MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, 16 MARCH 2006 AT RENAISSANCE HOUSE, WARRINGTON

Present: 
Bryan Gray (Chairman)
David Brockbank
Joe Dwek
Sir Martin Harris
Peter Hensman
Dave McCall
John Merry
Marie Rimmer
Anil Ruia
Brenda Smith
Maureen Williams
Pauleen Lane 

Also Present: 
Steven Broomhead
Bernice Law, Secretary
Nick Gerrard 77/04  77/05
Patrick White 77/04  77/05
Chris Koral  77/05
Ian Haythornthwaite  77/06  77/10
Mark Hughes  77/07  77/08
David Higham, GONW
NAO/IPA Team
 
77/00 PRESENTATION:  SPORT ENGLAND

Stewart Kellet, Regional Director Sport England gave a presentation which covered the role of Sport England, its structure and delivery mechanisms; how it would contribute to the delivery of the new RES; and how value could be added to the relationship between Sport England and NWDA.

The Board noted that the main role of Sport England was to:

• Build a sustainable delivery system for sport, investing in people and talent development
• Provide advice, support and guidance
• Influence policy and generate resources for sport
• Lead strategy, delivery and performance management to increase participation, widen access and develop talent

Sport England had been identified as a Lead Partner in the new RES in respect of Action 59, which was to promote access to sport and physical activity to improve health, employee fitness and increase productivity.  It had recognised that it could do this through:

• Sports Business – increasing participation and wider access to sport supply chain
• Skills – workforce development plans for the sports sector
• Worklessness – targeting sport to areas of worklessness
• Knowledge Capital – work to make the most of knowledge and work with HEI’s and on BBC move
• Sports Tourism – work on the development of the Sports Tourism product
• London 2012 – make the most of all opportunities of 2012

77/01 INTRODUCTION AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

The Chairman welcomed the NAO – IPA team who were observing the meeting as part of their inspection of the Agency.

Apologies were received from John Moverley and Mike Storey

77/02 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 FEBRUARY 2006

The minutes were approved as a correct record.
 
77/03 ACTION POINTS FROM LAST MEETING AND MATTERS ARISING 
 
The Board noted the progress made with regard to the action points from the previous meetings.

ITEMS FOR DECISION
 
77/04 CORPORATE PLAN UPDATE

The Board was reminded that the Agency’s Corporate Plan 2005/06 to 2007/08 had been published in May 2005, following Ministerial approval.  It was recognised at the time that the Agency’s activities would change following the production of the new RES, which would only be published in March 2006.  The Corporate Plan is usually revised on a two year cycle, with the next one due to be published in March 2007. However it was likely that DTI would delay this timetable so that the next set of RDA Plans would reflect the outcome of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review.  The Agency therefore faced working to the existing Corporate Plan until March 2008, which would not provide an adequate basis for internal business planning given the new RES.  DTI had therefore agreed that a “refreshed” Corporate Plan could be produced which would not require formal Ministerial approval or external consultation.  This decision was endorsed by the Board at its December meeting.

The Board noted that there were five elements of the Corporate Plan that had been updated in the light of the new RES:

• Strategic Activity, which now highlighted the Agency’s high level strategic activity to fulfil each of the 122 RES actions
• Investment Activity, which reflected the Board’s decision at the January meeting for the allocation of additional investment
• Outputs, which were a result of a review of targets for 2006/07
• Financial Targets, which reflected the SIP that would be considered in detail by the Board at this meeting
• The new Corporate Management Structure, which now aligned more appropriately to the new RES.

 Subsequently the Board:

• Agreed the overall strategic activity and outputs set out in the Corporate Plan Update
• Confirmed the overall broad financial allocations by RES factor
• Agreed to the publication of the Corporate Plan Update

77/05 SRP ACTION PLANS AND URC ACTION PLANS
 
The Board was reminded that at the February meeting it endorsed the Agency’s approach in seeking to develop an integrated approach to investment across a range of national, regional and local organisations in order to maximise the contribution that public expenditure makes to the regional economic objectives of the RES.  The Board was also reminded that this work had strong support from Government nationally.

