Conclusions and recommendations
Membership of the Committees
1. We were disappointed that some Councils refused to engage with the Committee for party political purposes or because of their opposition to regional organisations. Regional Government has been established by Parliament and Regional Committees have likewise been established by Parliament to oversee those arrangements and it is in the interests of our communities that whilst such arrangements are in place we put our differences aside and collaborate on making these arrangements work as effectively as possible. We recommend, therefore, that these Councils review their position and engage openly and fully with future enquiries.
(Paragraph 5)
2. We want to ensure that there is clear parliamentary accountability for the South East Region. We hope that the political disagreements regarding the establishment of Regional Committees will be resolved shortly and look forward to welcoming opposition Members joining us in this important work.
(Paragraph 6)
The need for a Regional Development Agency
3. We
concur with the view that Regional Development Agencies are often
better able to address region wide economic issues than either
central government or local authorities. The failure of some Councils
to engage fully with the Agency is, therefore, likely to be hampering
economic development and we call on such Councils to reconsider
their position in the wider public interest. (Paragraph 19)
Purpose of the Regional Economic Strategy
4. We support the broad emphasis of the Regional Economic Strategy on global competitiveness, smart growth and sustainable prosperity; and we recommend that the RES should remain as the single framework setting a long term vision for the region.
(Paragraph 28)
5. The arrangements that allowed unions, representatives of employers and third sector organisations to contribute to policy discussions and which existed prior to the abolition of the Regional Assembly were widely appreciated by those involved and greatly assisted engagement with key stakeholders. We recommend that following the SNR similar arrangements are put in place, including arrangements to provide these organisations with the support needed to engage fully with future consultations, so that their views and expertise are not lost either to the Agency or the Leaders Board.
(Paragraph 29)
Sub-regions, hubs and diamonds
6. We recognise that the South East region is not an easily identifiable region like some other English regions. As such the Regional Economic Strategy has developed with an emphasis on places with broadly similar attributes and potential. We support the partnership working that has evolved between SEEDA, local authorities and other partners in the diamond for growth areas.
(Paragraph 32)
The South East as a world class region
7. We welcome the ambition of SEEDA for the South East to compete as a region to the highest standards. However, we are not convinced that the regions named by SEEDA are realistic regions to draw comparisons with. We would like to see the evidence base used to justify the comparative regions, and on what criteria SEEDAs performance is measured against them.
(Paragraph 34)
Consultation or engagement and the RES
8. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between encompassing the views of other organisations and producing a strategy that is timely. However, there are concerns in the region that the consultation process could be improved and that organisations should be able to feed into the strategy at the earliest opportunity. The Single Regional Strategy will have a status that requires a certain level of public involvement. We recommend that SEEDA and the Leaders' Board publish their intended consultation plan as soon as they have decided upon it. We recommend that SEEDA and the Leaders Board provide us with further information as to how they will ensure broad engagement when drawing up the Single Regional Strategy. We further recommend the Government provide a comparison as to the consultation process used in drawing up the South East plan and the Regional Economic Strategy.
(Paragraph 40)
Measuring the performance of SEEDA
9. We are reassured by the conclusions of the National Audit Office and PricewaterhouseCoopers reports, both of which provide a positive endorsement of SEEDA's work and its benefits to the regional economy. We support SEEDA using the reports to inform its prioritisation and restructuring.
(Paragraph 46)
Reviewing targets
10. We agree that the Regional Economic Strategy should be concerned with setting a vision for the long term and as such it should drive direction rather than be reactive. We welcome the move to a combined Single Regional Strategy.
(Paragraph 52)
11. We welcome the role of partners in defining targets and note that any decision to review targets must be done with full engagement with partner organisations
(Paragraph 53)
Enhanced role and wider responsibilities
12. SEEDA was originally established to provide strategic economic leadership in the region. Since its establishment it has taken on a large number of additional responsibilities and developed its original role to include responsibility for the delivery of a number of grants and European Regional Development Funds. We note the concerns raised by witnesses that this may cause SEEDA to lose its business focus and urge it to ensure that these new responsibilities do not detract from its core focus on the regional economy. We also urge SEEDA to not only focus on the disparities within the South East but to actively support economic growth within the region, particularly during the current economic climate.
(Paragraph 58)
Single regional strategy
13. We welcome the early action to create the Regional Partnership Board and establish joint working with the local authority Leaders Board, and we support efforts by all parties to ensure a cohesive transition from two regional strategies to one.
