Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER

VIEWS: 34 PAGES: 9

  • pg 1
									 GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER




SOUTH YORKSHIRE OBJECTIVE 1 PROGRAMME DIRECTORATE




                   OBJECTIVE 1
          PROGRAMME MONITORING COMMITTEE




  MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 FEBRUARY 2004




                              AT

                THE SOURCE, MEADOWHALL




  South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                 1
MINUTES OF THE TWELTH PROGRAMME MONITORING COMMITTEE (PMC)
HELD ON 10 FEBRUARY 2004


AGENDA ITEM 1: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

1.1    Felicity Everiss welcomed everyone to the meeting and requested a brief
introduction from each member as this was the first meeting for several new
members. Also present at the meeting was Csaba Gergely, DG Employment,
Hungarian Desk, who was interested in seeing a developed PMC conduct its
business.

1.2      Present and Apologies – as at Annex A

AGENDA ITEM 2: MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING AND MATTERS ARISING

2.1      Felicity Everiss asked members to raise any issues arising from the minutes.

2.2     Antonio Goncalves requested, on behalf of Tanja Viljanen, that agenda item
4.3, bullet point 5 be amended to read „the report answered most of the questions
that were raised by DG Agri‟.

2.3     Hugh Rolo commented on LSC Co-financing and requested clear transitional
arrangements for projects which might be affected by any delay in re-contracting with
the LSC later in the year. Kevin Bennett pointed out that the scale of the co-financing
project meant that a thorough review was needed. Felicity Everiss stated that a
meeting would be held with all parties to discuss arrangements and that the results of
the evaluation would be brought to the June PMC, to inform decisions about co-
financing from 2004 onwards.

2.4      Sylvia Yates highlighted that the company evaluating the South Yorkshire
arrangements, had also evaluated Objective 3 and so were aware of the process and
likely issues.

AGENDA ITEM 3: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3.1      Aidan Rave declared an interest in Agenda Items 4 and 8.

AGENDA ITEM 4: PROGRAMME DIRECTOR’S REPORT

4.1   Sylvia Yates introduced the paper and commented on key issues. These
were:

     that the MTE had been completed;
     that the Performance Reserve (PR) allocation would be awarded (subject to the
      EC‟s confirmation) and it could be more than £30m;
     that the „Technology for Tomorrow‟ conference in January was an impressive
      event with a solid attendance;
     that the „Come and Get It‟ campaign had already generated over 3000 calls and
      could lead to £5m worth of projects, this information was still being confirmed;
     that the development of borough level community cohesion projects was
      progressing well;



              South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                             2
   that the Finningley sub-group had been held on the 12 January and discussions
    were ongoing with the EC and Peel;
   that the feedback from the „Shaping Best Practice‟ event in October 2003 was
    very positive and the level of interest in Objective 1 was encouraging. There was
    also the possibility of Hungarians and Estonians visiting Objective 1, to gain
    practical experience and learn from South Yorkshire‟s approach to delivery.

4.2    Felicity Everiss commented that Objective 1 had performed extremely well
and gained a high reputation, and that continuous evaluation was needed to ensure
the same success in the future.

4.3    Ernest Opuni mentioned that the Open Forum would like to be included in the
decision process when allocating the £3.1m from PR to Cross Cutting Themes
(CCT).

4.4    Sylvia Yates stated that decisions had not been made yet as to which projects
would receive an allocation of the PR but internal meetings had taken place and
Eleanor Wilson, Programme Directorate, would contact partners within the next
month.
             ACTION POINT: ELEANOR WILSON, PROGRAMME DIRECTORATE

4.5    Sue Yeandle stated that newly available employment data was pointing
towards challenges in addressing difficulties faced by Ethnic Communities in South
Yorkshire.

4.6    Felicity Everiss mentioned that a report on progress and alignment with Cross
Cutting Themes and the evaluation strategy would be submitted to the PMC in June.

                                      ACTION POINT: PROGRAMME DIRECTORATE

4.7     Felicity thanked the Finningley PMC sub-group for their involvement and the
quality of work done to date. She explained that the group would probably need to
meet again towards the end of March.