The Board had already acknowledged that Sub Regional Partnerships had played an important role in generating strong regional support for shared economic priorities and objectives and were reminded that over the past year the Agency had provided capacity building funding for each SRP. In return the Agency had asked SRPs to produce three year action plans to show how their priorities would be delivered and funded.  As a first step, SRPs were required to complete one year action plans for the period 2006/07 in the light of the new RES.  The Board noted that the Agency had provided outline guidance for these one year action plans which asked SRPs to:

Show, where the SRP was the RES lead partner, how it would effectively deliver the RES actions, which partners would be involved, resources identified and timescales

• Bring together all the RES key actions relevant to its sub region
• Confirm the sub regional priorities, with supporting evidence
• Show how SRP plans would align public and private sector resource
• Show alignment with City Region Development programmes where appropriate.

URCs had been asked to produce three year Business Plans for the period 2006/07 to 2008/09.  SRPs were asked to comment on those Business Plans relevant to their area.

The Board received copies of each of the SRP Action Plans and each of the URC Business Plans.   The Board endorsed the broad direction of the SRP  Action Plans and URC Business Plan, welcomed the good progress that had been made by partners and agreed to the conclusions from the Agency’s review of the Plans which were as follows:

• SRPs had made considerable progress in identifying how the RES would be delivered in their sub region.  However some SRPs needed to recognise that the starting point should be the delivery of the RES
• There was still a need for some sub regions to be clearer on priorities and on those activities that would transform the economy
• There was a need for most of the SRPs to recognise and understand all the investment in sub regions (e.g. skills investment by LSC) so as to maximise public sector spend against the RES
• A number of SRPs had included requests for additional Agency funding for 2006/07, however most needed further work before those requests could be assessed
• Whilst dialogues between SRPs and URCs had progressed well, there was a need for further discussion to ensure comprehensive plans were produced for each sub region.

 It was agreed that these comments should be fed back to SRP’s.

The Board also endorsed the SIP allocations already identified for each SRP and URC and noted that the proposals, which had been made for additional projects and investment in 2006/07, would be considered through the Agency’s usual appraisal process.  The Board agreed, however that only those proposals that were consistent with the parameters for investment (as agreed by the February Board) would be considered.

The Board agreed that the Agency would now work with SRPs to develop:

• Robust action plans for future years; by summer 2006
• Each SRPs capacity, making finance available to enable them to do this for the three year period covered by the SIP.

It was also agreed that the Board would be provided with an update of SRP action planning at the May Board meeting.

77/06 NWDA BUDGET 2006/07 AND STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN (SIP) 2006/07 TO 2008/09.
 
The Board was reminded that when it received, at its December 2005 meeting, the proposed SIP for the period 2006/07 to 2008/09, it had asked for a programme analysis and details of the key strategic issues to be presented for review to each of the relevant Sub Committees.  Also at that meeting the Board had asked for a detailed analysis to be undertaken which compared SRP Business Plans to the 2006/07 budget.  The latter was presented as part of the item on SRP Action Plans (item 77/05).

The Board noted the outcome of the Sub Committee discussions and that the SIP had been updated to include the specific issues raised. Each of the Sub Committees had agreed to recommend that the Board approves the SIP for 2006/07 to 2008/09. 

The Board was advised that the URC Business Plans and SRP Action Plans identified spend profiles particularly for 2006/07 and that in the main, they were consistent with the detailed schedules that underpinned the Agency’s budget for 2006/07.

 The Board praised the good presentation of the documents and noted the process had been the most transparent exercise undertaken by the Agency in respect of the SIP.

Following the discussion on the SRP Action Plans the Board agreed to make funds available for capacity building.

Consequently the Board approved the budget for 2006/07 and noted the indicative allocations for 2007/08 and 2008/09 recognising that within that decision the Board was not approving any individual schemes or projects.

77/07 BUSINESS LINK
 
The Board noted that the new RES identified that the region was not fulfilling its economic potential and that there were two core business challenges: the productivity gap (of £13bn per annum) and enterprise gaps (vis a vis business start ups, survival rates and self employment rate). 

The Board was advised that the Business Link Service was a key instrument in addressing these challenges.  However a review of the existing Business Link Service itself and its suppliers, highlighted a number of key issues, which centred on:

• Client awareness and confusion
• Consistency and independence of the service offer
• Resource deployment
• Value for money
• Alignment with RES priorities.  

The Board noted that the contract for Business Link would conclude in March 2007 and consequently this fact together with the outcome of the review presented an opportunity for the Agency to re-specify the Business Link Service to ensure effective integration with other Business Support activities.

The Board was reminded that it had received a report at its January meeting, which outlined the contract; current situation; case for change; and vision and service principles for an enhanced Business Link service. It had agreed at that meeting to receive the Business Plan for the future Business Link in the light of the findings from the review.

