public sector definition by abe23

VIEWS: 125 PAGES: 95

									REGULATION (EC) No 1082/2006 OF
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
OF THE COUNCIL ON A EUROPEAN
GROUPING OF TERRITORIAL
COOPERATION (EGTC)

THE UK’S PROPOSED APPROACH
TO IMPLEMENTATION – UK
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE
TECHNICAL CONSULTATION
ISSUED 20 JULY 2007

URN 07/1240




1
                                    CONTENTS



Introduction                                            2

Overview of Consultation Responses                      2

Government Response to the Consultation                 3

Annex A – List of Questions Asked in the Consultation   15

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form          17

Annex C – Full Set of Written Responses                 18
      Insolvency Service                                18
      Local Government Association                      20
      NHS Blood and Transplant                          30
      Land Registry                                     40
      Welsh Local Government Association                43
      One NorthEast                                     53
      West of Scotland European Consortium              62
      Newry and Mourne District Council                 63
      North West Regional Assembly                      72
      Security Industry Authority                       74
      Northern Ireland Local Government Association     83
      Craigavon Borough Council                         85
      North West Regional Development Agency            94




                                       1
Introduction

The new Structural Funds Regulations for 2007-2013 included a Regulation on a
European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). The aim of this new legal
instrument is to facilitate cross-border, transnational and/or inter-regional co-
operation between regional and local authorities. An EGTC formed under the
Regulation would be invested with legal personality for the implementation of
territorial co-operation programmes based on a convention agreed between the
participating national, regional, local or other public authorities.

On 9 May 2007 the former Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) launched a
technical stakeholder consultation on the implementation of the EGTC
Regulation in the UK.

This document provides a summary of stakeholders’ responses to each of the
questions put in the consultation. It also sets out the position of the Government,
the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern
Ireland Executive on these issues in the light of stakeholders’ views.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has
developed the response to consultation in collaboration with other Government
Departments, in particular Communities and Local Government (CLG) and the
Ministry of Justice, and in close consultation with the Scottish Executive, the
Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.

Overview of Consultation responses

After wide circulation of the consultation document 13 written responses were
received. These were from potential users of an EGTC, various public bodies
including local authorities and their associations, and organisations with a
particular interest in the regulation of an EGTC, the Insolvency Service and the
Land Registry. All responses were gratefully received and have helped inform the
Government’s final approach to implementation.

The full list of respondents is:

Insolvency Service (Executive Agency)
Local Government Association (Local Government)
Welsh Local Government Association (Local Government)
NHS Blood and Transplant Service (Arms Length Body)
Land Registry (Public Corporation)
West of Scotland European Consortium (Local Government)
One North East (Executive NDPB)
Newry and Mourne District Council, Northern Ireland (Local Government)
North West Regional Assembly (Voluntary Regional Body)
Northwest Regional Development Agency (Executive NDPB)


                                         2
Security Industry Authority (Executive NDPB)
Northern Ireland Local Government Association (Local Government)
Craigavon Borough Council, Northern Ireland (Local Government)

A list of the questions asked in the consultation is provided at Annex A, a
breakdown of responses by question is attached at Annex B and a copy of all the
responses is attached in Annex C.

The breakdown to the responses by question clearly shows that in the main
respondents had no view on the majority of questions. This, however, is not
unexpected because of the technical nature of the consultation. Several
respondents only wanted to raise issues of specific interest to them.

Government Response to the Consultation

The UK Government’s overarching approach to implementation can be
summarised as supporting cooperation with other Member States whilst keeping
the regulatory impact to a minimum. We strongly supported territorial cooperation
in the Structural Fund negotiations, from which this Regulation arises, however,
we wanted to minimise the regulatory burden that a new instrument would bring,
mindful that structures already exist in the UK to enable inter-territorial
cooperation.

This overarching approach is reflected in the Government’s responses to the
consultation laid out below:

Question 1: Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the
Scotland Act 1998 apply?

The Scottish Executive is of the view, having taken legal advice, that this
instrument does not raise any devolved matters.

Government response to question 1

The Government has noted the Scottish Executive’s conclusion and is content
with it.

Question 2: Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Those that responded to this question (the Welsh Local Government Association
(WLGA), Craigavon Borough Council, NHS Blood and Transplant, the Local
Government Association (LGA), One NorthEast, Newry and Mourne District
Council, and the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) all agreed that it was
appropriate for there to be a UK wide approach to the legislation. There were no
objections to this approach.

Government response to question 2



                                         3
The legislation that will ensure the effective application of the EGTC Regulation
will be a UK wide instrument.

Question 3: Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a
company?

The six respondents who expressed a view to this question had no objections to
this approach.

Craigavon Borough Council did not express a view, however, they noted that
most local authorities in Northern Ireland had difficulty in participating in Limited
Companies and envisaged similar problems under the EGTC.

Government response to question 3

The response from Craigavon Borough Council enables us to dispel a possible
misconception about this question in the consultation document.

It is not proposed that a UK EGTC be a company within the meaning of
companies legislation. Rather, where the EC Regulation requires Member States
to apply its national laws in certain respects (most notably accounts and
insolvency), the Government will apply such laws as if the UK EGTC were a
company.

No respondents objected to an EGTC being treated as a company. This
approach has two implications.

Firstly, an EGTC, for regulatory purposes, will be treated as a company. This
means that its regulation will be covered by appropriate elements of existing
company law. This prevents the need to produce complex bespoke legislation for
the task.

Furthermore although a UK EGTC will not be a company within the meaning of
the companies legislation the Government considers it appropriate to restrict
public bodies’ participation in an EGTC in the same way as they would be if they
wished to participate in a company. Therefore, this will be established in the
domestic legislation.

The UK Government appreciates that some public bodies’ ability to participate in
companies is restricted, however, respondents to the consultation made no
objections to this approach.

Question 4: Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate
in an EGTC? If so, how should these bodies be identified? When
responding please provide reasons for excluding a public body from
participating in an EGTC.




                                          4
Several of the respondents were concerned that it should be clear who can apply
to be a member of an EGTC. The West of Scotland European Consortium felt
that an overly prescriptive approach to defining the bodies that can participate in
an EGTC should be avoided. This approach was also advocated by the LGA and
the WLGA.

NHS Blood and Transport felt that clear guidance was required on which bodies
would be eligible and Craigavon Borough Council responded that it would be
useful to provide a list of public bodies who could participate. The Northwest
Development Agency (NWDA) also commented that the bodies who can
participate in an EGTC needs to be set out in the legislation.

Under this question Newry and Mourne District Council noted the need for clarity
on what the North South Ministerial Council allows Government Departments to
do and what added value an EGTC would provide.

Government response to question 4

It is the Government’s policy that the EGTC should be available to the broadest
range of public bodies that the EC Regulation allows. Responses to the
consultation clearly indicate a need for clarification on organisations that can
participate in an EGTC. This will be provided in the supporting guidance for
prospective members of EGTCs.

Given that that the EC Regulation specifies what bodies can be members of an
EGTC, it would be wrong from a Community law point of view for the domestic
legislation simply to provide clarification of those bodies. The domestic legislation
could be used to exclude any public bodies from participating in an EGTC,
however, despite wide consultation no recommendations were made for a public
body to be excluded.

This does not mean that all public bodies can automatically become members of
EGTCs. Approval of a public body’s application for membership to an EGTC has
to be made to the competent authority. Approval would not be given if their
participation in the EGTC would be contrary to national law, not in the public
interest or not in line with Government policy. This is in accordance with article
4(3) of the EC Regulation.

It should be noted that the North South cooperation between Northern Ireland
and Ireland, including EU Programme cooperation, will continue to be delivered
by the North South Ministerial Council established by the British Irish Agreement.

Question 5: Should just one authority be designated competent to receive
notifications and if so, do you have any views on which authority this
should be?