AGENDA ITEM 5: MID TERM REVIEW: OUTCOME AND NEXT STEPS

5.1   Jayne Crosse gave a verbal report to the PMC and highlighted the key
changes that the European Commission had agreed. These were to:

   reduce the jobs target from 35,000 to 24,500;
   merge the measures in the workforce development strategy to provide a co-
    ordinated delivery strategy;
   merge Measures 19, 20 and 21;
   align Objective 1 Cross Cutting Themes with regional themes, to promote
    sustainability at the end of the Programme;
   introduce a new measure in the SPD for CCT;
   widen the scope of Measure 32 to allow work with spin offs and spin outs from
    Universities (which are technically classed as large companies);
   simplify the SPD.

5.2   Jayne also highlighted the key changes to the Programme Complement (PC).
These were:

   significant changes to targets;

            South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                           3
     aligning CCT with Yorkshire Forward (changes in names & text);
     the appearance of new measures in Priority 3 regarding workforce development;
     Measures 19, 20 and 21 becoming Measure 20;
     the transfer of information from the SPD to the PC to reduce duplication and
      make the SPD shorter.

Jayne stated that the revised SPD would be circulated to Partners for comments and
approval by the end of February.

                                      ACTION POINT: PROGRAMME DIRECTORATE

5.3  Damien O‟Brien stated that the meeting with Jayne Crosse regarding the
MTR had clarified the points raised by the European Commission.

5.4    Felicity Everiss thanked Jayne Crosse and her team for their contribution to
the MTR and reminded members that every effort should be made to work across the
region and to share good practice.

AGENDA ITEM 6: SOUTH YORKSHIRE INVESTMENT FUND: PROGRESS TO
DATE

6.1    Julian White gave a verbal report to the PMC and stated that additional
information was provided in the folders. The Committee‟s attention was drawn to the
Price Waterhouse Coopers‟ (PWC) review undertaken at the behest of Barclays.

The PWC review highlighted:

      o   issues with cost structure, particularly the flat fee basis on which the Fund
          Managers were paid;
      o   the need for the involvement of more skilled staff in the delivery of the equity
          fund;
      o   the importance of the Fund Managers closing deals; and
      o   the need for closer liaison, in the form of quarterly reviews, between Objective
          1 and Barclays.

6.2       Julian concluded his input by recommending that:

     the Directorate and PMC Sub Group continue to work alongside Barclays to
      monitor progress and report back to PMC in early 2005; and
     subject to the above, the contract with SYIF be extended from 2006 to 2008 to
      allow projected spend and outputs to be achieved.

6.3       In discussion, the following key points were raised:

     it was clear that with interest rates so low at the moment, the loan fund was being
      undercut by commercial lenders;
     there was a need to increase the marketing and promotion of the fund and for
      PMC members to support it generally;
     the Community Fund was now starting to move, with 3 or 4 projects in the
      pipeline; and
     would the businesses supported by SYIF have been financed by the market?

6.4       In response, Julian said it was clear that the businesses supported would not



               South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                              4
have been helped without the creation of the fund. Regarding future performance, he
pointed out that increased “market making” by the fund managers and flowing from
Objective 1‟s stimulated cluster activity, would start to increase the number of deals
being done.

6.5      Finally, Felicity mentioned that one of the issues with SYIF was that
insufficient information on the deals done appeared to be filtering through to PMC
members. In order to address this, Julian undertook to circulate some case studies,
subject to confidentiality issues.

                   ACTION POINT: JULIAN WHITE, PROGRAMME DIRECTORATE

AGENDA ITEM 7: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO O1 APPRAISAL PROCESSES

7.1    Felicity Everiss stated that the PMC had the formal responsibility of approving
the way the Programme Directorate appraised and approved projects.

7.2     Kevin Bennett introduced the paper and informed the PMC that they were
required to approve the overall process, including the strategic assessment
framework, the appraisal framework and the Business Planning Guidance. The
following key issues were highlighted:

   the current scoring and appraisal framework was adopted in September 2000;
   work has been undertaken over the last 12 months, with Yorkshire Forward (YF)
    and Objective 2 partners, to align the processes;
   the MTE and Government Office audit highlighted the need to update the
    selection and approval processes;
   the Directorate is keen to gain consistency across all 3 structural funds;
   the review will simplify processes for applicants and build on the work already
    done with YF;
   the new process will demonstrate practical deliverability with the CCT;
   Government Office auditors had raised issues of accountability of existing
    processes.

