again, with representations from EMUA, I think that the universities sector's engagement with EMDA has carried with it an expectation that match funding will go in from the university sector or its partners. We have been extremely successful in leveraging additional funding behind the work that EMDA has done. Indeed, our evidence produced a mini case study; Lachesis is another example.

We have been quite good at leveraging other funds. Sometimes, in the grand scheme of things, relatively modest investments from EMDA-£250,000 or £500,000-have been pivotal in kick-starting a chain of activities that can then leverage additional funding in and often lead to almost undreamed of output.

In other areas EMDA has been prepared to put in money, and match funding and in-kind contribution from universities that take a long-term view. Certainly, with the East Midlands Knowledge Network, the notion that we try to make access to university expertise available to all business advisers through one gateway with a recognisable common platform has potentially significant long-term benefits. It was, relatively speaking, a modest investment from EMDA that unlocked the energy and investments elsewhere and brought that about.

Professor Dickens: There is also lots of follow-on match funding that comes in. To give you an example, we have an innovation centre on our campus that EMDA helped to establish. That houses some of the spin-outs from the university. We had one company there, for example, that has just got £1.25 million from a venture capital company. That is not a direct match funding from anything that EMDA has done, but if we had not had the innovation there and that spin-out, we would not have had that match funding from a London venture capital company. It spreads out quite a long way.

Professor Coyne: There is a good example down in Northampton-an extension from the sustainable construction iNet area where there is money from EMDA, Daventry District Council and construction employers, and some local money. They have about 40-odd businesses that are incubating all around aspects of sustainable construction.

As Phill says, sometimes it is difficult to see the absolute, direct mapping-£1 million that EMDA produced and £3 million from something else-but there is no doubt that the ability to kick-start a chain of events that leads to something that adds up to more than the sum of the parts is sometimes important.

The note of caution in all this is that we all know that it is notoriously difficult to pick winners. Sometimes you have to have the courage of your convictions and give things time to develop. iNet is a bold move, but you cannot put an innovation network in for every interest-you have to choose the ones where you think you can have the biggest impact. You then need the courage to stick with that and follow it through so that our alignment can come alongside it and the industry can buy in. You do not get an iNet return in months; you get it in several, perhaps many, years.

 

Q103 Judy Mallaber: This may not be an answerable question, but what proportion of your research budgets involves you working directly with companies and industry? I really have no sense of that. It may not be answerable, but I assume that the figure varies between universities.

Professor Coyne: It varies enormously between universities and the proportion that EMDA, or public money, represents in contributions to each university. For the University of Derby, commercial income and engagement with employers on knowledge and innovation, as opposed to learning and programmes, are relatively modest, so contributions from bodies such as EMDA are a significant driver.

For a more research-intensive university with four times the turnover, such as Leicester, which is not represented here, the proportion of the total turnover from the corporate sector would be much greater and the proportion of public funding through agencies such as EMDA much smaller, but that is not to diminish its significance. If we get this relationship right, the ability to trigger impact will be what matters, rather than pure weight, and I am sure that at Nottingham the ratios are also different.

Dr. Brooks: That is a difficult thing to calculate. If you look at it in the broadest sense, you will see that we all come in at about £135 million in research this year, which means we are sitting on a £400 million research portfolio at around 10%, but that is a very broad figure that we would not like to be quoted on, because certain industrial partners will contribute a significant amount of that.

Other industrial partners will just be looking to see what they can see as far as an open innovation model, which is what they can take with them, so it will not necessarily be funding, but they are part of a much larger initiative and it is reasonably significant.

Chairman: John, you talked to us earlier about the current economic climate, and I think that Judy wants to pursue that with you.

 

Q104 Judy Mallaber: Yes, you enticed us by saying that you had had some proposals about what might be done in the shorter term and that you felt that they had not necessarily taken up some of your ideas. Can you expand a bit on what you think we should be doing about our current economic problems and what you think has been done and should have been done?

Professor Coyne: I was representing observations that some of my colleagues at other universities had fed in, and I might seek the support of the chief executive of EMUA in thinking of some examples. When putting the ECIF bids together, some institutions would have liked to look to EMDA match funding in part, and my understanding is that EMDA match-funded and supported ECIF a little less fully in this region than was the case elsewhere. If I may, I will ask Jenny about that.

Jenny Kenning: EMDA's budgets were fairly committed this time, so it was not able to be flexible in responding to any proposals and suggestions of match funding for this particular fund, but the universities were able to bid into the Higher Education Funding Council. The only fund that would have been available was the European Regional Development Fund, but with the processes that are in place in the East Midlands it was not possible to align that funding with any innovation challenge funds in time, so it was a little bit of flexibility in the funds that were available at EMDA.

 

Q105 Judy Mallaber: Has it been easier for universities in other regions to access funding through ERDF, because that has come up several times? You are suggesting that there was somehow less flexibility in our region than in others. Have we had a differential ability to access funding?

Professor Coyne: Yes, we do not meet with enormous regularity as regional associations, but Jenny, on behalf of EMUA, does meet quite frequently with directors in other areas to exchanges ideas. It appears that they have been a little speedier and more flexible in their interpretation than has been the case in the East Midlands, but this is sharing anecdotal information, rather than the fruits of any analytical study.

 

Q106 Judy Mallaber: Going back to the broader economic position, has that in any way affected the priorities of EMDA and its focus on the importance of higher-level skills? Has it affected its way of operating in relation to the skills agenda?

Professor Coyne: I am not sure that we have seen any massive change. Indeed, the universities sector's engagement in measures to address the economic downturn has not been helped by not having a seat at the table with the regional cabinet that was set up. It seems astonishing to us, as a group of universities, that a sector that represents £1.4 billion of direct turnover and probably £2.5 billion of economic impact per annum does not even have a voice when measures to tackle the economy are being discussed at regional level.

We have made several representations regarding that, but with little effect to date, so I am afraid that the mysteries of how the recession is being tackled will have to remain a mystery to us.

 

Q107 Judy Mallaber: Do you have access to the Regional Minister?

Professor Coyne: Not so far. We have not been able to find a space in his diary. Have we finally got a date?

Jenny Kenning: There has been no response.

Professor Coyne: He did offer that we go down to meet him in Parliament if he was too busy to meet in the region.

 

Q108 Judy Mallaber: In your evidence you said that EMDA did recognise the importance of preserving skills in the recession. In broad terms, how would you identify the major current skills gaps, and how are relationships via the Learning and Skills Council, regional partners and EMDA, for example, working out in managing to meet those skills gaps?

Professor Coyne: Experience will differ by institution, so if you will permit me, I will give a generic response. As universities, we are of course concerned with higher-level skills. One of the pieces of work that we commissioned demonstrated that one of the first challenges we have is that many employers do not know what higher-level skills are, and are perhaps not as effective as they could be in seeing how they can benefit their particular business. That was a piece of work called "Known unknowns" that the then EMUA commissioned.