Consequently the Board approved the Business Plan, with delivery by Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).  The Board agreed that an application should be made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 5(2)(c) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, to establish the SPV.  

In addition the Board noted that a new transition team would now be established which would include NWDA, a current Business Link provider and external consultancy resource. Over the next 12 months the team would:

• Maintain existing service levels
• Re-engineer existing service to align with future specification
• Effect orderly shut – down or break with non – IDB services
• Create future delivery organisation

77/08 NATIONAL MICROSYSTEMS PACKAGING CENTRE
 
The Board noted the detail of the National Microsystems Packaging Centre (NMPC) project proposal.  The NMPC would be a fully equipped, customer focused facility, capable of integrating and packaging components to produce micro/ nanosystem based products; taking concept designs through to prototype fabrication and pre-production testing, in preparation for full commercial production.  The NMPC would have three distinct areas:

• The packaging zone, converting nanotechnology devices into useable prototypes for testing
• The innovation zone, encouraging collaboration between business and academia
• The customer use zone, to allow SMEs to carry out development work.

The Board was advised that the centre would be internationally recognised for its function in commercialising microproducts and would play a significant role in strengthening the UK’s position in the emerging global micro/ nanosystems technology business economy.

The Agency’s appraisal of the proposed project concluded that the following outputs would be generated:

• £105m Gross Added Value
• 1,344 gross additional jobs would be created; and 939 net additional jobs would be ultimately accommodated in the North West
• 150 companies would be supported through the scheme; and a further 44 start up companies would be created and incubated over its modelled lifetime.  

The Board was reminded that in July 2003 it had approved an action plan to take forward development, subject to further discussions with the DTI / HMT’s Central Project Review Group.  The Board also noted that the Enterprise and Innovation Sub Committee had reviewed the project in detail at its meeting in March 2004 and agreed that the most beneficial location for the centre would be the Edge Lane site in Liverpool.

Since then a number of changes to the approach to the delivery of the project have been made; and it is now intended to transfer the responsibility for the project to Liverpool and Lancaster Universities, who through a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) would apply for funding from NWDA, DTI and ERDF as appropriate.

The Enterprise, Innovation and Skills Sub Committee had reviewed the project in detail at its meeting earlier that day and recommended that the Board should approve the new approach to the delivery.  Subsequently the Board approved the delivery approach and noted that, following a further detailed appraisal of the project, it would receive a further report later in the year.

ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
 
77/09 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT
 
City Region Business Plans
The Board noted the background to the current activity surrounding Core Cities and in particular the development of City Region Business Plans, which each of the UK’s eight Core Cities were being asked to submit to ODPM by 31 March 2006.  The Board noted that NWDA was working with Merseyside and Manchester to help to develop a joint approach in respect of the Business Plans.

The Board also noted that, on 7 March, Government had published the State of the Cities report, which set out a number of choices for Government to increase cities’ flexibilities and governance arrangements.  At the launch the Deputy Prime Minister was explicit that Government was interested in city regions as part of its wider regional framework.  The Board agreed that this view was consistent with the NW RES 2006, which makes clear the importance of NW Cities in delivering the RES vision and transformational actions.

Ministerial Approval of the NW RES 2006
The Board welcomed the correspondence from the Rt Hon Alun Michael, Minister of State for Industry and the Regions, which confirmed Ministerial approval of the new RES.  The Board noted that of the six submitted, the NW RES was the only one that had been approved.

Regional Funding Allocations: Review of the North West Experience
The Board noted that, following the completion of the advice to Government on Regional Funding Allocations, a survey had been conducted to assess what, within the process, had gone well and what could have been done more effectively.

The Board welcomed the findings from the review, which on the whole had been very positive. The Agency, the Regional Assembly and Government Office North West had all concluded that the RFA exercise in the North West had been successful.  In particular the Board welcomed the reference to the strengthened partnership working and regional leadership, especially in respect of the success in gaining regional consensus on transport schemes priorities.

The Board was advised that RFA monitoring mechanisms would now be established and a decision would be made shortly on whether an RFA regional communications event would be held.

Transport Innovation fund (TIF): Productivity Schemes
The Board noted that the Transport Innovation Fund, which would come on stream in 2008/09, would provide resources for two types of schemes:

• 'congestion' schemes, which tackle congestion through demand management and better public transport
• 'productivity' schemes, which offer benefits to national productivity.