7.3     The following changes would take place upon approval of the proposed
revisions.

Business Planning

Within the new process, ESF and EAGGF applicants will be required to submit
business plans, which were not previously necessary. This does not happen
nationally within ESF so there will be some systems issues. Business plans will
apply to all applications but at different levels as small bids will not require as much
information as co-financing applications.

Appraisal Framework

Projects will no longer be scored but assessed on a scale of excellent to
unacceptable, and will focus on the risk assessment of potential applicants. YF will
also use the same document.




             South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                            5
CCTs

CCTs will be aligned with Yorkshire Forward and Objective 2. At the moment,
concentration is on current themes but new processes will be adopted when they
have been agreed by the European Commission as part of the revised SPD.

Accountability

Expressions of Interest (RIFs) will be assessed by the appraisal team and scrutinised
by the Programme Directorate‟s Senior Management Team (SMT). Local Strategic
Partnerships (LSPs) can also comment on the RIFs at this stage.

7.4    Felicity Everiss requested members to highlight any concerns and approve
the process if appropriate.

7.5    Sue Yeandle mentioned that the changes to the CCT proposals needed to be
done appropriately, the language used in the new process needed to be monitored
and that CCT was not an ideal phrase to use in the guidance as it should be easily
understood by all applicants.

7.6    Richard Smith pointed out the need to take account of co-financed operations.

7.7    Hugh Rolo asked that the vol/com sector be included as a consultee at the
RIF stage as involvement from the LSPs would not directly address their interests
and issues.

7.8    Damien O‟Brien stated that the EC welcomed alignment and coherence
between application systems, but expressed concern that business planning issues
might put off ESF applicants, and that the document was based on ERDF guidance
and should reflect ESF processes to make it more user friendly for the ESF
community.

7.9      Ernest Opuni welcomed the emphasis on business planning and stated that
CCTs were an integral part of the business case and applicants needed to be aware
of this.

7.10 Felicity Everiss stated that any drafting issues raised needed to be
communicated to Kevin Bennett to include in the guidance. Kevin also undertook to
circulate revised drafts of the guidance to Sue Yeandle and Damien O‟Brien in order
to deal with their specific queries.

                               ACTION POINT: PMC MEMBERS/KEVIN BENNETT

7.11 Felicity suggested that the Directorate contact the LSPs and PMC members
for volunteers to become involved in the consultation process on RIFs.

                                   ACTION POINT: PROGRAMME DIRECTORATE

7.12 Kevin Bennett stated that the new process would ideally come into effect from
1 April to bring it in line with the new programme. It was agreed that we should aim
for this and that we would report back to PMC in June on early progress.

                                                 ACTION POINT: KEVIN BENNETT



            South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                           6
7.13 Felicity Everiss summarised by stating that, in principle, members approved
the new processes subject to revision to the Business Planning guidance and that
formal approval would be by written procedure.

AGENDA ITEM 8: TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENTS

8.1    Roy Wicks introduced the paper and reminded members that the PMC agreed
to support a reserve list of projects in September 2003. This item updated members
on the current position with the transport projects and reserve schemes.

     Highway Agency Schemes M1/18 – this was unlikely to request a significant call
      on P6 funding as any schemes proposed by DfT will either be funded by DfT, or
      will fall outside the timescale of Objective 1;
     Supertram Extensions – Two possible options have been proposed and £10m
      ERDF has potentially been allocated against this project. The PTA and District
      Councils will consider whether to proceed with all or any of the proposals and a
      decision on support for this proposal will be considered at the June 2004 PMC;
     Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley Rail Services – Discussions are still ongoing with
      the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and Midland Main Line (MML) over the
      extension of services to Leeds. The position on this proposal, and the
      implications for Priority 6, will become clearer by the end of February;
     Halfpenny Transportation Initiative – In the LTP Settlement, the DfT decided not
      to support this scheme so there will be no call on P6 funding;
     Additional Feasibility Projects – Finningley and Waverley link road proposals
      received initial support in February 2003 and the need for further investment will
      be considered at the June 2004 PMC;
     Reserve Projects – Work on these are to be completed in March and will be
      reported to the June 2004 PMC. In the light of the decision on the above
      Highway schemes, this work has assumed increased importance.