Those who responded to the question agreed that there should only be one
competent authority. However, the West of Scotland European Consortium,


                                          5
WLGA and Craigavon Borough Council expressed the importance of the
Devolved Administrations being involved in the decision making process when
the public body concerned was on their respective territories. WLGA also stated
the need for this consultation process to be transparent.

There were various views on who should carry out the task. One North East
stated that this task could be carried out by either the former DTI or DCLG. The
West of Scotland European Consortium and WLGA proposed that the former DTI
should carry out the task. The Local Government Association took the view that
the task could be carried out by the former DTI, DCLG or the Government
Offices.

Government response to question 5

Taking these views into consideration the Government’s policy is that a Secretary
of State (initially the Secretary of State of Trade and Industry) will act as the
competent authority, where required, but involve the relevant Devolved
Administration, when the public body under consideration is in their territory, and
other interested parties, for example the sponsor Department, in the decision
making process. The tasks of the competent authority, set out in the EC
Regulation, are:

       o to receive notifications for approval (Article 4(4))
       o to organise control of management of public funds (Article 6(1))
       o to prohibit activity on its territory (Article 13(1))

Question 6: Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh
or Belfast Gazette (depending on the location of the EGTC‟s registered
office), rather than registered?

Six respondents expressed a view on this question; five agreed this was the best
approach. Those in agreement were the North West Regional Assembly
(NWRA), the LGA, NHS Blood and Transplant, WLGA and the Insolvency
Service. The majority acknowledged that this approach would significantly reduce
costs and bureaucracy. The Insolvency Service, however, did comment that by
going down this route we should ensure transparency so that those who deal
with the EGTC are aware of who the members of the EGTC (i.e. those that will
have unlimited liability) are. WLGA although in agreement commented that there
is no Gazette in Wales and the issue of transparency needs to be addressed.

Government response to question 6

An EGTC, registered in the UK, will gain legal personality through publication in
the one of the three territorially appropriate Gazettes (i.e. the Gazette for England
and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)

To address concerns about transparency the BERR, as the competent authority,
will provide a database, for information purposes, of EGTCs registered in the UK.


                                         6
This database will be subdivided into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland.

Question 7: Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible
for publication of the statutes?

The six respondents, who expressed a view to this question, had no objections to
this approach.

NWRA commented that the members of the EGTC should also be responsible
for publication in the Gazette when an EGTC is to be ended.

The need for this to be carried out transparently was made by the LGA and the
WLGA. They also suggested that all publications should all be accessible from
one site. This could be the competent authority’s website.

NHS Blood and Transplant acknowledged that this approach would minimsze
expense to the taxpayer.

Government response to question 7

Prospective members of an EGTC will be responsible for publication of the
statutes.

The online database for EGTCs described above will address the transparency
issues raised.

Question 8: Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of
an administrative act on a case by case basis?

There were no objections to this approach from the six organisations who
responded.

The LGA commented that this approach would allow flexibility. Also NHS Blood
and Transplant noted that this approach was appropriate given the link to
funding.

Government response to question 8

The Government will designate the competent authority for the management of
public funds by way of an administrative act on a case by case basis.

Question 9: Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a
Community financial contribution be limited?

The LGA, WLGA and Newry and Mourne District Council expressed the view that
tasks should not be restricted. The Local Government Association, and others,
argued that the activities of an EGTC, when not financed by the EU, should not



                                       7
be limited through exercise of this Member State option. The LGA responded that
―the tasks should be broad and flexible to be able to make cross border
collaboration easier between member states‖.

Craigavon Borough Council and One Northeast had no objection to the tasks
being restricted. NHS Blood and Transplant commented that Article 6 was very
broad and any activity outside of this would require funding anyway.

Government response to question 9

In the light of key stakeholder responses to the consultation the Government has
revised its position on this Member State option. It will not limit the tasks of a UK
EGTC where there is no Community financial contribution.

Question 10: Should the assembly be equivalent to the “board of directors”
and its members as “officers”?

Most of the respondents who expressed a view on this question agreed with the
Government’s proposed approach.

Newry and Mourne District Council disagreed with the approach commenting that
the engaging authorities should be the Board of Directors.

Government response to question 10

The domestic legislation will provide that, where it applies companies and
insolvency legislation to a UK EGTC, references in such legislation to ―board of
directors‖ and ―officers‖ shall have the meanings proposed in the consultation
document. Since the Assembly is made up of representatives of the members of
the EGTC then equating the Assembly with the board of directors’ means it will
be made up of the engaging authorities.

On reflection the Government sees it as appropriate to extend the concept of
"board of directors‖ to include the director within the meaning of article [ ] of the
EC Regulation. It will also extend the concept of ―director‖ used in companies
and insolvency legislation to include a member of the Assembly since such a
member, like a company director, will have control of management of the
organisation.

Question 11: Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing
provisions for and EGTC?

Six respondents expressed a view to this question and they all agreed with the
proposed approach. NHS Blood and Transplant added that such an approach
was consistent with our ―light touch‖ approach to implementation.

Government response to question 11



                                          8
The approach proposed to the accounting and auditing provisions for an EGTC
had the support of those that responded to the consultation. However, in the light
of legal advice, we have decided to apply the relevant provisions of the
Companies Act 1985 (part 7) which are currently in force, and not the equivalent
provisions in the Companies Act 2006 which are due to come into force in April
2008 The simple reason for this is that those provisions contain several
substantial regulation-making powers which will not have been exercised by the
time these Regulations come into force. Without those regulations much of the
substance of the accounts requirements is missing. Therefore we will:

   (a) apply the equivalent provisions in the Companies Act 1985, namely Part 7
   (accounts and audit); and

   (b) amend the domestic Regulations to apply the equivalent provisions in the
   2006 Act when those provisions are brought into force (i.e April 2008). At that
   point the various accounting regulations made will also be brought into force.

This does not alter the substance of what we said in the consultation document,
namely that we wish to apply to a UK EGTC those accounts provisions in the
Companies Act that would apply to a small company.

Question 12: Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies
Act 2006 be disapplied?

Three respondents expressed a view on this question and they all agreed with
our approach.

Government response to question 12

In the light of our response to question 11, the equivalent provisions of the
Companies Act 1985 are section 243(1)(a), section 240(5) and section 240(3).
As a result a UK EGTC will not be required to carry out a business review (by
virtue of it being treated as if it were a small company) , nor will it be required to
deliver accounts to the Registrar.

Instead the domestic legislation will require an EGTC to make their accounts
available for inspection at their registered office. This will meet concerns about
transparency raised by consultees.

Question 13: Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency
Act 1986 should be applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

The six respondents who expressed a view to this question all agreed with the
proposed approach NHS Blood and Transport, Craigavon Borough Council and
the Insolvency Service commented that this approach is the correct one rather
than develop a new regime.

Government response to question 13


                                           9
The appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 will be applied to an EGTC
through the domestic legislation.

Question 14: Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the
Gazette?

Six respondents expressed a view on this question and they all agreed with the
proposed approach. The Insolvency Service note this is consistent with all
winding up orders and the LGA noted the need for transparency in this process.

WLGA pointed to its comment in relation to question 6 that there was no Gazette
in Wales and this needed to be addressed.

Government response to question 14

In line with procedures applying to winding up orders generally, the winding up of
a UK EGTC will need to be published in one of the three territorially appropriate
Gazettes. As already explained one of these Gazettes covers Wales.

In addition to containing the Statutes and Conventions of an EGTC the EGTC
database, maintained by the competent authority, will include winding up notices
to enhance transparency.

Question 15: Should the court be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings
under the IA 1986?

Three respondents all agreed with our approach.

Government response to question 15

The domestic legislation will designate the High Court (and in Scotland the Court
of Session) as the competent court for the purpose of ordering the winding up of
a UK EGTC under article 14 of the EC Regulation.