We therefore have some work to do, which EMDA has been supportive of, in just winning hearts and minds. We have experimented with a concept called higher-level skills brokers, and EMUA is managing a project to try to get people out into the field with companies to encourage them to look more to universities, and therefore keep more graduates in the region. Another issue that many universities are engaged with is developing their students' entrepreneurial skills as part of their programme so that they might consider self-employment when they leave university, rather than filling a job in a conventional sense. So, we encourage students to start their own businesses, and many institutions will have programmes-incubators-to support that. Indeed, the University of Nottingham was entrepreneurial university of the year last year, which was recognition of its great work in getting all its students to consider their own entrepreneurial skills. There is a slight irony, in that if a student starts their own business, they are not deemed to have entered a graduate job, but that is just one of the world's conundrums.

Even though the emphasis might differ between institutions, we are very actively engaged across the piece in trying to encourage the acquisition of higher-level skills, the appreciation of higher-level skills in the employment community, and the development in all our students of skills that will enable them to be value-adding employees or self-employees perhaps more readily than in the past.

 

Q109 Chairman: John, just take us back to the point you were making about the economic cabinet in the region. You told us fairly firmly that you were not represented on that, and you then said that you had had a number of goes.

Professor Coyne: Yes.

Chairman: Who did you talk to?

Professor Coyne: We have communicated directly with the Minister. We are indirectly represented, in that the regional director of the Learning and Skills Council is expected to take up the HE brief and he has been an active voice for us. But he himself has made interventions to that end. We have made representations formally through the Government Office, but thus far there has been no action, and the Minister's diary has never permitted a meeting that Jenny and I have sought, simply to discuss the issue.

 

Q110 Chairman: The whole regional structure will change in the future, with the assembly going. The implication is that local authorities will take a greater role. What is your view on that?

Professor Coyne: Huge, huge concern. The timing is perhaps a little unfortunate, but the crucial issue is that the natural boundaries of economic geography do not always sit on administrative boundaries. There are things that you can do locally, but there are other things where the footprint that you require and the economic impact that you can make go beyond local authority boundaries.

Speaking as the vice-chancellor of the University of Derby, we are a university of modest scale, and our physical presence is entirely within Derbyshire. As an institution, we are strongly engaged locally and with the community. If smaller boundaries would work for anybody, they would work for the University of Derby. None the less, we are firmly of the view that the economic footprint within which we work transcends the boundaries of Derbyshire.

There are certain things whose economic impact really must be seen at a regional level. My concern, and the concern that has been shared by our group of universities, is that certain things need the bigger geography if they are to have an impact. We need to be able to lift eyes, to look at long-term issues and to avoid getting dragged into what might be very micro-local economic issues.

There is then an operational issue. Responsibility for these issues has not been with local authorities, so it will naturally be some time before they begin to acquire the ability and expertise to have the impact that you would wish for. Again, the timing is a little unfortunate. We would have preferred a bigger geography.

 

Q111 Chairman: Roger, you have good relationships with the city of Nottingham. The university also has.

Dr. Brooks: Yes.

Chairman: Do you share those concerns?

Dr. Brooks: I would echo what John says completely. On the loss of the sub-regional partnerships, the Greater Nottingham partnership will be going at the end of the year. I sit on its board, along with some other colleagues, and we are seeing the strategic plans effectively coming to a halt. If we are to put another organisation in place, what will it be? Who will need bringing up to speed with current initiatives? Operationally, how do we carry those things forward? That includes the reallocation of budgets. It is a highly fluid environment at a time when industry has a lot of requirements, so I would echo what John says.

Professor Dickens: I agree with those comments completely. To take the example of the Energy Technologies Institute, I do not think that that would have happened under the new system.

 

Q112 Chairman: Talking about the new system that is coming into effect, how will you feed in? Who will you talk to? Will you talk to EMDA or the leaders' board? Where will the dialogue be?

Professor Dickens: At the moment I am feeling my way. We will carry on communicating with EMDA. I have to try to understand what the local situation is and who the different local players are. At the moment, it is not clear to me who will be doing what. There is a big concern about how this will pan out.

Professor Coyne: At EMUA level, we are continuing to work strongly with EMDA and the professional officers. With them, and through them, we are also trying to get a voice in the leaders' forum. We fear that the work done by a broadly defined university sector in the immediate past to become better understood, better integrated and better able to add value will have to start again with a set of constituencies that perhaps understand less. We do not deny the imperative of local democracy and the electoral force of communities taking ownership of local matters, but the university geography tends to be a little bit bigger and our impact tends to be a little bit more long term. We need forums and access that enable us to have a voice and an influence, and let us harness our resources that contribute to what benefits all of us: a regional economic strategy that delivers a flourishing region where people actually want to come to study, stay and work, and to build businesses and prosperity.

Chairman: We are coming towards the end of this session. Are there any final points that you would like to make? Judy will say something while you think about your final pitch.

 

Q113 Judy Mallaber: One of the three structural themes for the region and the regional economic strategy centres on achieving equality. Obviously, I know Derby University best, and I know that you have a strong commitment towards equality in relation to your own intake, particularly in terms of more socially disadvantaged students, not to mention on other issues of equality such as race and gender. Do you think that achieving equality is being looked at seriously by the regional economic strategy? Also, is the issue being taken up by your contacts in the regional development agency and other institutions?

Dr. Brooks: I believe so. The consultation for the regional economic strategy and the regional innovation strategy went to all of the universities and they responded to it. We see EMDA continuing in that direction, so yes, that has been achieved.

Professor Coyne: I certainly think that the emphasis from the outset on our region being a flourishing region that is comfortable in its skin and socially inclusive is a laudable aim, and is better than narrow economic measures. We are all conscious of the need to be open and inclusive right across the piece in our policies and the way in which we engage with EMDA.

 

Q114 Chairman: Some final messages from all of you. What is the final paragraph that you would like to leave us with?

Professor Dickens: My main concern at present, apart from the new structure, which is a big concern, is the pressure on EMDA or local authorities for short-term results. We are seeing that; money or funds have been diverted within EMDA for a short-term response during the recession. As a direct consequence, some long-term plans have gone out the window.

 

Q115 Chairman: Can you give us an example?

Professor Dickens: We have one example at my university where a plan for a large centre for new technology completely died, which was purely down to unfortunate timing. There is a concern, so we want to see a long-term commitment as well.

Professor Coyne: Our engagement with EMDA has been strong and effective, and has grown. We have been welcomed in decision making and EMDA has been receptive to our ideas. Inevitably, we all have frustrations about parts of the process but, collectively, I want to leave the message that we are well aligned with an organisation that we see doing a very effective job, that harnesses and uses its resources well, that presses all of us to leverage advantage and that does not lose sight of the end game, which is the delivery of an economic strategy that improves the social and economic condition of the region.

Dr. Brooks: I would echo John's comments. The University of Nottingham is very happy with EMDA. We think it has vision and foresight. The iNet strategy now seems to have been picked up by other regions too, so we are very happy with it. My whinge, and this will not be a major surprise, is that if you are looking to co-finance in the future and looking for a technology strategy board, the application processes will need to be speeded up and cleaned up because it could effectively stop co-financing from occurring.