The Board was advised that Local Authorities would be invited to bid for funding from the congestion TIF. However for the Productivity TIF, the Department of Transport (DfT) would consult RDAs to identify appropriate schemes for funding.

The Board noted that in this context the Agency had met senior DfT officials to discuss potential TIF productivity schemes for the North West and consequently  a number of specific actions within the RES had been identified,  which could be suitable for the fund.  DfT were particularly interested in two schemes: The intensive management measures for the M62 and rail enhancements to serve the Port of Liverpool

The Board was advised that the Agency would submit written comments by the end of March in respect of the first round of TIF funding based on those two schemes.  Once RDA submissions were received DfT would produce a national shortlist (probably no more than two in total) and work with delivery agencies to produce respective business cases.
 
Northern Way Summit Conference 20/21 February 2006
The Chief Executive reported that over 300 delegates had attended the Northern Way Summit Conference on 20/21 February.  The event had provided an opportunity to review progress against the Northern Way Growth Strategy objectives. Findings were as follows:

• There was a need for a new strategic focus on Northern Way objectives
• The whole thing was seen as too bureaucratic and concentrated on spending the £100m Growth fund rather than strategically influencing policy to regenerate the North
• Lack of engagement of the private sector was a key issue
• There should be new spatial focus on Leeds/ Manchester / Liverpool as the key economic engines for the North.

The Board noted that the next Northern Way Steering Group would consider the findings in detail. The Chief Executive would provide feedback to the next Board meeting. 
 
UK Digital Challenge
The Board noted that as a consequence of the report “Connecting the UK: the Digital Strategy”, (which was launched jointly in April 2005 by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and DTI) a competition, known as Digital Challenge had been set up to encourage public, private and community / voluntary sectors to work together to develop a vision to demonstrate groundbreaking use of ICT and digital technologies. 

The Board was advised that ODPM was currently establishing a North West regional panel (on which NWDA would be represented) which would select two bids from this region to go forward into the national competition. Ten would then be selected to receive £200k to work up their bid further. A final winner would then be chosen to receive a £7m prize to turn its vision into reality.

The Board noted that NWDA had held an event in February to support the development of the ideas coming from the North West. Over 100 private and public sector representatives attended. The Agency would continue to work with potential bidders to further develop the ideas into proper bids. The Board was advised that the deadline for receipt of bids was 28 April 2006.

Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission
The Board noted that Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had published the final report from the Merseyside Entrepreneurship Commission, which was completed in December 2005, and was commissioned to determine how the entrepreneurial culture of Merseyside could be encouraged. The Board was advised that the Commission had been brought into existence by Government Office North West to provide guidance for the expenditure of the remaining allocation of European Funds on Entrepreneurship.  The Commission’s primary objective was to provide a list of projects in which Objective One Funding could invest over the next two years in order to support existing work to widen the entrepreneurial culture on Merseyside. 

The Board noted the summary of recommendations from the report.  In particular the Board supported the Commission’s recommendation to simplify the range of organisations active on entrepreneurship, as this was consistent with the Agency’s objectives around the review of Business Support and Business Link.

In addition, the Board agreed that the Agency should seek to encourage Merseyside partners to consider the Commission’s findings in the context of the 2006 RES; and that, in respect of any Agency support, proposed projects should be prioritised for Objective 1 Funding and within the Merseyside Sub Regional Action Plan.

Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI)
The Board noted that on 23 February the Local Government Minister, Phil Woolas had announced the 10 successful LEGI bidders, of which St Helens was the only successful bid for the North West.  As a result the town had secured £13.4m over the next three years to deliver a range of enterprise initiatives aimed at closing the performance gaps of residents and communities in greatest economic need.  The Board was advised that the closing of the enterprise gap in St Helens was a key spatial priority in the RES.

The Board also noted that Bolton and Wigan had made the final national shortlist and subsequently had been asked to submit revised bids in Round 2.  The Agency was now working with:

• GONW and local bidders to review the key lessons learned from Round 1 and to strengthen linkages to the wider regional review of Business Link services
• GONW and other RDAs to influence Governmant’s approach to Round 2 and the subsequent allocation of the remaining fund.

HEIF2, HEIF3 and Centres For Knowledge Exchange
The Board noted that funding from the second round of Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF2) together with the 85% matched funding from the Agency would come to an end in Autumn 2006; with the exception of one element: the Centres for Knowledge Exchange (CKEs).  The Board was advised that the CKEs would continue on a five year timescale to 2008/09 subject to a HEFCE review which was currently underway. 