Question 16: Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution
of an EGTC?

The three respondents who expressed a view to this question all agreed with the
proposed approach.

Government response to question 16

Having considered this approach further the UK Government believes this
approach is too narrow and that there should be no restriction on who can apply
for dissolution, except as laid out in article 14 of the EC Regulation.




                                        10
Article 14(1) provides that an application can be made by ―any competent
authority with a legitimate interest‖. It does not require Member States to
designate a competent authority, indeed the reference to ―any…with a legitimate
interest‖ suggests that this should depend on the circumstances of the case. It
could be the Secretary of State but it could quite easily be a body in another
Member State. If there is any doubt as to whether an applicant has a ―legitimate
interest‖ the courts will be well placed to decide on such an issue (this being a
test that they undertake regularly in the context of judicial review applications).

Question 17: Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of
the EGTC already have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is
concerned, be required?

The LGA, Newry and Mourne District Council, One Northeast, NHS Blood and
Transplant and Craigavon Borough Council all agreed that a comprehensive list
of tasks is not required.

The WLGA expressed the view that the such a list would be desirable as no such
database exists in the UK, however, they do acknowledge that to produce such a
database would be resource intensive.

Government response to question 17

The UK Government will not produce a comprehensive list of tasks which the
members of the EGTC already have, as far as territorial co-operation within that
Member State is concerned.

Question 18: Should an EGTC pay for the publication of its convention and
statutes in the Gazette?

The five respondents who expressed a view to this question all agreed with the
proposed approach. In addition, NHS Blood and Transplant commented that as
there was no registration charges this approach seemed fair.

Government response to question 18

The EGTC will have to pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in
the Gazette.

Question 19: Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make
the EC Regulation workable in the UK?

None of the three organisations that answered this question thought that any
further supplemental provisions were required. The Insolvency Service, in their
response, suggested that we consider applying the Company Directors
Disqualification Act 1986 (the 1986 Act) to a UK EGTC in the event of the EGTC
being wound up.



                                        11
Government response to question 19

On reflection the UK Government sees it reasonable to apply the 1986 Act to a
UK EGTC. This will be reflected in the domestic legislation.

Question 20: Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989
be applied to an EGTC?

Five respondents did not think the provisions needed to be applied to the EGTC.
Craigavon Borough Council commented that, given the Secretary of State’s
approving function they agree that there is little likelihood of misrepresentation by
a collective of public bodies. The LGA and WLGA also advocated a flexible
approach.

Government response to question 20

The only additional provisions that the UK Government will include in the
domestic legislation are 1986 Act, as stated above and a provision in regard to
penalties.

The penalties provision is necessitated by the fact that some of the penalties in
the provisions applied by these Regulations exceed the maximum penalties that
we are allowed to provide for, in regulations made under section 2(2) of the
European Communities Act 1972. Paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 2 to that Act
sets those limits. The main problem arises with penalties on summary conviction.
This provision provides that where there is a conflict, the limits in the European
Communities Act 1972 apply.

Question 21: Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to
refuse a prospective member‟s application if the name proposed for the
EGTC were not desirable?

The five respondents who expressed a view to this question agreed with the
proposed approach.

Newry and Mourne District Council did not think that the Secretary of State
should be able to refuse an undesirable name; however, no reasons were given
for this view.

Government response to question 21

The consultation document made clear that the Government’s policy approach
would depend on whether it has the legal power under the EC Regulation to
make such a provision. Having taken legal advice, it has concluded that no such
power exists and so will not be making any provision about the name of a UK
EGTC.

Other Comments


                                         12
1. The Northern Ireland Local Government Association response stated they
   were content with the light touch approach being taken to implementation and
   that the EGTC would not affect cross border work with Southern Ireland
   through the North South Ministerial Council.

   Government response

   As stated in our response to question 4 the UK Government acknowledges
   that the North South cooperation between Northern Ireland and Ireland,
   including EU Programme cooperation, will continue to be delivered by the
   North South Ministerial Council established by the British Irish Agreement.

2. The North West Regional Assembly queried whether they would be able to
   participate in an EGTC.

   Government Response

   As stated in the response to question 4 it is the Government’s policy that the
   EGTC should be available to the broadest range of public bodies that the EC
   Regulation allows. Clarification on the bodies covered by the Regulation will
   be provided in the guidance.

   This does not mean that all public bodies can automatically become members
   of EGTCs. Approval of a public body’s application for membership to an
   EGTC has to be made to the competent authority. Approval would not be
   given if their participation in the EGTC would be contrary to national law, not
   in the public interest or not in line with Government policy.

   Applications for membership will be addressed on a case by case basis using
   consistently applied criteria.

3. The Northwest Regional Development Agency commented that if they were to
   be involved in an EGTC they would not accept limited liability.

   Government Response

   The UK Government’s policy is to exercise the Member State option that
   requires members of an EGTC registered in the UK to have unlimited liability.
   To allow members of an EGTC registered in the UK to carry limited liability in
   relation to their activities in the EGTC would result in a significant increase in
   the level of regulation necessary to ensure those working with the EGTC are
   fully aware of its financial status. This does not prevent UK public bodies
   participating in an EGTC registered in another Member State that permits
   members to carry limited liability. Nor does this prevent a public body from
   using an alternative vehicle for carrying out activities with public bodies from
   other member states.




                                         13
4. The Land Registry queried how a third party dealing with a UK EGTC would
   know who the members of a UK EGTC are and whether they have power to
   bind the UK EGTC (without looking through constitutional documents).

   Government response

   The Government is satisfied that, given the nature of a UK EGTC, there will
   be no doubt about who the members are, nor will there be any reason to
   conceal this information from third parties. For the same reason, the
   Government sees no reason to regulate about whether members have power
   to bind a UK EGTC. This form of regulation is generally more appropriate for
   a privately owned, profit making company rather than for a grouping of public
   bodies.




                                       14
Annex A - List of Questions Asked in the Consultation

Question 1: Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland
Act 1998 apply?

Question 2: Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Question 3: Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a
company?

Question 4: Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an
EGTC? If so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please
provide reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

Question 5: Should just one authority be designated competent to receive
notifications and if so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Question 6: Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or
Belfast Gazette (depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office),
rather than registered?

Question 7: Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for
publication of the statutes?

Question 8: Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an
administrative act on a case by case basis?

Question 9: Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community
financial contribution be limited?

Question 10: Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and
its members as ―officers‖?

Question 11: Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing
provisions for and EGTC?

Question 12: Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act
2006 be disapplied?

Question 13: Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act
1986 should be applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Question 14: Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the
Gazette?

Question 15: Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent
body, with the same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up
proceedings under the IA 1986?



                                        15
Question 16: Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an
EGTC?

Question 17: Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the
EGTC already have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned,
be required?

Question 18: Should an EGTC to pay for the publication of its convention and
statutes in the Gazette?

Question 19: Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the
EC Regulation workable in the UK?

Question 20: Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be
applied to an EGTC?

Question 21: Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a
prospective member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not
desirable?