 

Q116 Chairman: I have one final question. There have been two reports on EMDA recently-one by ECOTEC and one by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which were very positive. Have you read those reports?

Professor Coyne: Yes, and we were canvassed for evidence.

 

Q117 Chairman: Do you think that they are valid reports?

Professor Coyne: My recollection of the ECOTEC report-he says thinking, "Why didn't I read it yesterday knowing that I was coming here today"-is that it gave a balanced view. I like reports that seem to describe the institutions that I think I am dealing with and the report got that touch and feel right.

Chairman: Thank you all very much. That has reinforced for me the value of the higher education sector in the region, which is something I had lost sight of. Thank you for coming.

 

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Sarah Fowler, Area Manager (East Area, Midlands Region), Environment Agency, Charlotte Gault, (The Wildlife Trusts), East Midlands Environment Link, Maddy Jago, Regional Director North East, Natural England, and Bettina Lange, (Campaign to Protect Rural England), East Midlands Environment Link, gave evidence.

 

Q118 Chairman: Welcome to you all. You have all sat in and seen the previous session. It would be really helpful if you could all introduce yourselves in turn.

Sarah Fowler: My name is Sarah Fowler. I am the Area Manager for the East Area for the Environment Agency, Midlands Region. I lead all our operations in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, and I work very closely with my colleague who covers operations in Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland.

Charlotte Gault: I am Charlotte Gault. I am Head of Regional Conservation Policy for the Wildlife Trusts in the East Midlands, and I am here on behalf of East Midlands Environment Link, which is a grouping of environmental non-governmental organisations.

Bettina Lange: I am Bettina Lange. I am a Regional Policy Officer for the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I am also here to represent EMEL. Virtually since EMDA was set up, I have been trying to establish good relationships with it, with varying results. However, we will come to that.

Chairman: I am sure that we will.

Maddy Jago: I am Maddy Jago. I am the Regional Director for Natural England in the East Midlands.

 

Q119 Chairman: Maddy, you are fairly new in your post, is that right?

Maddy Jago: I am, yes. I hope that I do a good job today to represent Natural England's views.

 

Q120 Chairman: Let us start with the sustainability duty. Nowadays, there is a duty on regional development agencies to take sustainability seriously as an issue. I have an impression that perhaps people in the environmental movement do not think that the agencies are fulfilling that duty. Is that right? Bettina, perhaps you had better start on this point.

Bettina Lange: Yes, it is quite true that there is a duty for the RDAs to-I am unsure how best to put it-situate the regional economic strategies within a sustainable development context, including the UK's sustainable development strategy and so on. However, that duty is compromised, not only by the way that EMDA has sometimes gone about fulfilling it but by certain impositions from central Government, in particular what the RDAs are actually being assessed on in relation to their performance.

The key performance indicators are not sustainable development indicators; rather, they are an increase in GVA and GDP, which are very conventional economic indicators. As far as we understand it, those indicators are structurally incapable of reflecting whether or not the environmental side and to some extent even the social side of sustainable development is being advanced or hindered. So that is the fundamental problem.

Maddy Jago: I would like to take a step back from that position. When I was preparing for this session, I wanted to reflect on our understanding of sustainability at the present time. I went back to the Brundtland Commission, which provides probably the best-known definition of sustainability and also provides a useful context for this session now. It is the definition that calls for development that meets "the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." That definition will be familiar to all of us. I should also say that our evidence is very much within the context of understanding where we are now, but it is also concerned with where we want to get to.

The original definition of sustainability looks at three pillars. To summarise the view about where we are now, the RES, as it is constituted, really looks at trade-offs between those three pillars. There is the idea that, if you take a bit out of the environment, you can put a bit back somewhere else. I think that a fundamental rethink is needed to understand the environmental capacity of the region and what the constraints are within that capacity. I think that that is where we are in terms of wanting to clarify that, to go forward with the new regional strategy. I can give you some examples, but that may come up later.

 

Q121 Chairman: Give us a couple of examples now.

Maddy Jago: We know that climate change is an issue. But in the East Midlands, out of all the regions, we have the greatest risk of flooding along the coast and river valleys. In the context of Government policy and all the other things, what we have to do is to try to combat that. It is reasonable to expect our regional strategy to have a vision, in terms of the requirements by which it is constituted, to try to address that-to bring parts together to engage with that. That gives us a point of reference as to where we are. At the moment, we are in a situation of looking at trade-offs-development and giving something back to the environment. Our position is that the money in the bank is in deficit-we are not situation of borrowing, but in a situation where we have to try to repay the loan.

 

Q122 Chairman: Sarah, now that we have heard about flooding, I guess you want to talk about it.

Sarah Fowler: I must comment, yes. Just to begin, it is interesting to me. The onus is on every single one of us, every single public sector organisation, to consider sustainability and take on that duty.

Reflecting on the earlier conversation you had with the institutions, the closing remarks about their contribution were about social and economic well-being. I noted that they did not comment on environmental well-being. But I see them as essential to help us promote a sustainable future using their technology, innovation and expertise.

Looking more broadly, the environment shines through in the RES. The environment is part of the East Midlands brand-when you look back to when the RES was developed, it was part of that brand. There are some good elements in there about economic success to deliver quality of life, which is about a prosperous and sustainable region and ensuring sustainability. There is also the index of sustainable economic well-being-all positive in the RES-and we want to ensure that we work with those. But as Bettina said, we need to see that in the context of the drivers whom EMDA is working with. Their licence to operate is around GDP and economic values. How can we work with them to help them see the broader picture?

Also, the East Midlands is the only region without a functional sustainable development champion. The RES has got SD in it, and in its implementation and monitoring, we have to work closely with EMDA to make sure that success is achieved in that. Where there are strong partners, working at a project level with consultants, we deliver some very good work with EMDA on sustainability.

Charlotte Gault: One point Maddy made was about environmental capacity as a key measure that we need to understand-about what the region's capacity to support development of whatever kind is. That gives us the opportunity to turn around how we look at development, in terms of real environmental limits, and also the potential to enhance the region's environmental capacity. I agree that we are in deficit on many aspects of the environment at the moment, so a degree of enhancement is needed to reach an acceptable level. In some areas, there is potential for considerable enhancement, which then improves quality of life.

I agree that there is a lot that is good in the current RES, and we certainly saw when that was developed that that was a major improvement on the previous RES. However, we have some concerns about how that can be delivered, especially in terms of integration across the three pillars of sustainable development and, so, the ability to achieve win-win-win outputs. The two points that I would make about that are that, in the RES implementation plan, only delivery by statutory sectoral organisations is covered-the NGO sector was never asked to provide information on its delivery and, although we have offered to provide that to EMDA, it has not been taken up. So there is a real question about how it is possible for people who might want to deliver in the region even to be aware that we might be doing something relevant and could work with them or assist in them in some way. The other aspect is the lack of active facilitation to enable cross-sectoral and cross-theme delivery in how the RES is implemented.

