PAPER B2

 

                                                                                                              Purpose : For Decision

                        REPORT TO CABINET

 

Date :              11 OCTOBER 2005

 

Title :               PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL FROM THE HAMPSHIRE, ISLE OF WIGHT AND WEST SUSSEX BRUSSELS OFFICE AND FROM THE CONFERENCE OF PERIPHERAL AND MARITIME REGIONS

 

REPORT OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

 

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 21 October 2005

 


SUMMARY/PURPOSE

 

1          This report recommends withdrawal from the Hampshire, Isle of Wight and West Sussex (HWWS) Brussels Office from April 2006 and the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR), including the Islands Commission from January 2005, and contains a review of the current arrangements for consideration.

 

BACKGROUND

 

HWWS Brussels Office

 

2          The Isle of Wight Council has contributed to a shared office in Brussels since 1997. The current partners are Hampshire, West Sussex and Southampton Councils and the Hampshire Fire Service.  In April 2001 the office moved to co-locate in South East England House (SEEH) in Brussels with 3 other sub-regional offices from the SE of England and a SEEDA / SEERA representative. 

3          The partnership employs two Brussels based members of staff who are intended to work with a lead Member and officer from each partner. Together they contribute to the delivery of corporate strategic aims by providing a service for all directorates and units within the partner organisations to engage in European issues both in Brussels and in the UK.

 

Partnership Working

4          Local government has responsibility for implementing approximately 70% of EU legislation (80% of environmental legislation). Early information on new proposals is therefore beneficial to assess the likely impact on local services and, where possible, to influence changes before they are enacted. Partnership working on these matters has the potential to bring greater influence can be achieved individually.

 

5          The aims of the Partnership are set out below:

 

          To ensure a better understanding of the impact Europe has on local government and better engagement between all levels of governance.

          Track and analyse policy in order to develop expertise and contacts in specific policy fields of importance to HWWS and to provide first class intelligence and information for officers and Members in the home authorities

         Represent and lobby on behalf of the partnership to raise the profile of our sub-region, to develop the role of local government as the level of government closest to the citizen in EU decision-making, and influence policy and legislation that impacts on the local level;

          Provide timely and relevant information and interpretation of the latest developments in order to respond to enquiries and raise awareness.

          Support and enable Members, the Chief Executives and Chief Officers and their staff to engage effectively with officials and politicians in the European institutions and regions.

          Benefit from shared expertise and representation between the partner organizations.

 

Joint Work

6          The annual business plan for the Partnership outlines activities for both UK and Brussels-based staff. Delivery of the business plan is reviewed at partnership meetings, where priorities and activities can be modified or supplemented. The lead officers meet regularly and those from the local authorities attend the South East European Officers Group.

 

7                    In addition to having partnership representation on South East England Joint Europe Committee (JEC) (a body made up of representatives from the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and one representative from each partnership in South East England House), individual partners have political representation or membership of the following European networks:

 

o       Arc Manche - a maritime network of English counties and French regions bordering The Channel

o       Assembly of European Regions (AER)

o       Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR)

o       RETIS - network of European regions interested in promoting social inclusion.

o       Eurocities – network of European cities

o       Maritime Cities Network

o       Energie-cities.

o       POLIS – network of European cities and regions for the development of innovative technologies and policies in local transport

 

8          This provides access to a variety of networks through which the partnership can lobby for joint priorities, access information and expertise and contact potential partners for joint projects.

 

9                    Whilst in the past the European Institutions have tended to negotiate at National government level, the last few years have seen an increased desire to consult with (and listen to) local and regional government as this is seen as being closer to the citizen. In a crowded arena with some 250 regional offices in Brussels, the only practical way of doing this is for European institutions to interact with Europe-wide networks rather than individual authorities. This means local authorities have to engage with regional bodies, such as SEEDA, SEERA, the Local Government Association (LGA) and Local Government International Bureau (LGIB) and create or join groups of local and regional authorities such as Arc Manche, Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) the Assembly of European Regions (AER), and Eurocities to ensure for their point of view is heard.

 

ACTIVITIES FOR 2005-2006

10        In preparing the business plan for the current year the partners agreed six priority areas:

1) Reform of structural funds

2) Environment

3) Governance and regionalism

4) Social care and inclusion

5) Urban and rural regeneration

6) Awareness-raising of EU issues within the partner organizations.

7) Items to monitor for potential opportunities (very light touch)

 

11        Brussels-based staff provide support in these agreed areas through

 

o       a weekly ‘Euroflash’ newsletter,

o       regular ‘policy updates’,

o       direct emails to staff

o       thematic distribution lists for more urgent information.

o       funding advice and support as required

 

12               In addition the HWWS partnership benefits from the office co-location arrangements, which gives the HWWS partnership access to, and benefit from, a larger resource than it could provide on its own.  The 5 offices located there share reception and library facilities as well as technical information and have an agreed annual business plan identifying areas where it is beneficial to work together for the mutual benefit of the SE Region.  Together with the work done by their UK counterparts, this contributes to the delivery of the SE Regional European Strategy and provides an opportunity to influence the regional agenda.