                                       16
Annex B - Breakdown of Responses by Question Table

                Breakdown of Responses by Question

  Question
                  Yes            No          No View   Comments
  Number

     1             2                           11         3
     2             7                            6         2
     3                           6              7         1
     4             6             2              5         7
     5             7                            6         5
     6             5             1              9         6
     7             6                            7         4
     8             6                            7         3
     9             3             3              7         5
     10            5             1              6         4
     11            6                            7         3
     12            3                           10         1
     13            6                            7         3
     14            6                            7         4
     15            3                           10         1
     16            3                           10         1
     17            1             5              7         2
     18            5                            8         2
     19            1             2             10         2
     20                          5              8         4
     21            5             1              7         1
   Other
                                                          6
 Comments




                                 17
Annex C - Full Set of Written Responses

Insolvency Service
Received 4 June 2007

TO:                                                 ci:      Stephen Leinster INSS
Simon Jones                                                  Tom Phillips, INSS
                                                             Ruth Lyons, DTI Legal A
Policy Adviser                                               Hannah Wiskin, DTI Legal C
REG NEP - Structural Funds Policy Unit


FROM:
Steven Chown
Senior Policy Advisor
Policy Unit
The Insolvency Service
21 Bloomsbury Street
 020 7637 6501
   020 7291 6746


4 June 2007


Consultation exercise on EGTC Regulation – Insolvency Service response

Thank you for including The Service within the above-named consultation. Our
comments are as follows-


      Q1 Scotland Act 1998– I have previously emailed Hannah Wiskin at DTI Legal C
       on the possibility that EGTCs might fall into the Schedule 5 Head C2 exceptions
       of the Scotland Act, as they are unregistered companies and therefore capable of
       being sequestered under s6 Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (and the insolvency
       policy would then be in the devolved area). Hannah replied that she would contact
       Alan Williams at OSAG on this point.
      Q6 If you are to go down the route of publication rather than registration (i.e. not
       to create a quasi Companies House for EGTCs) on the basis of disproportionate
       cost (which seems reasonable) and that registration goes hand in hand with having
       limited liability which EGTCs will not have (your argument at para 31(c)) you
       should ensure that those who deal with the EGTC are aware of who the members
       of the EGTC (i.e. those that will have unlimited liability) are. I believe that
       partnerships have to display the names of the partners on their business
       documents; someone dealing with the partnership then knows who the members


                                           18
       (with unlimited liability) are should they need to pursue them following a future
       failure of the partnership. There would seem to be an easy parallel to be drawn to
       EGTCs in this respect.
      Q10 - We agree that that the assembly would be equivalent to the “board of
       directors” and its members as “officers"
      Q13 We agree with the proposal to apply Part V of the Insolvency Act 1986,
       rather than drafting a new insolvency regime specifically for EGTCs.
      Q14 - We agree that the winding up of an EGTC should be published in the
       Gazette, as with all winding-up orders.
      Q15 - any disapplication of s130 IA86 should ensure that the official receiver has
       sufficient copies of the order to fulfill his functions (see r4.21 Insolvency Rules
       1986)
      Q19 At para 63 & 64 you state that you are not going to apply the CDDA. We in
       the INSS think that this would be unwise. We cannot think of any other quasi-
       companies where the officers are not subject to the CDDA (EEIGs, to which you
       draw parallels with elsewhere in the condoc, applied the CDDA), which would
       create an unwelcome precedent. DTI have previously said, in relation to these
       proposals, that the people that you would expect to be „officers‟ of an EGTC
       would be taking that role as part of their job (a chief exec of a regional public
       authority for example) and that the CDDA should not therefore apply. However,
       para 9 of the condoc states that it is expected that existing vehicles, such as
       companies limited by guarantee, would be used by the relevant bodies, instead of
       EGTCs, where the need to create another (quasi) corporate body arises. If a chief
       executive of a local authority took on the directorship of a company limited by
       guarantee as part of his job, he would be subject to the CDDA, so I am unsure
       why he shouldn't be subject to it performing the same role in an EGTC.
       Additionally, as the interpretation of company in s22 CDDA would be amended
       to exclude EGTCs, anyone convicted of a criminal offence in relation to an EGTC
       (say fraud or embezzlement) could not then be disqualified under s2 CDDA, as it
       would not be in connection with a 'company' as interpreted by that Act. We do
       not feel that this would be in the pubic interest.


Steven Chown




                                           19
Local Government Association
Received 8 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

Name: Heleen Jalvingh

Organisation’s name: Local Government Association


Address: Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ


Email: Heleen.Jalvingh@lga.gov.uk


Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government

Public Body Sponsor

Executive Agency



                                        20
Executive NDPB

Public Corporation

Other (please specify) __________________________________



Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.

Question 1

Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998
apply?


 Yes                               No                      No view



Comments

This relates to Scotland




Question 2

Should this be a UK wide instrument?

 Yes                               No                      No view



Comments

This is a member state issue, so therefore the instrument should be a UK
wide one.




                                        21
Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?


 Yes                               No                       No view


Comments




Question 4

Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an EGTC? If
so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please provide
reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

 Yes                               No                       No view


Comments

It is important to clarify which bodies are covered by the „ONS Public
Sector‟ definition, although the definition should be as broad as possible
and local authorities should be part of the definition.
We should not be too prescriptive as to which UK bodies may potentially
be part of an EGTC. The boundaries between public and private sectors are
becoming increasingly blurred (and are constantly changing), so a
prescriptive listing at the outset does not seem appropriate. Member states
will have to approve every participation by UK organisations in the EGTC,
so safeguards are already there.


Question 5

Should just one authority be designated competent to receive notifications and if
so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

 Yes                               No                       No view




                                        22
Comments

DTI, DCLG or GOs




Question 6

Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette
(depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office), rather than
registered?

 Yes                             No                    No view


Comments

Publication is better than registration, to avoid difficult and bureaucratic
systems. The publication of Welsh EGTC statutes should be discussed
with the Welsh Assembly and the WLGA.


Question 7

Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for publication of
the statutes?

 Yes                             No                    No view



Comments

However, it is important that publications are made transparent and easily
accessible. The publications should all appear on one website (e.g. DTI‟s
website)




                                      23
Question 8

Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an administrative
act on a case by case basis?


 Yes                              No                     No view




Comments

This will allow flexibility.



Question 9

Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community financial
contribution be limited?

 Yes                              No                     No view



Comments

The tasks should be broad and flexible to be able to make cross-border
collaboration easier between member states.




Question 10

Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and its members
as ―officers‖?

 Yes                              No                     No view




                                       24
Comments




Question 11

Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing provisions for and
EGTC?



 Yes                             No                    No view



Comments




Question 12

Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006 be
disapplied?


 Yes                             No                    No view



Comments




                                      25
Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?


 Yes                               No                     No view


Comments




Question 14

Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the Gazette?

 Yes                               No                     No view


Comments




Question 15

Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings under
the IA 1986?

   Yes                              No                      No view



Comments




                                        26
Question 16

Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC?


 Yes                               No                      No view


Comments




Question 17

Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC already
have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, be required?

 Yes                               No                      No view


Comments




Question 18

Should an EGTC to pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in the
Gazette?
   Yes                               No                      No view



Comments

Who else?




                                        27
Question 19

Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the EC Regulation
workable in the UK?



  Yes                              No                     No view


Comments




Question 20

Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be applied to an
EGTC?

 Yes                              No                     No view


Comments

A flexible approach is required here.




Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

 Yes                              No                     No view




                                        28
Comments

Provided that this will happen in a transparent way with sufficient
foundations, against which the member can appeal. This should not be set
out in legislation but contained in guidance (as Government proposes).




                                  29
NHS Blood and Transplant
Received 12 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

Name: Steve Morgan, Head of International Affairs, NHSBT


Organisation’s name: NHS Blood and Transplant


Address: 1st Floor, 2440 The Quadrant, Aztec West, Almondsbury

Bristol BS32 4AQ

Email: steve.morgan@nhsbt.nhs.uk

Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government

Public Body Sponsor

Executive Agency



                                        30
Executive NDPB

Public Corporation

Other (please specify) Special Health Authority / Arms Length Body



Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.

Question 1

Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998
apply?

Yes                               No                         No view



Comments

We can see no reason not to treat EGTC as a company in Scotland




Question 2

Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Yes                               No                         No view

Comments

Yes




                                       31
Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?

Yes                               No                          No view

Comments

No




Question 4

Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an EGTC? If
so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please provide
reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

Yes                               No                          No view

Comments

We think that clear guidance is needed in the legislation.




