Memorandum submitted by Councillor Alec
Samuels (SE 15)
SOUTH EAST
ENGLAND REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
SEEDA
In my opinion SEEDA has been a failure, even
a disaster, so far as my city, Southampton, is concerned, and
many other places in the south east as I have learned from colleagues
in the region.
The south east region is not a cohesive or comprehensible
concept, stretching from Milton Keynes to Southampton and from
Dover to Oxford—and excluding London, thus making a sort
of silly doughnut. Government has sensibly abolished the regional
assembly but illogically and unfortunately has left SEEDA in existence,
and, even worse, proposes to increase the powers of SEEDA. SEEDA
is unelected and in effect unaccountable.
There is a lot of loyalty within the shires in the
south east, whether they are organised on a county two tier or
unitary system or a combination. They are coherent manageable
units. Sub regional consensual units such as the Partnership for
South Hampshire (PUSH) and Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH)
have shown how a group of local authorities albeit of different
character can co-operate together in an identifiable travel to
work area, to real collaborative advantage.
SEEDA is vast bureaucracy, apparently employing
some 370 employees, at a very considerable cost. The salaries
of the senior people and the expenses of the Chairman are simply
mind-boggling.
A number of SEEDA people treat local authority
members and senior officers in a patronising indeed nauseating
manner, treating them as if they are naughty, stupid, ignorant,
irresponsible school children, who would instantly waste any public
money falling into their hands. Local authority members are often
experienced in business and the professions and public administration,
and indeed in many walks of life. They are answerable to the electorate,
the press, the Audit Commission, all the multifarious inspection
bodies, and they have a sense of public responsibility. They certainly
are not in it for the money And there are the professional local
authority officers, constantly giving advice, and managing the
local authority.
SEEDA are always making a lot of play about
what they have done with the money they have spent. What do they
think that the local authorities would have done with it if they
had received the money direct without the intermediate intervention
of SEEDA, without this additional tier of administration? The
money would have been better and more effectively spent, much
better targeted to the needs of local people.
A feature of SEEDA has always been the tardiness
of their procedures and decision-making. They have had little
sense of expeditiousness, things just wind their weary way, no
sense of purpose or action or achievement or finality. Many opportunities
were lost in the "good" times.
Over the years SEEDA has managed to get a finger
into many pies. They have been very difficult to deal with and
to co-operate with despite their protestations of partnership
and catalysts and seed corn and such like phrases. They are always
the last to agree, even if they do agree. They are masters at
playing off one partner against another. Procrastination is the
name of the SEEDA game.
They seem to like the "cat and mouse"
approach. They purport to give encouragement, the nod and the
wink. The local authorities spend money in getting up a scheme,
often in competition with others, reasonably hoping to get the
money. And then—sorry, no go. The sheer uncertainty of relying
upon anything SEEDA says is truly depressing and discouraging
and deterring, a real obstacle to development.
SEEDA will break a promise. In Southampton they
promised £4.6M or so for refurbishing Guildhall Square, a
big opportunity for the construction industry and an integral
element in the development of a whole new cultural quarter. They
were all in favour they said. Then at the last minute they withdraw,
blaming shortage of funds. The whole project, including Arts Council
contributions, has been put into jeopardy. SEEDA is the classic
example of the vice of partnership.
Along with the City Council SEEDA have put money
into pieces of land with a view to ultimate development. They
have fancied themselves as smart developers. Then if in the event
the land has to be used for another purpose, or disposed of, SEEDA
demand their "claw back", not in principle unreasonable,
but they make sure that the original arrangement was vague so
that they could subsequently make for difficulties in negotiating
the claw back. City Council land in St Mary's road is a classic
example of this abuse.
Some years ago SEEDA bought the vacated Southampton
Woolston Vosper Thorneycroft shipyard in Southampton for some
£15 million. It was for marine employment they said. Subsequently
they could not find much marine employment, so they went in for
a huge largely private sector style residential development. They
caused the selected developers endless difficulties and delays.
The recession has now intervened. We are expecting SEEDA strongly
to support this project above all others because they thought
they were good at development, they got their fingers burned,
and now they want to try and get some of their money back.
On another site, a waterside site, Driver's
Wharf, SEEDA acquired a small interest. When the overall site
came up for development, they refused to release a contamination
report in their possession and they refused to agree to a new
access road essential to the proposed development passing through
their piece of the land and they refused to dispose of their interest.
Result: site still undeveloped, benefits unrealised, opportunities
lost.
The Area Investment Funding (AIF) allocated
some money to Southampton. This involved appointing an independent
paid chairman, staff and resources, and a big committee of busy
local worthies whose attendance and interest was understandably
limited. Some of them gave the impression that they thought they
were running the city. The committee spent many hours casting
around for ways to spend the money. A crazy laser beam scheme
was proposed, which aroused huge local opposition, was impracticable,
and had to be abandoned. £125,000 was spent on commissioning
a wooden model of the city, of practically no use whatsoever.
The sooner SEEDA is abolished the better for
everybody. Government money should be channelled directly to the
local authorities, and particularly where really viable and successful
sub regional partnerships such as PUSH can be shown to have the
capacity to come up with really sensible infrastructure and public
benefit projects. The fundamental problem is Government mistrust
of local government, a very unhealthy attitude, leading to the
creation of disastrous bodies such as SEEDA.
Cllr Alec Samuels
I happen to be the Leader of Southampton City Council,
but this is a purely personal submission based on direct experience
of SEEDA. But I am convinced that many people share my views.
| 