 

Q123 Chairman: Will you take us on, Bettina and Charlotte, on that? You have made the offer to EMDA; it was not taken up-will you describe the history a bit?

Bettina Lange: The history is quite long actually. The offer was made by EMEL member organisations-for example, in their various submissions to the drafts of the regional economic strategy-but also at specially convened meetings, which EMDA did agree to have with us. The meetings were either on the index of sustainable economic well-being, where I was the person who specifically made an offer, also making the point that there are people with some intellectual capacity outside the universities-they might even be working for environmental NGOs. That went nowhere. Another meeting that I remember was specifically about the evidence base-obviously we were concentrating on its environmental aspect. Again we made a specific offer of help, because it seemed that EMDA were, quite understandably, not really equipped to deal with that side of the evidence base very well. So we were not criticising them for that, but it was never taken up.

We found later on, and in fact at one point the people at EMDA stated this, that they expected what they called the voluntary sector-that is actually what we call the social voluntary sector, or in other words, One East Midlands or Engage, as it was then-to provide input into the environmental evidence base. They expected that sector to liaise with us to get the input. That is so indirect, and we had made a direct offer. We to this day do not understand why EMDA wanted to go down that indirect route. Having said that-Charlotte may want to elaborate-as far as particular areas of the evidence base are concerned, EMDA has now moved a little more in the direction that we think would be more constructive, particularly in relation to biodiversity.

Charlotte Gault: We found with the evidence base as developed for the current RES that there was no understanding or awareness by EMDA that for the environment in particular, perhaps in contrast to the socio-economic sectors, a lot of relevant information is held outside the statutory sector.

For example, information on wildlife biodiversity is held by local wildlife trusts and individual expert volunteers who go out and record a lot of those things in the countryside. They might work with the local wildlife trust or the local biological record centre, which could then manage that information. However, not all the information is held in one place through accessible and simple structures. We are aware of that and have always offered to work with people and help mobilise as much of that information as we can. There are structural deficiencies at the moment in terms of having an infrastructure in place that would allow this to be mobilised easily, but we are keen to work on that and are doing so.

Last time around, our experience was that a significant quantity of information outside the statutory sector was simply not understood. Currently, we are hearing about the development of an evidence base to support a single regional strategy in the future. I have been encouraged so far, and the EMDA has been willing to speak to us about this, particularly in the context of the biodiversity factor. It has outlined a timetable of production for the evidence base and has been open about the limitations of the information currently available. There was a recognition of the paucity of environmental information once the previous evidence base had been put together, and we have to move forward from there. It has been made clear to us that there will be a consultation on a draft evidence-based document, to which we are encouraged to respond. We have an idea of the timetable, and at this stage, I find that quite hopeful.

Sarah Fowler: When you talk about the environment, it is worth bearing in mind that this is a broad sector that covers a broad range of issues. I think that Bettina and Charlotte commented correctly on the issues regarding biodiversity and environmental capacity.

Charlotte stated that it is difficult to collect evidence for those issues, because of their broad and disperse nature, and that is part of the problem. To give another perspective, our involvement in the RES was on the resource protection side, whether that involved protection, water resource management or water quality management. In those cases, the information is more concentrated. There is one authoritative voice- ourselves-and we are heavily involved with EMDA in providing that evidence. That is an example of how it can work, and EMDA is receptive to that. However, it is also about how we work with EMDA. Part of this is about understanding the diverse nature of the environment agenda and helping EMDA to understand that. There is certainty in some places, but not in others.

 

Q124 Chairman: Sarah, you made a point earlier saying that there was no champion in the East Midlands. Who should champion sustainability in the East Midlands? Should it be EMDA or another body?

Sarah Fowler: It is interesting. We have worked closely with the Government Office and with partners to look at sustainability issues in other regions to see what happens there. It is stark that, in the East Midlands, there is no champion body. For example, there is Sustainability North East, Sustainability South West and Sustainability West Midlands. My region cuts across to the West Midlands, and there is a strong body there working on issues at a senior level across the regional partners, whether that is the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Government Office or the development agency. A part of what is lacking in the East Midlands is that senior voice provided by all partners working together. I do not mind where that voice comes together, but we need to have a place where that senior level debate can happen with the EMDA board and with the Government Office. That is critical.

 

Q125 Chairman: Give us a prescription. How would you do it? What would you advocate?

Sarah Fowler: I want us to be able to have conversations at senior level about sustainability issues with the EMDA board, the Government Office for the East Midlands and, in the current set up, the regional assembly. Those discussions should happen on a regular basis at board level.

 

Q126 Chairman: Is that your view, Maddy?

Maddy Jago: I would support that. An example that does not cover the full breadth of the agenda but perhaps encourages us in the right direction is that of the Environment Agency, which recently convened a regional climate change partnership at that sort of senior level. That is the sort of model needed for sustainability, and through the regional strategy we have the opportunity to provide the umbrella strategy document. However, we need the resources and expertise to feed into that. I want to comment on the evidence if I may.

 

Q127 Judy Mallaber: I have a last small point. I am curious. How come a sustainability organisation has been set up in other regions but it did not happen in the East Midlands? Do you know how it is set up in the other areas?

Sarah Fowler: I cannot necessarily comment on the history of the East Midlands. I have moved across from the agency of the Anglia region, so I know how the east of England operates. When the RES was produced, the environment was seen as the brand of the East Midlands, and a core thing that fed through it. It was not seen as necessary because it was just dealt with. As we move towards the implementation of the regional economic strategy, that senior level engagement has been developed further.

Bettina Lange: There are number of reasons for that. One of the reasons is due to the differences in the regional set up. In the West Midlands, for example, what was effectively a sustainable development round table was also the coalition that contained the voluntary environmental sector. There was more integration than there was in this region. Some years ago, back in 2000, there was a sustainability round table, and a report that was done on it said so. It was a useful talking shop, but that is all it was. With that history, people in the region, partners perhaps who could have got things moving, were less keen. Another difference is that, in other regions, the RDAs were more supportive and part-funded it. That has not been happening here.

I just want to comment on what Maddy has said. I do not think that our sector-the East Midlands Environment Link-would be quite so happy simply to take the climate change steering group model, because that involves exclusively statutory agencies. There is no voluntary sector involvement at all. We do not think that that is a good model. It needs to be much more inclusive than that. The other thing is that it needs to have a dedicated secretariat, independent of any of the participating agencies. We would actually regard the Government Office as independent in that respect. It needs funding and that is another reason it did not happen in this region. When we started thinking about it seriously, there were constant messages from the Government that there would be no funding. Well, if you start from that position, you are not going to set something up that do not have funding for.

 

Q128 Chairman: Maddy. There was a point hanging in the air.

Maddy Jago: Yes, just on the evidence. I wanted to stress that Natural England is an evidence and specialist body providing specialist advice on the natural environment. Our written submission was rather critical in tone. It drew on the experience of our founding bodies. You will appreciate that Natural England was set up in 2006. I did not want to dwell on the negativity of that. I wanted to use it as a sense of where we want to get to. The guidance both for the RES and looking forward to the new strategy makes it quite explicit that Natural England would have a partnership role, rather than what we have experienced as being more of a statutory consultee. A partnership role means that we can use our specialist evidence approach very much to provide the basis for the new strategy. We have not had any engagement on that to date, so it is ringing some alarm bells for us. It is very helpful to have the opportunity to raise that now.