Question 5

Should just one authority be designated competent to receive notifications and if
so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Yes                               No                          No view

Comments

Yes – that seems sensible.




                                        32
Question 6

Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette
(depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office), rather than
registered?

Yes                             No                         No view

Comments

This would avoid excessive administration expenses. We can see no
reason not to have the statutes published.




Question 7

Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for publication of
the statutes?

Yes                             No                         No view

Comments

Yes – this will again avoid expense to the taxpayer and will not be overly
burdensome.




Question 8

Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an administrative
act on a case by case basis?

Yes                             No                         No view




                                      33
Comments

Yes, given that this is linked to funding.




Question 9

Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community financial
contribution be limited?

Yes                              No                      No view

Comments

An EGTC can carry out quite broad activities within Article 6 of the
Regulation. Anything beyond this is likely to be quite specific and require
funding.




Question 10

Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and its members
as ―officers‖?

Yes                              No                      No view

Comments

This makes sense, as the aim appears to be to make the EGTC broadly
consistent with company law.




                                      34
Question 11

Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing provisions for and
EGTC?

Yes                              No                         No view

Comments

Yes – this makes sense in line with a “light touch” approach.




Question 12

Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006 be
disapplied?

Yes                              No                         No view

Comments

Yes – these are inappropriate.




Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Yes                              No                         No view




                                       35
Comments

Yes – otherwise a new regime has to be introduced.




Question 14

Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the Gazette?

Yes                             No                         No view



Comments

Yes.




Question 15

Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings under
the IA 1986?

Yes                             No                         No view



Comments

Yes.




                                      36
Question 16

Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC?

Yes                               No                         No view



Comments

Yes – given that this is where an EGTC exceeds its powers or ceases to
be active, and not where it becomes insolvent and fails to meet its debts.




Question 17

Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC already
have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, be required?

Yes                               No                         No view



Comments

We do not think that this is necessary.




Question 18

Should an EGTC pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in the
Gazette?

Yes                               No                         No view




                                       37
Comments
There are no registration fees as such, so this seems fair.




Question 19

Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the EC Regulation
workable in the UK?

Yes                             No                        No view



Comments

No view – an impossibly wide question!




Question 20

Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be applied to an
EGTC?

Yes                             No                        No view



Comments

This does not appear to be necessary.




                                     38
Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

Yes                             No                         No view

Comments

Yes.




                                      39
               Land Registry
               Received 12 June 2007




    Simon Jones
    Department of Trade and
    Industry
    Bay 1120,
    1 Victoria Street
    London SW1H 0ET



_                                                        _



    Date                           Dear Mr Jones
    12 June 2007
                                   Consultation Paper on Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 (“the
                                   ECGT Regulations”)

                                   Mary Grant of the Ministry of Justice has very kindly forwarded
                                   to us (and others) a copy of your email to her (and others) of 8
    Our Reference
                                   May 2007.
    FMT/SW/Consultations
_                                                        _
                                   Land Registry is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice
                                   and is responsible for the registration of title to land in England
                                   and Wales. Land Registry ―guarantees‖ title to the land it
                                   registers, so it is very important to us to establish, amongst
                                   many other things, that the person we are registering is a legal
                                   person, that any transfer to them (or charge by them) has been
                                   executed by or on behalf of them by the correct person and
                                   related matters, such as the applicable insolvency regime and
                                   whether a charge by them needs to be registered with the
                                   registrar of companies.

                                   Save for the following, we do not have any comments on the
                                   proposals. We would, however, wish to see a copy of the draft
                                   regulations, which will bring into effect the ECGT Regulations. If
                                   possible, we would also wish to have the opportunity, where
    Land Registry                  appropriate, to comment on the draft.
    Head Office
                                   Subject to the points made below, we agree, in principle, to the


                                                    40
Lincoln's Inn Fields       proposals put forward in the Consultation Paper. However,
London                     those proposals are general in nature and it may be that
WC2A 3PH                   matters which are covered, in more detail, in the regulations
                           may affect Land Registry. For example, we assume that an
                           ECGT will be treated as an unregistered company in all
Tel 020 7917 8888          respects. However if, as is the case with a European Economic
Fax 020 7955 0110          Interest Grouping (―EEIG‖), certain provisions of the Companies
                           Act are applied to the ECGT, so that it may be treated as a
                           registered company for certain purposes, those proposals may
DX No 1098                 impact upon Land Registry practice. Likewise, we would be
London/Chancery Lane WC2   interested in knowing, in more detail, which provisions of the
www.landregistry.gov.uk    Insolvency Act 1986 will be applied to an ECGT, particularly in
                           relation to what would happen to property held by an ECGT in
                           the event of a winding up order being made.

                           We do have some concern over how a third party would be able
                           to rely upon the members of the assembly or the director of the
                           ECGT as having sufficient authority to bind the ECGT. We are
                           thinking, in particular, of reliance being placed on the
                           signatories to documents such as a transfer of property held by
                           the ECGT. The Consultation Paper suggests that it would be
                           appropriate to treat representatives of the members of the
                           ECGT as equivalent to directors of the company. However, it is
                           not clear, if the ECGT is to be treated as an unregistered
                           company, how the appointment and authority of the
                           representatives of the assembly members can be verified;
                           reviewing all of the constitutional documents may be
                           cumbersome if the use of ECGTs becomes significant. Will
                           there be any equivalent to section 36A of the Companies Act
                           1985 and/or section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, which
                           would, for example, provide for a presumption that a document
                           be deemed properly executed by the ECGT if it is purported to
                           be signed by, say, two of the assembly representatives?

                           A related problem may also arise in establishing the director’s
                           authority. It would appear on the face of the ECGT Regulations,
                           that either the assembly (acting through its members) or the
                           director may bind the ECGT. In contrast to the situation with an
                           EEIG, where the manager’s details must be registered, it is not
                           clear, on the face of it, how the authority of the director of an
                           ECGT will be established (short of reviewing all of the
                           constitutional documents). There does not appear to be any
                           requirement, under Articles 8 or 9, for the director’s details to be
                           published, nor for clarification of his or her method of
                           appointment.




                                            41
In either case, it would be desirable to know that a named
director or representatives of the assembly members have
power to bind the ECGT without (at least in the case of an
ECGT which has its ―registered‖ office in UK) having to inspect
the convention, statute and (possibly) other supplemental
constitutional documents. There is, so far as we can see, no
obvious mechanism for this—as there is with the manager of an
EEIG, whose details (as with the details of a director of a
registered company) will be a matter of public record. It may be
appropriate for the regulations to address this expressly.

Yours faithfully,




Francis Twambley
Land Registrar (RLSG)
Tel 020 7166 4340
Email francis.twambley@landregistry.gsi.gov.uk




                    42
Welsh Local Government Association
Received 13 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

Name:                       Alexia Taylor

Organisation‟s name:        Welsh Local Government Association
(WLGA)

Address:                    Local Government House
                            Drake Walk
                            Cardiff
                            CF10 4LG

Email:                      alexia.taylor@wlga-brussels.org.uk

Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government

Public Body Sponsor

Executive Agency



                                        43
Executive NDPB

Public Corporation

Other (please specify) Association of the 22 Welsh Local Authorities

Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.

Question 1

Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998
apply?

Yes                               No                         No view



Comments

Scottish issue only




Question 2

Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Yes                               No                         No view

Comments

Due to the fact that this is a member state issue, the WLGA believes that
the EGTC instrument needs to the considered as a UK wide instrument.




                                       44
Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?

Yes                               No                          No view

Comments




Question 4

Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an EGTC? If
so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please provide
reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

Yes                               No                          No view

Comments

Clarification is needed with regards to which bodies are covered by the
„ONS Public Sector‟ definition. It would be helpful if the definition is broad,
with local authorities and local authority associations being covered as
part of the definition.