(Paragraph 61)
New skills
14. There appear to be conflicting views as to whether SEEDA needs to change the skill sets of its staff or how it works with the staff of other organisations as part of the change in its role and responsibilities. The creation of the virtual team, including the retention of some staff from the Assembly, is an innovative method of keeping the necessary skills and experience within the region but it is too soon to know how well these mechanisms will work in practice. We recommend that SEEDA provide us with a quarterly update as to progress on work to develop the Single Regional Strategy.
(Paragraph 69)
Stakeholder engagement
15. We are concerned about the gap in stakeholder engagement because of the loss of the Social, Environmental and Economic Partners body. We recommend that the virtual team working on the Single Regional Strategy includes people working on behalf of trades unions, business and the third sector to facilitate engagement with the Partnership Board.
(Paragraph 76)
16. We further recommend that the Government research and reports back to the Committee what mechanisms have been put in place in other regions to help maintain engagement with business and other stakeholders as a result of the abolition of the Regional Assemblies.
(Paragraph 77)
Support for businesses
17. SEEDA has responded quickly and positively to the current economic situation and has prioritised support to businesses in the region. We support SEEDA in this important work and urge them to continue to provide this support and to ensure that partners, such as banks, are assisting companies as much as possible. We would also encourage SEEDA to explore the use of other mechanisms which would enable businesses, particularly SMEs, to gain access to finance.
(Paragraph 92)
18. SEEDA's efforts in helping businesses through the recession have been generally well received by representative business organisations. We would encourage SEEDA to continue direct engagement with businesses and to ensure that the variety of schemes and help available is effectively communicated to business across the region.
(Paragraph 93)
Other priorities
19. We welcome SEEDA's efforts in prioritising and focusing resource where it can add most value. We would encourage the restructuring of the Agency to reflect the change in emphasis in SEEDA's role and to be used as an opportunity to refocus priorities and develop the appropriate business model to best deliver those priorities for the South East region.
(Paragraph 102)
20. We support SEEDA's work to find a balance between long term direction of Regional Economic Strategy and short term support to withstand the downturn. We urge SEEDA to continue to work with its partners to address the fundamental issues affecting the region to achieve its ambition of sustainable economic development.
(Paragraph 103)
Regeneration
21. There are many examples of successful regeneration programmes in the South East and SEEDA has been instrumental in drawing partners together to achieve this. We welcome SEEDA's continued commitment to regeneration in areas such as Hastings & Bexhill. SEEDA should endeavour to communicate its priorities in the region, the balance between regeneration and development and the overall impact of its reprioritisation exercise.
(Paragraph 113)
22. We would urge SEEDA to address the perception that some areas get all the money and that others are disadvantaged. It should review its communications and ensure that the voice of the business community across the region, particularly SMEs, is heard.
(Paragraph 114)
Infrastructure
23. We welcome SEEDA's focus on sustainable development and place based investments in infrastructure. SEEDA should recognise that a critical mass of innovation and skills are needed to create "diamonds". Business parks should be developed in consultation with the local business community and located in areas where they are likely to be used. SEEDA should continue working closely with other agencies and draw upon their expertise and funding to deliver these priorities.
(Paragraph 125)
Regional Development Agencies' budgets
24. We note that SEEDA has the least funding in comparison to other RDAs. There is a strong argument that investment in the South East will achieve greater return on investment than investment in other areas of the UK. Greater investment might boost productivity in the South East and, if so, generate more tax revenue which could be reinvested elsewhere. We accept that less prosperous regions will always, rightly, aspire to levels of investment to allow them to build economic activity in their own communities to those enjoyed in the South East and Government will always have difficult decisions to make in balancing these demands, however, it is arguable that investment in the South East can more quickly generate revenue for the public purse than investment elsewhere. We recommend that the RDA funding formula is revisited and some evaluative work undertaken to determine the best way of dispersing RDA budgets to optimise value for money.
(Paragraph 132)
Innovation and a low carbon future
25. We have heard evidence that SEEDA works well with the Environment Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency in the region. We welcome this close working and believe that the identification of the right skills and mechanisms to bring together thinking on economic development, regeneration, sustainability, environmental infrastructure and a low carbon economy will be vital in the years ahead.
(Paragraph 143)
| 