Just a note on our experience, we are just about to launch our state of the natural environment report for the region. That provides quite a good example of bringing stakeholders together to look at the key issues and then to publish the evidence for the region. We hope that provides an example of where we can fit into the new integrated arrangements.

 

Q129 Chairman: Just to take us forward, Charlotte, you made this point about the history, but on the new strategy, you felt that things were changing and that there was a more receptive atmosphere. Is that your and Maddy's view?

Charlotte Gault: It is my experience up to the present moment. I could not make any predictions about how it will continue. What is positive at the moment-especially following discussion with a member of EMDA staff who is working on evidence development-is that there is an understanding of the complexity of information in the environment sector and a willingness to work with us on that. Where that takes us will obviously be absolutely crucial. I think, as I have mentioned, that it is really key that we move forward on developing the mechanisms for mobilising what is mostly local data into regionally relevant information.

We have a lot of very useful systems in place but they are not all perfect. We are working to make them a lot better. I think we need to be able to work with the regional bodies to make them better from both ends, so that they function to meet everybody's needs. Whether or not that happens is yet to be seen, but we will do our best.

 

Q130 Chairman: How can we make that happen? What is the mechanism to make it happen using all this information and pulling it together?

Charlotte Gault: The key thing is joint working between EMDA, the regional observatory and key stakeholders. There is a basic element of capacity, of course. I was involved in some work looking at mechanisms for mobilising biodiversity evidence. We worked up something of a proposal, but at the time there was no obvious funding source and, almost more importantly, nobody had the capacity to develop a bid even if there had been an obvious funding source. That opened a very useful discussion on, and gained recognition of the need for, basic development.

Bettina Lange: One quite fundamental issue is EMDA's corporate culture, which is often different, in my experience, from the way in which individual members of EMDA staff act. They are quite willing to engage with us but then the corporate culture intervenes and it does not happen. We need to achieve a change there.

May I just use one example to illustrate how I see the difference? It concerns my own organisation. About two years ago, CPRE commissioned research from the university of Northumbria on people's experience of tranquillity. The research was qualitative by the nature of the issue. Two different groups of people gave researchers their experiences of what is most conducive and most detrimental to tranquillity. You would have expected to get widely different views but, strikingly, you did not. It was actually very consistent indeed. Consistently, the top negative thing was road traffic noise, and there were even really specific things, like people saying that broad-leafed woodlands are more conducive to an experience of tranquillity than pine forests. It was quite interesting.

I put those examples to EMDA officials to try to get them to see that there is merit in qualitative evidence-that you cannot put things into numbers immediately. EMDA, obviously and quite understandably, employs people who like number-crunching. If they cannot do that, they are not quite sure what to do. I tried to get that across but I did not get anywhere.

By contrast, when I mentioned the tranquillity research at the examination in public of the regional spatial strategy, the inspector, by the following day, had looked at the CPRE website, and come back to me with questions.

 

Q131 Mr. Laxton: I want to raise the issue of the annual reporting mechanism through which you can inform the economic strategy's progress. Does it happen at all in terms of feeding into the annual reporting mechanism?

Charlotte Gault: I can give you a simple answer from the NGO sector. It is simply not something that we are engaged with.

Sarah Fowler: In terms of the Environment Agency's involvement, the environment chapter in the RES talks about a number of indicators to measure progress. One of the key indicators is about river water quality, so we will feed information into that. There is a wider debate to be had as to whether that should be the only indicator, or whether we should look at wider indicators, but that is how we tend to feed in.

Maddy Jago: My understanding is that we would have been involved with an annual stakeholder discussion, but went away with some frustration about a lack of ability to discuss in detail progress on environmental health. Stepping back from that and picking up on Sarah's point, when the RES was being produced, we suggested and proposed that SSSI condition-site of special scientific interest-should be a measurement included as an indicator, which did not get any further. I am afraid that there is a slight sense of frustration there, but again, I want to emphasise that rather than dwelling on that, we want to use it to help us move forward more productively.

Bettina Lange: I have just one comment, which may or may not relate-there may be a story in the fact that I am not sure whether it relates. I have often been asked to participate in what I would call reputation audits, usually carried out by consultants on behalf of EMDA. Some of those conversations have been quite long and some quite open; some had very closed questions indeed. You were not able to express what you really thought had gone well, and so on. I thought that was a separate exercise done annually. It may have fed into the annual report, but if it was-

 

Q132 Mr. Laxton: It was not made clear to you that that was the case.

Bettina Lange: No.

 

Q133 Chairman: May I just pick up on the SSSI issue? That is a DEFRA target, is it not? Progress is being made, but the target is not being met. It would make sense to have such an indicator at regional level, would it not?

Maddy Jago: It would certainly seem to us to make sense. It would provide the linkage with PSA targets that is also expressed in the guidance as desirable, and possibly help in matching some of the expectations in the national strategy for sustainable development. I do not have the answer why that was not included. It is certainly something to discuss for the future.

Chairman: We have talked about the index of sustainable economic welfare, and I know that Judy wants to pursue that a bit.

 

Q134 Judy Mallaber: I would like to know what it is. I know in broad terms, but there seem to be different things in the different evidence that we have had from EMDA and in what you are all saying about what is good and what is not. Could somebody say what they think?

Bettina Lange: I am not an economist, but my understanding-I looked at the various versions, because I was very interested in it-is that it is an attempt to translate a wider range of human welfare indicators into something that can then be measured and aggregated into an index, so that in the end you can put a figure to it and measure whether a region, area or whatever is increasing well-being or not. The index was first developed quite a long time ago-I think it was in 1974 or something like that-in the United States, but the history in this country is that the New Economics Foundation and certain academics took it upon themselves to develop a national one. Then EMDA had the excellent idea of asking them and Tim Jackson to develop a regional version, which we greatly welcomed at the time. We said in our submission that EMDA did pioneering work. It went around the country to the RDAs trying to get buy-in, and it got quite a lot, although it did not extend to all the RDAs. It then said in its response to the SNR consultation that that was the way to go.

The difference between conventional economic indicators and the ISEW is that the ISEW is wider and takes social indicators into account, including factors such as the importance of community and family. The first version of the ISEW was quite weak on environmental indicators; it just included local pollution. They have worked it up a little bit more, so we are approaching more meaningful indicators.

We would like to be involved in that work, but have not been so far. We would really like to be involved, and there are ways of doing that-they are not straightforward, but there are ways. We would like to see factors such as landscape and so on included, because they actively contribute to well-being; we know that. Also, in the long term, we would like to see that sort of framework, provided it is comprehensive enough, replace conventional economic indicators, because that way the economy serves people, rather than the other way around.