 

CPMR and Islands Commission

 

13               The CPMR represents and protects the interests of peripheral and maritime regions.  Membership includes 149 regions from 27 states, both members and non-members of the EU, all located in one of Europe’s main sea basins.  It is the umbrella organization for 7 geographic commissions, of which the Islands Commission is one that the Isle of Wight Council has been an active member of for many years.

 

14        CPMR and the Islands Commission are primarily political lobbying organisations, although there is also the opportunity for joint working, networking and exchange of best practice.  The European institutions have increasingly been using the organization as a means of consulting with regional and local authorities. In particular the Islands Commission is from time to time invited to collaborate with the European institutions on matters requiring expertise in island issues. The main participation is through attendance at the annual general assembly of each of these by officers and Members. 

 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT


 

15       The proposal to withdraw from the HWWS Brussels office partnership and the CPMR is largely driven by financial and resource constraints.  To work within the limits of available resource, and as part of the Aim High agenda, the Council is going through a stringent process of prioritising services that can be delivered. The continued participation in a Brussels office and CPMR is not considered to be a high priority.

 

16               The savings made through withdrawal from the HWWS office and CPMR will also contribute to Gershon efficiency savings, which the Council is required to make.

 

17       Officers will continue to monitor proposals for European legislation and make specific recommendations for changes in liaison with Members.  Opportunities will also be taken to maximise grants and joint funding arrangements which will bring benefits to the Isle of Wight.  Current developments in the environmental and sustainability strand seem the most likely to offer these opportunities.  In view of change in Member representation it will not be appropriate to continue with membership of the CPMR, but the relevance of Arc Manche is likely to increase and officers will continue with a watching brief for the time being.

 

CONSULTATION

 

18        For logistical reasons the activities of the Brussels offices have been channelled through a lead officer in each of the partner organisations.  As a result other departments and outside bodies may not always be aware that information / support has come from Brussels through the conduit of the contact officer.

 

19               Within the Isle of Wight Council the Principal Economic Development Officer and the Coastal Management Team have the most direct contact with the Brussels office.  The Brussels office staff have contributed to their work and the Coastal Manager has found this invaluable in building up contacts.  This has supported success in accessing EU funding for the work of the team and in feeding into developing environmental policy, particularly the contribution made by the team to the Fifth European Environmental Action Plan.

 

20        Membership of the CPMR and the Islands Commission is primarily political, and for the reasons outlined below, this is no longer a priority for the Council.  The Coastal Management Team have also benefited from contacts made through these organisations and are currently seeking alternative ways to maintain these for their technical work.


FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

 

21               The Council’s annual contribution to the HWWS office is currently £20,000 per year and has been paid for the current financial year (2005/06).  The annual subscription to CPMR is £7,750 and has been paid for the 2005 calendar year. 

 

22               Travel and subsistence costs relating to Brussels Office activity have averaged at £624 per annum for officers and £695 per annum for Members over the 3 financial years from 2002/03 to 2005/05.

 

23               Travel and subsistence costs relating to attendance at CPMR and Islands Commission conferences have averaged at £2,305 pa for Members and £1,236 pa for officers for the same 3 year period.

 

24               By withdrawing from the partnership and the CPMR the Council will save £27,750 from the base budget together with approximately £3,500 savings on travel and subsistence costs related to attending CPMR conferences.

 

25               Appendix 1 shows a breakdown of travel and subsistence expenditure related to all European activity including the Brussels Office and CPMR for the period 1999/2000 to 2004/05.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

26               There are no legal implications.

 

OPTIONS

 

27        The following options are available for consideration:

 

i)          To withdraw from the HWWS Brussels Office and from CPMR

            ii)         To continue to be a partner in the HWWS Brussels Office at the existing financial contribution and of CPMR.

            iii)        To continue as a partner in the HWWS Brussels Office in a modified form and for a reduced financial contribution (details subject to discussion with the other partners) and withdraw from CPMR

 

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

 

28        By withdrawing from the HWWS partnership and CPMR the Council will both make a contribution to the Gershon savings and support the Aim High agenda objectives.  However, the potential and opportunities to influence European policy at an early stage will be reduced.  Officers will, however, continue to monitor European issues remotely and make every effort within limited resources to contribute to the development of appropriate European legislation.

 

29        If the Council were to continue as a full partner in the HWWS partnership and CPMR it would fail to make the Gershon savings required and it would also be contrary to the identified priorities under the Aim High agenda.

 

30        Under the third option the Council could make some financial savings and it may help to maintain the continued joint working of the partners in the UK.  However, the benefits of this are relatively marginal.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

31   The Council withdraws from the HWWS Brussels Office at the end of the 2005/06 financial year and from CPMR at the end of 2005.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

32               The HWWS Brussels Office Business Plan 2005 / 2006

 

APPENDICES

 

33        Appendix 1: Analysis of expenses related to European activity from 1999/2000 to 2004/05.

 

Contact Point :     Lesley Williams, Principal Economic Development Officer.  Tel: +44(0)1983 823797.  email: [email protected]

 

 

MR DEREK ROWELL

Strategic Director of Environment Services

CLLR ANDY SUTTON

Leader of the Council