Minutes of the 12th Board Meeting 3rd April 2000 
 
 
 
 
Due to the Boards openness policy the minutes will be available in their entirety. 
 
Present:

• Sir Michael Lickiss Chairman
• Doris Ansari (DA)
• Cairns Boston (CB)
• Peter Chalke (PC)
• Nigel Costley (NC)
• Helen Holland (HH)
• Michael Leece (ML)
• Alf Morris (AM)
• Tim Parker (TP)
• Stella Pirie (SP)
• Jonathon Porritt (JPT)
• Jeremy Pope (JP)
• Jill Barrow Chief Executive
• Suzanne Bond Director of Strategy & Performance
• Caroline Bull Director Enterprise & Innovation
• Simon Hodgson Head of Corporate Affairs
• Colin Molton Director of Development
• Michael Roberts Director of Marketing
• Nick Lewis Director of Corporate Services

1. Minutes of the 11th Meeting - The minutes were agreed and signed by the Chairman. 
 
2. Matters Arising  
 
No matters were raised. 
 
Chairman asked Board members to note the reorganised agenda and the introduction of two new items the Chairman's Report; the CEO report on performance w e f June meeting. 
 
Chairman noted that he would be circulating the dates for additional meetings (attached). 
 
3. Chairman's Report

• JP noted the need to consider Board priorities (attached to the Chairman's report) in relation Economic Zones.
• JP reported that John Wilkinson (CBI and Chairman of the Social and Economic Partners) had requested a meeting to discuss the future of the RDA and Chamber relations.
• DA also reported that knowledge of the RDA amongst some Chamber Members seems to be rather poor.
• ML requested confirmation that the RDA would be meeting the deadline for responding to the Permanent Secretary on monitoring and evaluation. CEO confirmed that we would.
• PC requested clarification of the Board appraisal procedure and results. Chairman noted that he had not yet received guidance from the Department before finalising his report.
• HHstated that the report on Objective 2 was now a little out of date and it had now been agreed that there would be one SPD and that Members and Officers involved were content.
• DA reported on a letter about match funding from Richard Caborn but noted that MAFF had not yet confirmed their position. Copies of letters received by Cornwall County Council will be circulated to all Board members

Chairman noted that after one year he felt that SWRDA and all RDAs had made enormous progress, particularly in terms of having an impact on Departments in Whitehall and on bringing the organisation together as one organisation in the region.

• ML requested that the RDA do more to publicise its achievements around the region.
• Chairman reported that he was planning two promotional events to highlight RDAs achievements in the summer with the Annual Report Meeting in the autumn. These would be June 29th Plymouth and July 20th Bristol. Board members would be invited to be involved.emphasised the importance of telling people and especially decision makers what the RDA is doing.
• Michael Roberts noted that there would also be area summaries of RDA achievements at the local level.
• PC noted that we should also report on our influencing work in the area summaries.
• NC requested that Board members were kept copied in on RDA press releases as they were often contacted direct for comment by the press. Michael Roberts noted that Board members should contact Caroline Campbell at the RDA media centre if they had any doubts about the RDA's position on an issue.

4. Finance Report

• Nick Lewis reported that the RDA had spent its budget 99/00 and explained the complications that are involved in achieving the budget especially on receipts and VAT.
• SP noted that the presentation of the accounts was a great improvement but that Board members might individually want additional information.
• ML asked for improvements in the comparability of data.
• AM noted that the Audit Committee, who had not yet seen the final accounts, would look at the presentation of the accounts to ensure clarity.
• ML sought clarification of the terminology of budget/ forecast. Nick Lewis explained that budget was agreed by the Board and that the Executive prepared forecasts.

Board Decision 
Agreed that the 4 page presentation of financial information was satisfactory and that Board members could individually request additional information or analysis.

• HH requested clarification of the additional expenditure on Sterling House. Nick Lewis explained that the original specification had not included disabled access and that we had had to acquire more storage furniture than originally planned.

5. Budget 2000/2001

• CEO clarified that the figures had increased since Board papers had been issued and the budget would be £78m not £74m.
• Additional funding 2000/2001

£1.5m sectors funding 
£1.2m land and property 
£1m rural 
 
Nick Lewis explained it was not possible to set a fixed budget at this stage as there were negotiations still going on with Departments particularly on the administration budget. 
 
Colin Molton clarified the development budget expenditure totals for 1999/2000 and noted that most of the changes against budgets was due to virements. He also noted that some planned income had not been received but would be included as receipts next year which we could spend. It was also noted that additional money is likely to be received on the Redundant Buildings Grant programme.