 

Q135 Judy Mallaber: Bettina, you said that at one point, you had been offered direct involvement in developing the index. I know that some of the other organisations are not sure whether, as developed, it covers everything that we want. Would the others like to comment on where the index has got to and who is doing what to develop it?

Bettina Lange: Natural England has been involved.

Maddy Jago: We agree that this is pioneering work, and it is to EMDA's credit that it is taking the lead. I endorse the fact that this work is going on in the region and that other RDAs are looking at it and want to pick it up. Our own board has also looked at it with great interest. So it is at that level of trailblazing. The index is supposed to provide a composite indicator-a direction of travel-to give us a closer reference point in terms of sustainable development than the traditional GVA measurement, which is the requirement as things stand. EMDA itself agreed that the environmental portion of the index was somewhat weak, and we are working with the agency to scope other environmental factors that could be brought in. As Bettina says, it is largely a measure of CO₂ at the moment, and we need to bring in some of the positives that can underpin positive development in the region. That is work in progress, and a contract is out at the moment, which will come back shortly. That will give us some idea of how we can go forward.

Sarah Fowler: For information, the index currently includes environmental factors such as local environmental pollutants, loss of agricultural land and natural habitats, and the costs associated with climate change, so it is quite narrow, and I endorse the need to look at broadening the environmental aspects. I also agree that it is trailblazing, and it is great that this is happening in the east midlands and that people are looking to the east midlands as the leader on this. The index has great potential value, but my question is how far it is driving positive environmental change in terms of policy and decision making. There is great potential to use it in that way. I was very pleased that EMDA, in its response to the sub-national review consultation, said that it wanted to use the index, instead of GVA, to provide a wider measure. It is unfortunate that the other RDAs did not do that. Its great value can be in looking forward, and it can be used much more broadly.

 

Q136 Judy Mallaber: Who has done the work on it up until now? Has it just been officers in EMDA? What input has there been from outside?

Bettina Lange: It has been a collaboration between the New Economics Foundation and Tim Jackson at Surrey university, who has been the key academic. Natural England is also doing work on it now.

 

Q137 Judy Mallaber: You are asking for more environmental factors to be put into the index. How does that tie in with the fact that there seem to be limited indicators in the RES at present? Will the two match each other at any stage? You said that there was only one indicator in the RES at the moment. Paddy asked about SSIs. Is there any crossover at all? Would you like to see a crossover between the targets in the RES and the indicators going into the index?

Bettina Lange: There is very little crossover so far. We would like to see a lot more, and this is a real opportunity for the new single regional strategy. If we had a sustainable development champion body, that is the kind of work that it might want to take on.

Chairman: We have got that message.

 

Q138 Judy Mallaber: Basically, are you telling us to tell the Government to make this happen everywhere, or to take up the east midlands model?

Bettina Lange: That would be even better.

Chairman: That is a positive thing. Let us turn to another difficult area-aviation. There is a big airport in the region. Bob, do you want to do this?

 

Q139 Mr. Laxton: Charlotte, your organisation said in its written evidence that there is "a clear tension between EMDA's welcome sustainable transport initiatives and its unqualified support for an expansion of activity at East Midlands Airport and its lobbying in favour of...expensive road schemes" such as the dualling of the A46 and the A453. What progress has EMDA made on sustainable development since its creation?

Charlotte Gault: May I pass that question to Bettina, who is our expert in EMEL on transport issues?

Bettina Lange: Is your question specifically about transport-related issues or is it wider?

Mr. Laxton: No, transport-related issues.

Bettina Lange: I would say that it is a very mixed picture, although there is, of course, an important national factor in that picture, which EMDA cannot be held responsible for. The picture is mixed because, on the one hand, EMDA has moved on a lot in its thinking about transport and travel, particularly in areas such as travel to work. There is evidence-this is anecdotal evidence; if there are figures I have not seen them, although I have not searched them out either-that the travel plan that EMDA committed itself to seems to be working, judging from how EMDA staff get to places when we have joint meetings with them. EMDA wrote into the RES a commitment to manage travel demands. It has also funded a number of studies in that area and recently it funded a project aimed at reducing CO₂ in transport.

EMDA has also been very supportive of initiatives to move more freight by rail, or even by water. I say "even by water", because normally the response to the suggestion that we should move more freight by water is, "Well, we did that in the 18th century and that is no longer relevant". However, EMDA was prepared to co-fund quite a comprehensive study into the potential for water freight. EMDA also bid through Productivity TIF, or the transport innovation fund at the time, to get gauge enhancements from Felixstowe, and it got money. There is a lot of really good practice.

The big hole, or the elephant in the corner, is EMDA's unqualified support for the expansion of activity-it does not necessarily support physical expansion-at East Midlands airport, because air travel is a significant and rising contributor to climate change. Of course, the airport also causes a lot of road traffic, with people travelling to and from it. As far as passengers are concerned, I think that more than 90% of them travel to the airport by car and the figure is similar for the staff who work there. Given how the transport links work, it is unlikely, even with the best will in the world, that that situation will shift substantially. However, you could argue that is the part of EMDA's activity that is simply implementing Government policy.

 

Q140 Mr. Laxton: Does anyone else have any comments or observations on that issue?

Sarah Fowler: My only comment would be that if we had a truly working index of sustainable economic development, we would test any new development or programme against it to see if it met those requirements and targets. That would be the way that we would like to work in the future.

 

Q141 Mr. Laxton: What about the support that EMDA is giving businesses on resource efficiency? How do you think it is doing in that respect?

Sarah Fowler: I am probably best placed to comment on that, because resource efficiency is a key objective of the Environment Agency, in terms of minimising waste and improving carbon and water efficiency.

The setting up of Business Link and the RDAs has been very valuable. I know that the RDAs now have a remit to support Business Link and give advice on resource efficiency. I think that the step forward would be for us to match our resources, and there is a challenge for both us and EMDA to work together, to ensure that in our contact with business and industry as a regulator, we use our regulatory role as a type of jumping board for business, so that business sees our regulatory standard as the base line rather than the standard to aspire to. Then we want to work very closely with Business Link to encourage it to do more on resource efficiency-almost to signpost that issue.

Some good work is happening with Business Link across the resource efficiency agenda. There needs to be more work on the outcome, given the imperative out there, particularly on climate change, but also on the whole imperative to reduce waste production in the region. The answer is for us to work more closely with EMDA.

Maddy Jago: May I take a lateral view? I want to raise the issue of ecosystem services, which is the other side of that argument. It looks at our water supply, our soil resources and so on. Where we would like to work more with EMDA, and perhaps receive more recognition of the contribution that we can jointly make, is in investing in land management for the region.

By way of background, I just want to say that Natural England will be investing £180 million in the regional economy between now and 2013. A lot of that investment will be within our environmental stewardship schemes.

I want to give a specific example of how that investment can be really beneficial for the regional economy. Our peat moorlands, which are extensive in parts of the region-particularly on the west side, obviously-have been damaged by many years of pollution, over-grazing and drainage problems. Some really exciting projects are going ahead, involving us working with water companies and the National Trust, to restore the peatlands, so that they will sequester carbon and do that job effectively. Peatlands can do a really good job for the region. They can help to make our water cleaner. They provide fantastic relaxation and access to nature, which is important for the health agenda. It is a case of trying to understand where we need to think more broadly about our investment and how our ecosystem services link to our land management, in particular.