8.2     Antonio Goncalves expressed concern from the EC regarding the delay in
progress on the projects and that could go beyond the life of the programme. He
stressed that progress needs to be achieved on infrastructure for the sub regions
social and economic development.

8.3      Felicity Everiss stated that transport projects relied on other investment and
that this had an effect on timescales. Felicity also highlighted that June 2004 would
be the crucial time for decisions.

8.4     Roy Wicks stated that the work on the reserve schemes would be complete in
March and the PMC could then make decisions about the projects. Roy also stated
that the Supertram is a possibility, the Rail scheme could still go ahead and that the
alternative list of projects could still solve some of the infrastructure problems.

AGENDA ITEM 9: MANAGEMENT INFORMATION REPORT

9.1     Felicity Everiss congratulated everyone on achieving the N+2 targets and
highlighted that the target for this year was still a challenge.

9.2      Kevin Bennett introduced the paper and highlighted the following key points.

     more activity is coming through and many more smaller scale projects from
      Priority 4 and Community Action Plans (CAPs);



              South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                             7
   last year‟s target for ERDF was met but this year the spend target is €112m, and
    to date, the contracted total is only €110m. This is the first time we have been in
    this position so it will be harder to reach the target;
   contracted ESF exceeds the spend target but this depends on 2 or 3 large
    projects, such as JC+ and Co-financing;
   EAGGF also has more contracted than needed but this was the position in Spring
    2003 and it was still hard to reach the target at the end of the year;
   the Programme hit the target for Performance Reserve and will receive between
    £30 - £36m,
   the Programme had also delivered strongly on jobs targets.

9.3    Martin Havenhand mentioned that is was very satisfying to be able to discuss
the achievements in South Yorkshire with colleagues from national offices.

AGENDA ITEM 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1   There was no other business.


Date of next meeting: 22 June 2004
Venue:                The Source, Meadowhall


Programme Directorate
February 2003

Dates of Future Meetings

22 June 2004
12 October 2004




            South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                           8
Annex A

PMC MEETING 10 February 2004

Those present:
Chair       Felicity Everiss        Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
            Martin Havenhand        Yorkshire Forward
            Antonio Goncalves       European Commission
            Damien O‟Brien          European Commission
            Sue Yeandle             Gender Champion/Sheffield Hallam University
            Peter Hayes             Sheffield Hallam University
            Hugh Rolo               Development Trusts Association
            Ernest Opuni            Rotherham Partnership
            Sue Barrett             GROW
            Isadora Aiken           SY Women‟s Development Trust
            Matthew Nicholas        Jobcentre Plus
            Paul Tullett            Environment Agency
            John Popham             SYFEC
            Gordon Scott            EEF
            Roy Wicks               SYPTE
            Stephen Houghton        Barnsley MBC
            Sylvia Yates            Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
Apologies:
            Andrew Bayer            DTI
            Beth Barber Atkinson    Institute of Directors
            Jan Wilson              Sheffield City Council
            Jim O‟Kane              DWP
            John McIvor             Rotherham Primary Care Trust
            John Korzeniewski       Learning & Skills Council
            Martin Winter           Doncaster MBC
            Kirsten Blagden         ODPM
            Paul Jagger             Trade Union Congress
            Penny Hemming           CBI
            Peter Fleming           University of Sheffield
            Roger Stone             Rotherham MBC
            Steve Chamberlain       South Yorkshire Police
            Dean Thomas             DEFRA
In attendance:
            Kevin Bennett           Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
            Anna Oates              Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
            Dr Jayne Crosse         Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
            Nigel Tipple            Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
            Dr Julian White         Government Office Yorkshire & The Humber
            Csaba Gergely           European Commission
            Trevor Stones           Jobcentre Plus
            Anthony Holmes          DTI
            Steve Hawkins           Rotherham Primary Care Trust
            Terry Barrow            Sheffield City Council
            Adam Wilkinson          Rotherham MBC
            Aidan Rave              Doncaster MBC
            Richard Smith           Learning & Skills Council



           South Yorkshire Programme Monitoring Committee – 10 February 2004
                                          9

								
To top