• Chairman noted that a lot of problems in achieving spend would be relieved if we did not have stove-pipe funding and there was proper accrual accounting.
• Colin Molton reported that the projects brought forward at the last meeting to ensure that we spent our budget had not been needed to achieve the budget.
• CEO noted that the Executive were meeting Lord Falconer on Wednesday 5th April and would raise the issue of RDA funding.
• SP asked whether we knew why the South West appeared to have done worse. CEO explained that to date we had had no explanation but were seeking clarification from DETR.
• TP asked whether RDAs were being benchmarked on things like admin/progamme ratios. CEO explained that this did not appear to be the case.
• AM sought clarification of admin budgets and asked whether we had had an increase or a cut compared to this year. Nick Lewis responded that the annual allocation showed an increase of £331k, but because the Agency had received an extra £636k during 99/00 at this stage there was a net reduction of £305k.

Board Decision 
It was agreed that the Chairman would write to Ministers again about the problems with RDA financing. 
 
6. Financial Delegations

• SP sought clarification of how the delegations relate to budgets especially as the budget for 2000/2001 has not been approved by the Board.
• ML raised a query about staffing delegations and stated that it should be within the agreed level for the total budget.
• AM agreed that the Audit Committee would also look at the delegations

Board Decision 
The paper was agreed subject to a final review by the Audit Committee. 
 
7. Spatial Prioritisation

• CEO requested Board approval to the RDA talking to SRPs and other local partners about Economic Zones.
• JP reported that the Bournemouth and Dorset Economic Partnership had felt that that some of the issues were treated rather unevenly. They also requested that they be given a chance to input into the Economic Zone priorities.
• CEO explained that these are regional RDA priorities and was a little cautious about a wide consultation however buy-in from Sub Regional Partnerships was important.
• HH requested that the RDA make available the background analysis prepared by DTZ Pieda.
• AM suggested that we needed to prompt more analysis on priorities perhaps through the Regional Observatory.
• ML sought clarification on what happens if SRPs disagree Bly with the priority for each area. CEO suggested that we aggregate the responses from SRPs and the Regional Chamber and bring to the next Board meeting before releasing the final version.
• NC asked to what extent the EZ and the Frameworks for Action are complementary and whether SRPs share our analysis of Economic Zones.

Board Decision 
The paper was agreed with a request that the views of SRPs and the Regional Chamber be presented to the June Board meeting . 
 
8. RNAS Portland 
 
Colin Molton presented the proposals for the future development of Portland, explaining the master-plan proposals for the site. Board members asked for clarification on a number of details in the proposal.

• HH raised a query about the role of public transport in the overall proposal. It was agreed that this should be given detailed consideration.
• DA sought clarification on the position on Derelict Land Grants.
• JPT concerned that there was no mention of an environmental impact assessment. Colin Molton clarified that EIA will be done by the master-planning consortium and that there would be report on progress at the June meeting.
• CEO agreed that a social, economic and environmental impact assessment was important for this project

Board Decision 
The Board agreed with the recommendations in the paper and that a progress report would be bought to the June Board meeting taking account of the comments above. 
 
9. SW Brussels Office

• DA emphasised the importance of this development and that it had wide support in the Region. Staff involved in the development were complimented on their work to build support for the integrated office.
• HH sought clarification on what we hoped to achieve with the development of a SW Brussels office. Suzanne Bond explained that the office would facilitate the engagement of the commercial, HE and other interests, the proposal was more than just lobbying on structural funds. It is a partnership proposal and the RDA is trying to ensure that other key partners actively support the proposal.
• PC expressed a concern that as Members of the European Parliament are the representatives for the SW in Europe we should use them more. Chairman and CEO are meeting all the MEPs (May 24th) and hope to set up quarterly meetings thereafter.
• TP would like to see what the outcomes for this office might be and is unsure as to whether it will be effective. Chairman explained that this proposal will rationalise and make more effective the operation of the existing three offices.
• AM emphasised that the office needed to be progressive in its operation using ITC wherever possible.

Board Decision 
The 'in principle' recommendation was accepted subject to a review of outcomes and budget to be presented at a later Board meeting. 
 