 

Q142 Chairman: That applies to flooding too, does it not?

Maddy Jago: Absolutely.

 

Q143 Chairman: Maddy, you told us a little while ago that your evidence was fairly critical, and it is. I know that you have been through a period of reorganisation, which has made things difficult. How does Natural England relate to EMDA? What is the level of discussion?

Maddy Jago: Looking back at the experience of the founding bodies, I shall summarise it by saying that the basis of the relationship seems to have been very much as a statutory consultee rather than in terms of partnership-working that is identified in the guidance. That makes quite a distinction between consultation, which is where you come in rather late in the process and offer views, and perhaps feel slightly frustrated that you cannot make small, fundamental changes and have a more upfront partnership engagement, which looks across the whole evidence policy, strategic direction and the investment and alignment of working. It seems that that is where we were.

As for where we are now, we have not had an engagement to date for the change transition plan. That is of slight concern because the guidance is very specific now and says that partnership needs to include the statutory bodies in very early stages. The plans suggest that there will be one-to-one discussions with the statutory agencies. As I understand it, a stakeholder meeting has been arranged to which we are not invited. There is a little concern. At the moment, there is a lot of willingness and keenness to engage throughout the whole breadth of the agenda. [Interruption.]

 

Q144 Chairman: That is Jeff Moore inviting you to a meeting. Sarah, how do you link into EMDA?

Sarah Fowler: Our work with EMDA started off strongly with the RES. We first got engaged with it when that was being developed. It was a positive engagement in terms of providing information, sitting on the steering group and working closely with it. Like Maddy, I would be keen for the agency to move forward and to be seen as a key partner and public authority with a strong evidence base, strong knowledge and strong expertise to feed the information in, rather than being seen as a wider stakeholder and a key consultee. I would want us to be involved in the forthcoming SNI in that way, now that the noises off that I am hearing are that that will happen and part of it depends on how we step up to that, as well as how EMDA invites to do it.

 

Q145 Chairman: Am I right in thinking that all of you believe that the focus of EMDA has been on economic development rather than sustainable development? Perhaps things are changing a bit with EMDA.

Bettina Lange: That would be pretty much my summary. Let us not forget that they cannot be criticised for having that focus on economic development, because they were set up as economic development agencies. They are now expected to take on the much wider role that they have been moving towards.

 

Q146 Chairman: So there is a positive side. It is a difficult, economic climate. The budget is reducing in real terms. Are there anxieties that sustainability might be pushed off the table again?

Sarah Fowler: It is interesting your saying that about EMDA because, when I worked in the east of England and looked across at what the East Midlands was doing, the East Midlands seemed a bit of a trail blazer on environmental issues. Let us not forget those issues and look at how they were being developed when the RES was being developed. The other regions are rapidly catching up. There is the potential for them to overtake unless we work very closely with EMDA to keep the East Midlands at the forefront.

The other regions are rapidly catching up. There is the potential for them to overtake unless we work very closely with EMDA to keep the East Midlands at the forefront. The index of sustainable wellbeing is a prime example of where the East Midlands still can be at the forefront and trailblazing on these issues. The key thing for me is having a more open-door culture and to open up decision making and the issue of leadership on environmental issues at senior level.

Chairman: That is helpful. Bettina mentioned corporate culture earlier on and I know that Judy wants to pursue this.

Q147 Judy Mallaber: There is a bit of a mixed message. They started well compared with other places. They still have not done enough but now they are doing quite well. Bettina, you said that the corporate culture intervenes. Individual officers can be supportive, but the corporate culture gets in the way. Would that be helped if the requirement on the background of board members was changed? Have you looked at that at all? Do you need to have an expertise in environment and sustainability directly on the board or should they be able to take that on board anyway, given the back-up and papers that they receive from their officers?

Bettina Lange: We have argued consistently, as have our national organisations, that there should be a requirement to have environmental expertise on the EMDA board, which currently there is not. It shows.

 

Q148 Judy Mallaber: So you think it is not a natural part of the EMDA board's thinking?

Bettina Lange: No, it is not at all. I have to be honest here. She does not have it any more, but there were some really fundamental things that the person who had the environment portfolio just did not understand. I had several conversations with her, including some that were off the record. To give you one example, there is a difference between the issue of energy use and the issue of CO₂ emissions. That is standard among people who know anything about environmental issues. Yes, I believe that we need particular representation there.

 

Q149 Judy Mallaber: I cannot come to this point without mentioning Martin Doughty, who was on EMDA when it was first set up.

Bettina Lange: Absolutely.

Judy Mallaber: He was an advocate and champion. What do you think a new sustainable development and infrastructure director will bring? Is one being planned? What do you think that will bring to EMDA? Will that resolve the issue, or do you still need people more specifically linked into the board?

Sarah Fowler: They are sitting in this room at the moment. I think it is a very positive step forward that EMDA has recognised the need for that senior leadership on sustainability issues. That is why the noises off are very positive. It is about how we engage and work with that.

Bettina Lange: I would still say that board representation is important.

 

Q150 Judy Mallaber: So what is your feeling about the future-are things going in the right direction? Are you reasonably optimistic, or is there still a lot more to be done before they get their act together?

Bettina Lange: Does anyone else want to comment? I think I have probably said enough.

Charlotte Gault: I agree on the need for board-level representation or changes to the remit of some of the roles. The thing we have not really touched on yet is the difference between the way in which EMDA and the regional assembly work with stakeholders. That is the key to the future. We have had a completely different organisational culture and experience of working with EMRA. I have been in post since 2005, so I cannot comment on anything before that, but I have already had very strong systems set up for working with stakeholders, engaging them at an early stage and talking to them about how implementation, targets and indicators might be developed. The difference in culture between that and EMDA, which has treated us largely as consultees, is enormous. One of the things that I would really want to see is a clear structure for stakeholder engagement, including the third sector. How that will be taken forward in the new arrangements is not clear at the moment, which is a continuing concern. In a way, we are perhaps relieved that the change management plan, as it is at the moment, has a stated expectation that stakeholders will express how we wish to engage in future. That puts us in a better position than having to react to a bad or limited proposal, because we can start afresh and make a clear statement about what we think we can bring and what would work. However, it is not clear how or whether that will be taken on board.

Bettina Lange: May I add to that to bring it up to date? There is an ESEP group of the regional assembly-the Environmental, Social and Economic Partners-which includes business, the social voluntary sector and ourselves, so basically everyone who is not a politician. In response to the change management plan, we are working on a proposal for a dedicated standing stakeholder partnership board, as I think we have called it. I am glad that EMDA is here to hear this. We gather that EMDA proposes that there should be only a task and finish group to be called into being by the RDA and local authority leaders' boards, as and when they see fit, to look at the new regional strategy. The ESEP group wants a standing stakeholder board with which the two new regional agencies-the RDA board and the leaders board-can engage on a continuing basis. Our understanding is that it is EMDA that does not want that to happen. The local authorities, who are the politicians, are reasonably happy with it.