At the outset of this regulation it would be helpful if the UK member state is
not too prescriptive over which UK bodies could potentially be part of an
EGTC – due to the fact that relations and boundaries between public,
private and voluntary sectors are constantly developing and evolving.

Member states, via the competent body will need to approve participation
of UK organisations in the EGTC and therefore this should act as a
safeguard.




                                        45
Question 5

Should just one authority be designated competent to receive notifications and if
so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Yes                              No                         No view

Comments

WLGA believes that due to the fact that the EGTC instrument is a UK wide
instrument only one authority should be designated as the competent
body, to receive and approve notifications. At this stage the WLGA would
suggest that the DTI would be an appropriate UK competent authority.

We would also strongly suggest that devolved administrations need to be
consulted on relevant EGTC‟s.

However, as outlined in
   paragraph 26, page 10 „…the competent authority to approve
     participation by a prospective member unless there is a legal reason
     why such a member should not participate, or that there are public
     interests or policy reasons precluding this‟. The WLGA seeks
     clarification on how the competent authority will be aware of
     potentially very localised public or policy reasons.
   paragraph 28, page 10, „…have to be decided on a case-by-case
     basis‟. The WLGA believes that this must be carried out in a
     transparent, open manner with agreed criteria used.


Question 6

Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette
(depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office), rather than
registered?

Yes                              No                         No view

Comments

WLGA believes that publication of an EGTC is the preferred option over
registration.

However, due to the fact that there is no Gazette within Wales the
publication of Welsh EGTC statuses need to be discussed with the Welsh


                                       46
Assembly Government and the WLGA to agree a more appropriate
mechanism for publication.


Question 7

Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for publication of
the statutes?

Yes                             No                         No view

Comments

It is important that publications are made transparent and easily
accessible.

It would be helpful that one website is set up per member state, as part of
the competent authority‟s website (for example in the UK as part of the
DTI‟s website). This should in turn link to all other member state
competent authorities websites.




Question 8

Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an administrative
act on a case by case basis?

Yes                             No                         No view



Comments




                                      47
Question 9

Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community financial
contribution be limited?

Yes                             No                       No view

Comments




Question 10

Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and its members
as ―officers‖?

Yes                             No                       No view

Comments




Question 11

Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing provisions for and
EGTC?

Yes                             No                       No view

Comments




                                     48
Question 12

Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006 be
disapplied?

Yes                              No                         No view

Comments




Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Yes                              No                         No view



Comments




Question 14

Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the Gazette?

Yes                              No                         No view



Comments

See comments in questions 6




                                       49
Question 15

Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings under
the IA 1986?

Yes                               No                         No view



Comments




Question 16

Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC?

Yes                               No                         No view



Comments




Question 17

Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC already
have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, be required?

Yes                               No                         No view




                                       50
Comments

This would be highly desirable. To my understanding there is no such
database of territorial co-operation within the UK.

However, it will be very resource extensive to develop such a database.




Question 18

Should an EGTC to pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in the
Gazette?

Yes                             No                         No view



Comments




Question 19

Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the EC Regulation
workable in the UK?

Yes                             No                         No view



Comments




                                      51
Question 20

Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be applied to an
EGTC?

Yes                                No                      No view



Comments

A flexible approach is required.




Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

Yes                                No                      No view

Comments

However, should this happen a transparent manner must be adopted.




                                        52
One NorthEast
Received 18 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

Name: Emma Harvey------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 --


Organisation’s name: ---One NorthEast-------------------------------------------
                                                          ----------------------


           Address: --Stella House, Goldcrest Way, Newburn Riverside-,
                                     Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE66 3NG

Email:Emma.Harvey@onenortheast.co.uk --------------------------------------
                                             ------------------------------

Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government

Public Body Sponsor



                                             53
Executive Agency

Executive NDPB                                           x
                                                         X
Public Corporation                                       X
                                                         X
Other (please specify) __________________________________X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
                                                         X
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
                                                         X
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.          X
                                                         X
Question 1                                               X
                                                         X
                                                         X
Do you agree that the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland
Act 1998 should apply?                                   X
                                                         X
Yes                                No                    X    No view
         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X
Comments                                                 X
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         x
                                                         X
                                                         X
                                                         X

Question 2

Do you agree that this should be a UK wide instrument?

Yes     X                        No                         No view

Comments




                                       54
Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?

Yes                              No         X               No view

Comments




Question 4

Should any public bodies be specifically excluded from participating in an EGTC?
If yes, provide reasons for such exclusion?

Yes                              No         X               No view

Comments




Question 5

Do you agree that just one authority should be designated competent to receive
notifications and if so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Yes     X                        No                         No view

Comments

Either DTI or CLG could perform this function




                                       55
Question 6

Do you agree that EGTC statutes should be published in the London, Edinburgh
or Belfast Gazette (depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office),
rather than registered?

Yes                             No                         No view    X


Comments




Question 7

Do you agree that the prospective members of the EGTC should be responsible
for publication of the statutes?

Yes    X                        No                         No view

Comments




Question 8

Do you agree that designation of competent authorities should be done by way of
an administrative act on a case by case basis?

Yes    X                        No                         No view



Comments




                                      56
Question 9

Do you agree that the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community
financial contribution should be limited?

Yes    X                        No                        No view

Comments




Question 10

Do you agree that the assembly would be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖
and its members as ―officers‖?

Yes    X                        No                        No view

Comments




Question 11

Do you agree with our proposed approach to the accounting and auditing
provisions for and EGTC?

Yes    X                        No                        No view

Comments




                                     57
Question 12

Do you agree that section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006
should be disapplied?


Yes     X                        No                         No view

Comments




Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Yes     X                        No                         No view



Comments




Question 14

Do you agree that the winding-up of an EGTC should require publication in the
Gazette?

Yes     X                        No                         No view



Comments




                                       58
Question 15

Do you agree with the above proposal for the court, as defined above, to be the
designated competent body, with the same rules on jurisdiction as apply
generally to winding up proceedings under the IA 1986?

Yes     X                          No                          No view



Comments




Question 16

Do you agree that only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an
EGTC?

Yes     X                          No                          No view



Comments




Question 17

Do you agree that a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC
already have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, is not
required?

Yes     X                          No                          No view



Comments




                                        59
Question 18

Do you agree it is appropriate for an EGTC to pay for the publication of its
convention and statutes in the Gazette?

Yes    X                       No                        No view



Comments




Question 19

Do you agree that the only supplemental provision required to make the EC
Regulation workable in the UK is that related to company names?

Yes    X                       No                        No view



Comments




Question 20

Do you agree that the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 should
not be applied to an EGTC?

Yes    X                       No                        No view



Comments




                                    60
Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

Yes    X                        No                         No view

Comments




                                      61
West of Scotland European Consortium
Received 19 June 2007

  European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation: Implementation in the United Kingdom


                     Comments by West of Scotland European Consortium


GENERAL

The Consortium welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Department of Trade and
Industry‟s paper on the implementation of the EGTC regulation in the UK. In general the “light
touch” approach set out in the consultation document is supported. However the Consortium
would like to make some specific points on the issues raised.


ELIGIBLE PUBLIC BODIES (QUESTION 4)

The Consortium considers that an overly prescriptive approach to defining the bodies that can
participate in an EGTC should be avoided. In the UK the boundaries between the public and
private sectors are becoming increasingly blurred (and are constantly changing) so a definitive
listing at the outset does not seem appropriate. It is important to remember that the Member
States will have to approve every EGTC participation by organisations in their respective
territories (per article 4 (3) of the EGTC regulation), so the safeguards are there already.


COMPETENT AUTHORITY (QUESTION 5)

The Consortium notes that the DTI paper (paragraph 24) would prefer to have only one body
designated to receive notifications and the Consortium assumes that it is anticipated that the DTI
should fulfil this task. The Consortium would however wish to stress that where the body making
application is based in Scotland, then Scottish ministers should de facto consider the application
since they are better placed to assess whether the applicant body would be acting intra vires and
in accordance with public policy by participating in the EGTC.