10. Sustainability Appraisal

• HH queried whether the provisional budget was going to be adequate.
• JPT (noting that he is Chair of Sustainability SW) felt that sustainability appraisal was quite expensive but as there is not a detailed and costed work plan it was not possible to know whether the projected cost was sufficient.
• ML sought clarification as whether this was single tender action. Nick Lewis noted that any single tender action of £25k would have to be referred to DETR.
• ML queried whether a specification could not be prepared and tendered by the RDA.
• Chairman suggested that Sustainability SW help the RDA write the specification for the work.
• TP noted that the Board had to be particularly careful about tendering work where Board members have an interest.
• JPT clarified that the process requires expertise in the preparation of the specification and the quality control process on the outcome.
• NC noted that we might adopt a similar approach on the equal opportunities which is a similar cross-cutting theme. People in the region are looking for the RDA to take a lead in this.
• JPT noted that equal opportunities was an issue that would receive consideration in the sustainability process and that sustainability was not just about the environment.

Board Decision 
The Board agreed that the RDA and SSW would work together on the specification which would be brought back to the Board before any contracts were let. Any contracts would be let through a competitive tender process. The Chairman asked the Executive to give advice at the next Board meeting about equal opportunities. 
 
11. Code of Practice on Openness

• HH asked whether this policy was in line with other RDAs. Nick Lewis confirmed that this was the case.
• JPT queried whether we should not be putting full minutes on the RDA website.
• HH felt that we might find that we are well behind the local authority sector.

Board Decision 
 
The Board agreed with revised code of practice but decided to publish full minutes of Board meetings noting the provision that commercial in confidence decisions would be reserved. 
 
12. Skills Working Group Proposal

• AM introduced the item particularly highlighting the 'select committee' proposals.
• JP thought that this was potentially a very good mechanism for other areas of work.
• CEO noted that we had received some adverse comment from GOSW about the regularity of the meetings of the Skills Working Group.

Board Decision 
The Board agreed with the recommendation on the Skills Sub Group. 
 
The Chairman asked the Board to consider the proposal that Directors represent the RDA on the six Local Learning and Skills Councils (LLSC).

• DA noted her continuing disquiet about the fact that Cornwall does not have its own LLSC.
• AM not sure whether mixing Directors and Board Members as representatives is a good idea.
• NC expressed a concern that there was a similar issue in relation to SRPs both in terms of representation and the longer term operation of the LLSCs.
• Chairman clarified discussions on the LLSCs and RDAs at national level.
• HH understood that representation on LLSCs was expected to be Board level supported by the senior staff and that this was important for ensuring that Board was well briefed on LLSC matters.
• SP emphasised the importance of LLSCs on the RDA agenda and noted that this would place enormous pressure on Board members
• PC agreed with HH on the importance of LLSCs and having Board level representation.
• ML felt that it could be handled at Director level, noting that it would have an impact on their work.
• CEO agreed with the principle that it is Board should be the members in the development stage perhaps transferring to Directors after a year.
• AM had the reverse view.
• Chairman proposed that Directors represent the RDA in the work up phase to ensure a consistent approach for the first view.

Board Decision 
The issue was put to vote. 
It was agreed 7 to 4 that Directors would represent the RDA on LLSCs in the first year. The situation would then be reviewed.  
 
13. SW Skills Development Fund  
 
The Board noted the information item. No issues were raised. 
 
14. Inward Investment Presentation  
 
The Board received a presentation from Tim Bagshaw Head of Inward Investment.  
 
15. Regional Venture Capital Presentation 
 
The Board received a presentation from Bill Price Head of Business Development.

• Clarified that the £85m announced in the budget is a target for the fund.
• The issue of losses was raised.
• Responsibilities of the Board were explained.
• The role of the independent fund manager.
• The need to link it to other priorities e.g.sectors.
• Long term proposition.

16. South West Forum  
 
The Board received a presentation from Paul Smith and Trevor Iley-Hazelgrove on the voluntary sector in the SW.  
 
17. AOB

• CB requested that the old EP signs at South Crofty be removed.
• Chairman distributed a schedule of proposed additional Board meetings for the rest of the year.
• ML distributed Railtrack's investment strategy and proposed that the RDA make a response and arrange a meeting at officer level. Colin Molton will advise on the timetable for response on the strategy.
• JPT concerned that we do not give a hasty response to this report as it a very important. Chairman agreed the response should come to the June 3rd Board meeting.
• NC raised a query about getting better liaison with Railtrack, this had been a problem in the Forest of Dean.

Next Meeting 
June 5th 2000 Exeter Airport

APPENDIX 1 
Issues listed for future action in foregoing minutes