Sarah Fowler: For me it is about how we use the positive changes, for example the appointment of a stable development and infrastructure director at EMDA, as a catalyst for further improvements within EMDA, such as the greater use of the index of social and economic well-being, and for more programme-level discussions on sustainability within EMDA. However, it is also about how we, as partners, step up to that and work with it, as I have said before. It is also about how the new governance arrangements for the SNR work, so EMDA does not just look at the local authorities as the experts and the leaders in this field, but recognises that there are public sector organisations in the East Midlands that can act as experts and authoritative voices on the environment and work very closely with them. I include Natural England in that.

Chairman: And bodies such as the Wildlife Trust and the RSPB.

Sarah Fowler: Yes.

 

Q151 Chairman: The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill is going through the Commons at the moment. There has been a lot of debate about that Bill and the power of sustainability. Do you think that that will make a difference on the ground in the East Midlands?

Bettina Lange: What will make a difference?

Chairman: The powers of sustainability-the duty on regional development agencies to take sustainability into account.

Bettina Lange: My key question would be what would happen to them if they do not. The answer is not clear to me.

 

Q152 Chairman: There are no sanctions. It is a bit like the climate change targets. What happens if you do not meet them? Nothing. Who is going to be executed? Nobody.

Bettina Lange: If it does not make a difference, why take it through Parliament? There are three strong issues: defining what sustainable economic growth means, so we all have clarity; informing the single regional strategy by using the environmental evidence base that we have all talked about today; and ensuring that we really scrutinise at a regional level the environmental, not just economic, outcomes.

 

Q153 Chairman: We are moving towards the end now. We have talked about the skills within EMDA. A new director has been imposed. Are you confident that the skills set within EMDA can handle these issues? We talk about them, but they are pretty tough issues, are they not?

Bettina Lange: I have to say that I am not very confident at this stage. If you think about it, it is quite natural that people who come from a particular culture are likely to recruit more people from a similar culture.

 

Q154 Chairman: What would we need to do?

Bettina Lange: I think that a clearer steer from central Government would be quite important. The steer should include saying to EMDA that it should become more open about who it engages with and at what stage. That in itself could gradually lead to a change in culture because, as the outcome of that engagement, EMDA might say, "It might be a good idea to have someone who is actually plugged into people with countryside skills." That could create some employment locally.

 

Q155 Chairman: I have been in the region for a long time-perhaps too long-but one of the things that people say to me is that EMDA focuses on the urban environment of the three big cities, rather than rural communities. I have heard CPRE say that, Bettina. Is there reality in that?

Bettina Lange: No, we would not say that. Again, I am afraid that we would say that it is a mixed picture. Had you asked me that question five years ago, I would have agreed that EMDA largely focuses on urban development and that it does not have the people with the relevant background or skills to deal with rural matters, but over the past few years, it has assembled a rural team. This is an example of a change in culture, because EMDA actively recruited people who had previously been involved with the rural community councils, the Countryside Agency and so on. In other words, it recruited from areas with the skills set, the contacts and so on. That really has made a difference.

There has also been a difference on the ground in that EMDA has funded some really worthwhile projects, one of which finished, I think, two years ago, and looked into the viability of rural post offices just when that was needed. Also, the person it appointed to lead one of the sub-regional strategic partnerships, the Welland SSP, was very dynamic and not afraid to tell people running rural post offices, "If you run it like that, you are not running it like a business and it will never work, so you need to make changes." The drawback, which is why I say that it is a mixed picture, is that that involved three years' funding, which was not renewed. We at CPRE took a great interest in that particular project and felt that the funding went just at the point that the project was beginning to make a difference.

Maddy Jago: I have just a couple of observations. As you are probably aware, EMDA, along with Natural England and the Forestry Commission, jointly delivered the rural development programme for England. That fairly recent change in fact links up to the timing of the establishment of Natural England. We feel that that has given EMDA a wider consciousness or brief within rural business, which is very positive, and there are some very good examples of good joined-up working across that European funding programme.

We have made the observation in the past-I picked this up briefly in my reference to the ecosystem services-that the regional economic strategy probably needs more emphasis on land management and understanding of the contribution that it makes to the economy and the social side of our agenda. I also second the fact that we have seen some very positive investment from EMDA into areas and facilities that benefit both rural populations and visitors. For example, it has invested in the Attenborough Nature Centre and the Gibraltar Point Centre, so that is a picture of some very positive things and the need for a greater emphasis on land management.

 

Q156 Chairman: Let us finish with a final message from you all. What do you want us to take away from this session? What is the punch line?

Sarah Fowler: For me, there is great potential for the East Midlands to be a low-carbon region that is more resilient to the impacts of climate change. I want EMDA to play a core role with partners to focus on green and sustainability issues, to help the economy recover more quickly, be more diverse and more resource efficient, and to help us have a low-carbon, sustainable future for the region.

Chairman: That was a Blue Peter one-you prepared it beforehand. It was excellent.

Charlotte Gault: I would like to see a recognition that the environment, and therefore the enhancement of the environment, can support and even drive socio-economic development and regeneration. It needs recognition through the index of sustainable economic well-being; at the moment, the environment is seen only as a nice thing that can be damaged by our activity, not as a thing that can generate positive activity. To achieve that, we need a policy or conceptual change on the understanding of what the environment is and can do. We also need to embed that in evidence, through investment in environment evidence and the infrastructure for that. I think that we are so close, yet so far, to having much better environment evidence available regionally than we do at present.

Bettina Lange: My overall final message is that we really need to replace economic growth, as conventionally understood as the main aim of what you do in the economy, with overall sustainable development. In practice, that is likely to mean a reduction in some areas, such as resource use and CO_2­ emissions, but an increase in other areas, such as renewable energy generation and local food production.

Maddy Jago: I have not prepared this earlier, and I am the last one on.

Chairman: It is like being on "Question Time".

Maddy Jago: I will not say that I agree with everything that everybody else has said, although I largely do. The way forward has to be sustainable development. We feel that the single regional strategy provides us with a great opportunity-a great tool-to bring that together and harness it. We have talked a lot about the processes and mechanisms, but it must be based on sound evidence and a vision that is about not sharing out and losing to the environment, but opportunities and capacity. It is about sharing programmes and more effective partner working, particularly between Government agencies, to ensure that we are working connectedly and well together.

We also need to bear in mind local authorities, which are a big player in this new picture and have a big role to play. We need effective measures and indicators-we have talked about the opportunities that we have with this new regional index. We can capitalise on that and take it forward.

Chairman: This has been a very stimulating session. Thank you all, and thanks to the management of Tupton village hall for putting up with us-some of the staff had to facilitate it. We have a bit more evidence to take from the Regional Minister and from GOEM itself, and we will see EMDA again. We hope to publish our report by the end of July, and once it has been published, we will be keen to get some feedback. Thank you very much indeed.