The Board also noted that HEIF3 would be allocated on a formulaic basis to all Higher Education Institutions (HEIs); apart from 25% which would be allocated on a competitive basis to 12 – 15 projects nationally. The outcome of stage 1 of the process would be announced on 10 March and the final outcome announced on 25 May. 

Disability Equality Scheme
The Board noted that the Agency, as a public authority, was required under new disability legislation (due to come into force later in the year) to produce a Disability Equality Scheme.  The Board was advised that the Director of HR, Organisational Change and Development was leading on this matter in consultation with the Head of Health and Social Inclusion.  The scheme must be in place by 4 December 2006.

Organisational Review Update
The Board welcomed the news that  Dr Peter White had been appointed Executive Director, Infrastructure and Patrick White as the Director of Policy and Partnerships.  The Board also noted that good progress was continuing to be made with the rest of the implementation of the new Corporate Management Structure.

Use of Consultants
The Chief Executive reported that he had reviewed the procedures and arrangements for the engagement of consultants to ensure that they now fit within the Agency’s Efficiency Plan.  The Board noted that the Chief Executive would conduct a further review in December 2006; after which he would report again to the Board.

77/10 FINANCE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

The Board noted that the Agency was expecting to meet its financial end of year targets as agreed by the Board and DTI.  The Board acknowledged the effective management that was taking place to ensure accuracy of forecasts and that to assist with this process, weekly monitoring was underway.

The Board also noted that NAO had conducted its interim audit in preparation of the year end assessment and that initial feedback indicated that there were no major issues.  A full timetable had been agreed for the closure of the accounts which would include presentation of the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2005/06 being presented to the Audit Committee and the Board at the July 2006 meetings.

The Board was advised that, further to the last meeting, the Agency had now engaged in discussion with DTI concerning non cash allocations within the Single Pot.  As this issue was common for all RDAs the Board noted that the NWDA Chairman had agreed to lead on the discussions with DTI on behalf of all RDAs.

It was reported that the Financial Regulations and Scheme of Business Delegations would be presented to the April Board meeting.

The Board was also advised that the Agency was currently finalising a number of major new procurement panels, which would consist of a list of approved suppliers from whom the Agency would be committed to do exclusive business. The panels would include legal services, research and management consultancy. The Board noted that management consultancy would cover Business Strategy; Organisational Change; ICT; and Finance.

The Board noted the Schedule of Delegations for the period 26 January 2006 to 17 February and approved two Single Tender actions in respect of:

• Liverpool Biennial 2006
• World Squash Championships 2008

77/11 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

The Chairman reported the following:

BBC
The Chairman had met the BBC’s Project Director to review progress with regard to the BBC’s relocation to the North and had agreed the key tasks which needed to taken forward:

• A review of the proposals from Manchester and Salford and to provide feedback to assist them in their final proposals
• Agree a response by the two cities.  It was important that, irrespective of which city was successful, the objective was to support the success of Greater Manchester in respect of this project.
• To work on the wider benefits for the North.

The Board noted that on 15 March the Government had published the White Paper on the future of the BBC and in particular the messages contained within it in respect of the BBC’s proposed move to the North West.

Liverpool City Region   
The Chairman reported that he had met Warren Bradley, Leader of Liverpool City Council and agreed that the Agency and the City Council would work together on the City Region action plan.

Vision Boards
The Agency planned to hold a “Sharing Best Practice” event in respect of Vision Boards, given the evidence of success at small city / town level and their related plans being fed into SRP Action Plans.

Budget Briefing with HM Treasury
The RDA Chairs had met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the RDA’s pre budget submission, which focussed on Business and Innovation.  The Chancellor, in his discussion had focussed on Energy and Further Education.

77/12 MINUTES OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SUB COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2006.

The Board noted the minutes of the Infrastructure Sub Committee Meeting held on 9 February 2006.

77/13 NOTES FROM THE TASK AND FINISH GROUP – PROPERTY STRATEGY HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2006.

The Board noted the notes from the Task And Finish Group – Property Strategy held on 9 February 2006.

77/14 MINUTES OF THE RURAL SUB COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2006.

The Board noted the minutes of the Rural Sub Committee Meeting held on 9 February 2006.

77/15 DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
 
The next meeting would take place on 20 April 2006 at 12.30pm at Renaissance House, Warrington.