CONCLUSION

The Consortium would wish to be kept informed of developments in relation to the
implementation of this regulation in the UK.



M Leitch
West of Scotland European Consortium
June 2007




                                               62
Newry and Mourne District Council
Received 20 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

   Name: -------Jonathan McGilly----------------------------------------------------


Organisation’s name: -----Newry and Mourne District Council---------------
                                                               -----------


    Address: ----Greenbank Industrial Estate------------------------------------

                      -Newry Co Down BT34 2QU--------------------------------

        Email: ---jonathan.mcgilly@newryandmourne.gov.uk----------------

Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government                                             

Public Body Sponsor



                                             63
Executive Agency

Executive NDPB

Public Corporation

Other (please specify) __________________________________



Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.

Question 1

Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998
apply?

Yes                               No                         No view       



Comments




Question 2

Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Yes                 No                         No view

Comments




                                       64
Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?

Yes                               No                                No view

Comments




Question 4

Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an EGTC? If
so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please provide
reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

Yes                              No                          No view

Comments

In terms of NI, need more clarity on what the NSMC currently allows
Government Departments to do and what added value a EGTC will have.




Question 5

Should just one authority be designated competent to receive notifications and if
so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Yes                              No                          No view

Comments




                                        65
Question 6

Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette
(depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office), rather than
registered?

Yes                             No                         No view     

Comments




Question 7

Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for publication of
the statutes?

Yes                             No                         No view 

Comments




Question 8

Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an administrative
act on a case by case basis?

Yes                            No                         No view



Comments




                                      66
Question 9

Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community financial
contribution be limited?

Yes                             No                      No view

Comments

Provided the authorities have the power to do what they plan to do via a
EGTC then this should proceed.




Question 10

Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and its members
as ―officers‖?

Yes                             No                      No view

Comments

Surely the engaging authorities should be the Board of Directors.




Question 11

Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing provisions for and
EGTC?

Yes                             No                       No view 

Comments




                                       67
Question 12

Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006 be
disapplied?

Yes                              No                         No view 

Comments




Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Yes                             No                         No view



Comments




Question 14

Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the Gazette?

Yes                              No                         No view 



Comments




                                       68
Question 15

Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings under
the IA 1986?

Yes                               No                         No view 



Comments




Question 16

Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC?

Yes                               No                         No view 



Comments




Question 17

Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC already
have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, be required?

Yes                              No                         No view



Comments




                                       69
Question 18

Should an EGTC to pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in the
Gazette?

Yes                             No                         No view 



Comments




Question 19

Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the EC Regulation
workable in the UK?

Yes                             No                         No view 



Comments




Question 20

Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be applied to an
EGTC?

Yes                             No                         No view     

Comments




                                      70
Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

Yes                             No                        No view

Comments




                                      71
North West Regional Assembly
Received 20 June 2007




19 June 2007

Simon Jones
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET

Dear Simon

This response is sent on behalf of the North West Regional Assembly.
Consultation has taken place with partner organisations across the North West of
England.

We agree that this should be a UK wide instrument, in accordance with the
Companies Act 2006 and can see no reason why an EGTC should not be treated
as a company under these terms.

We welcome the regulation that EGTC statutes should be published in the
relevant Gazette, depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office. As
noted in the report, this will avoid the costs involved of the creation of a public
registry and with the lack of realistic alternatives, we feel that publication will
more than cover the necessary issues. However, the responsibility for this
publication should remain with the EGTC itself and the same rules should apply
at the end of an EGTC.

Considering Accounting and Auditing procedures, and to support all possible
transparency in terms of spend of European monies of any sort, we agreed that
Part 16 provisions should be applied, no matter what the status of the
organisation for the purpose of accounting provisions.

We do, however, have a question which concerns the possible participation of
Regional Assemblies in an EGTC. For example, in the North West of England,


                                         72
the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) operates with St. Helens Borough
Council as its accountable body. The NWRA is a non-statutory body and is not
able to directly receive government grant funding. St. Helens therefore, as a
statutory body, manages issues such as finance and human resources. Would it
therefore be St. Helen’s who would become the partner in the EGTC, or would it
be possible for the NWRA to participate, providing this relationship is made
explicit?


Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact Margaret Reid of
the NWRA (01942 737913) or Viv Gee at the NWDA (01925 400100).

Yours sincerely




Cllr Brian Millard
Chair
European Co-operation Group
(sub-group of North West Regional European Partnership)
c/o NWRA
Wigan Investment Centre
Riverside Drive
Wigan
WN3 5BA




                                      73
Security Industry Authority
Received 20 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

Name: ---Marie-Collette Tchombe--------------------------------------------------
                                                                               --


Organisation’s name: -------SECURITY INDUSTRY AUTHORITY---------
                                                             ---


Address: --------P.O. BOX 49768, LONDON--------------------------------------
                                                                            -

               WC1V 6WY-------------------------------------------------------------

               Email: --------------------------------------------------------------------

Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government

Public Body Sponsor


                                               74
Executive Agency

Executive NDPB                                       

Public Corporation

Other (please specify) __________________________________



Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.

Question 1

Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998
apply?

Yes                               No                         No view       



Comments




Question 2

Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Yes                               No                         No view 

Comments




                                       75
Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?

Yes                               No                          No view      

Comments




Question 4

Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an EGTC? If
so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please provide
reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

Yes                               No                          No view      

Comments




Question 5

Should just one authority be designated competent to receive notifications and if
so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Yes                               No                          No view 



Comments




                                        76
Question 6

Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette
(depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office), rather than
registered?

Yes                             No                         No view 

Comments




Question 7

Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for publication of
the statutes?

Yes                             No                         No view 



Comments




Question 8

Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an administrative
act on a case by case basis?

Yes                             No                         No view 



Comments




                                      77
Question 9

Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community financial
contribution be limited?

Yes                             No                       No view 



Comments




Question 10

Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and its members
as ―officers‖?

Yes                             No                       No view 

Comments




Question 11

Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing provisions for and
EGTC?

Yes                             No                       No view 



Comments




                                     78
Question 12

Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006 be
disapplied?

Yes                              No                         No view 

Comments




Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Yes                              No                         No view 



Comments




Question 14

Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the Gazette?

Yes                              No                         No view 



Comments




                                       79
Question 15

Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings under
the IA 1986?

Yes                               No                         No view 

Comments




Question 16

Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC?

Yes                               No                         No view 

Comments




Question 17

Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC already
have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, be required?

Yes                               No                         No view 



Comments




                                       80
Question 18

Should an EGTC to pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in the
Gazette?

Yes                             No                         No view 

Comments




Question 19

Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the EC Regulation
workable in the UK?

Yes                             No                         No view 

Comments




Question 20

Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be applied to an
EGTC?

Yes                             No                         No view 

Comments




                                      81
Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

Yes                               No                         No view 



Comments




Other Comments

The SIA is an NDBP responsible for licensing individuals in the Private Security
Industry and therefore we do not think this regulation is applicable to our
organisation.




                                       82
Northern Ireland Local Government Association
Received 20 June 2007




Mr Bill Pauley
Head of European Division
Department of Finance and Personnel
Annexe F, Health Estates
Belfast
BT16 1US


20th June 2007


Dear Bill

Consultation on the European Grouping of Territorial Co-Operation

Thank you for your very useful presentation at the recent NILGA consultation
seminar on the UK Government’s proposed approach to implementing the
Regulation on a European Grouping of Territorial Co-Operation.

The local government sector welcomed the opportunity to find out more about the
Regulation and as you are aware, the main concerns were in relation to how the
Regulation may affect cross border work. However, as you pointed out the
Regulation does not affect cross border work and this will continue to be
implemented through the North South Ministerial Council.

NILGA welcomes the light touch approach suggested by the UK Government and
recognises that the Regulation may be a very useful tool for interregional and
transnational working, particularly when dealing with other EU Member States
whose legal systems are extremely different from those of the UK.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to continued
engagement on EU issues.

Yours sincerely,




                                      83
Cllr Jonathan Bell
Chair, NILGA EU Working Group




                                84
Craigavon Borough Council
Received 20 June 2007

Annex B – Technical Consultation Response Form

The closing date for this consultation is 20 June 2007

You may find it helpful to set out your responses to the consultation using this
response form.

Name: Shane Kelland


Organisation’s name: Craigavon Borough Council


Address: Craigavon Civic and Conference Centre, Lakeview Road,
Craigavon, BT64 1AL

Email: shane.kelland@craigavon.gov.uk

Return completed forms (preferably by e-mail) to:

EGTC Technical Consultation
Department of Trade and Industry
Bay 1120,
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Fax: 00 44 (0) 20 7215 5579
E-mail: simon.a.jones@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Please cross one box from the following list of options that best describes your
organisation.

Central Government

Devolved Administration

Local Government                                     
Public Body Sponsor

Executive Agency




                                        85
Executive NDPB

Public Corporation

Other (please specify) __________________________________
Please feel free to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. It is helpful
if you can explain your views as fully as possible in the comments boxes,
continuing on a separate sheet if necessary, especially where you disagree with
the measures set out in the consultation paper.

Question 1

Should the exception under Head C1 in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998
apply?

Yes                               No                   No view 



Comments




Question 2

Should this be a UK wide instrument?

Yes                              No                   No view

Comments

Craigavon Borough Council believes that the provisions of the legislation should
have UK wide applicability.


Question 3

Is there any reason why an EGTC should not be treated as a company?

Yes                               No                   No view




                                       86
Comments

Craigavon Borough Council understands the necessity of striking the balance
between a regime that is light enough but which has adequate protections.
However, like most local authorities in Northern Ireland, Craigavon Borough
Council has had continuing difficulties in establishing and participating in Limited
Companies and would envisage similar problems under the EGTC scheme.
However, Council Members and Officers are of the understanding that legislation
is currently being enacted to overcome these difficulties and welcome this
legislation.


Question 4

Is there a need to identify the public bodies who can participate in an EGTC? If
so, how should these bodies be identified? When responding please provide
reasons for excluding a public body from participating in an EGTC.

Yes                               No                   No view

Comments

Craigavon Borough Council believes that there is a need to identify those bodies
which can participate in an EGTC. DFP advises that there are approximately 64
organisations in Northern Ireland (including Local Authorities) that qualify as
―Public bodies‖ and it would be useful to have a list of these organisations.


Question 5

Should just one authority be designated competent to receive notifications and if
so, do you have any views on which authority this should be?

Yes                               No                   No view

Comments

Craigavon Borough Council concurs that it would be most cost-effective for one
authority to be designated competent to receive and approve notifications. The
Secretary of State for DTI appears well placed to receive notifications but given
the pivotal role of the European Division in the Department of Finance &
Personnel in co-ordinating Northern Ireland’s implementation of structural funds,
some consultative role should be included.


                                        87
Question 6

Should EGTC statutes be published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette
(depending on the location of the EGTC’s registered office), rather than
registered?

Yes                             No                  No view

Comments

Craigavon Borough Council believes that the statutes and any subsequent
amendments should be published in accordance with the applicable national law
in the member state.


Question 7

Should the prospective members of the EGTC be responsible for publication of
the statutes?

Yes                            No                  No view

Comments




Question 8

Should designation of competent authorities be done by way of an administrative
act on a case by case basis?

Yes                            No                  No view



Comments

Craigavon Borough Council believes this would be an appropriate procedure to
implement.




                                      88
Question 9

Should the tasks that EGTCs may carry out without a Community financial
contribution be limited?

Yes                             No                   No view

Comments

Craigavon Borough Council believes that the EGTCs should focus on activities
aimed at promoting economic and social cohesion therefore it is appropriate that
limits should be applied to tasks without a Community contribution.


Question 10

Should the assembly be equivalent to the ―board of directors‖ and its members
as ―officers‖?

Yes                              No                   No view

Comments

As mentioned in the response to question 3, Craigavon Borough Council has
experienced significant difficulty in establishing and participating in Companies
and additionally has had difficulty in appointing employees to be Directors of
companies. However, should these difficulties be addressed through the
enactment of new legislation, this would appear to be an acceptable proposal.


Question 11

Should this be our approach to the accounting and auditing provisions for and
EGTC?

Yes                             No                   No view

Comments

This appears to be an acceptable proposal. The EGTC’s accounting and auditing
provisions should be governed by the laws of the Member State where the
registered office is.




                                       89
Question 12

Should section 417 and 434(3) and 435(1) of the Companies Act 2006 be
disapplied?

Yes                               No                  No view    

Comments




Question 13

Do you think that the appropriate provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be
applied to EGTCs, rather than a new regime?

Yes                              No                  No view



Comments

Craigavon Borough Council believes it is appropriate to apply the appropriate
provisions of existing legislation rather than creating a new regime which would
only be applicable to EGTCs.


Question 14

Should the winding-up of an EGTC require publication in the Gazette?

Yes                              No                  No view



Comments

This is an acceptable proposal.




                                       90
Question 15

Should the court, as defined above, be the designated competent body, with the
same rules on jurisdiction as apply generally to winding up proceedings under
the IA 1986?

Yes                               No                   No view



Comments




Question 16

Should only the SoS be permitted to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC?

Yes                               No                   No view



Comments

Craigavon Borough Council concurs that it would be most cost-effective for one
authority to be designated competent to apply for the dissolution of an EGTC.
The Secretary of State for DTI appears well placed to fulfil this role but given the
pivotal role of the European Division in the Department of Finance & Personnel in
co-ordinating Northern Ireland’s implementation of structural funds, some
consultative role should be included.


Question 17

Should a comprehensive list of tasks which the members of the EGTC already
have, as far as territorial co-operation within that MS is concerned, be required?

Yes                                No                  No view




                                        91
Comments




Question 18

Should an EGTC to pay for the publication of its convention and statutes in the
Gazette?

Yes                            No                  No view



Comments




Question 19

Are there any other supplemental provisions required to make the EC Regulation
workable in the UK?

Yes                             No                 No view



Comments

Craigavon Borough Council are not aware of any supplemental provisions
required to make this regulation workable in the UK.


Question 20

Should the provisions applied to the EEIG Regulations 1989 be applied to an
EGTC?

Yes                             No                 No view


                                      92
Comments

Given the Secretary of State’s function in approving the formation of EGTCs,
Craigavon Borough Council concurs that there is little likelihood of the potential
for misrepresentation by a collective of public bodies.


Question 21

Do you think that the Secretary of State should be able to refuse a prospective
member’s application if the name proposed for the EGTC were not desirable?

Yes                              No                  No view

Comments

If, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, backed up by consultation with European
Division within DFP, the proposed name for the EGTC is undesirable or had the
potential for misrepresentation, the Secretary of State should have the authority
to recommend a change of name for potential applicants.




                                       93
North West Regional Development Agency
Received 20 June2007


     If the NWDA were to be involved we would not accept unlimited liability.
     The scope of the activities and the bodies who can be members need
      setting out in the statutory instrument in a clear and detailed fashion. The
      NWDA constitution has limitations on the sort of activities we engage in,
      and so having to get Secretary of State consent every time we enter into
      such a contract would be difficult.
     If the organisation being set up is a body corporate i.e. with separate legal
      entity status so it can contract in its own name and own assets surely it
      would have to be registered at companies House? We know of no such
      legal entities that do not have to be registered there.




                                        94

								
To top