TAKING THE "R" OUT OF COUNTRY

TAKING THE "R" OUT OF COUNTRY 

MAKES U.K  A COUNTY! OF THE E.U.

comments

Harry,

Very interesting about lack of accountability and budget control. Is this
connected with the Committee of Regions? If so, I assume the members of the
regional body are nominated (in secret) by the Council of Ministers. The
treaties say that the COR should be setting its own rules for governance,
budgetary control etc but as these people are nominees, they haven't done
this. Same thing applies in the Economic And Social Committee.  This
scandal dates back to de Gaulle's time when he started using European
taxpayers' money to fund French election programmes. Obviously the other
governments feel it is a good thing too to continue it! More on this on
http://www.democracy.blogactiv.eu

Regards,

David

TV Spotlight on SEEDA Fades Away

 

The Channel 4 Dispatches programme recently asked me to take part in a programme investigating government waste, including the waste of taxpayers’ money on the EU’s Regional Development Agencies.  The South-East England Regional Development Agency (SEEDA) was selected for close attention.  Unfortunately that part of the programme has now been dropped, for reasons which are not entirely clear.

 

I shall resist the temptation to suggest mischief or pressure, since Dispatches has a brave history.  But you can never be sure these days how far Brussels’ tentacles reach. 

 

SEEDA is part of the EU’s attempt to set up regional governments across the UK, and is supposed to work closely with SEERA – the South-East England Regional Assembly.

 

The members of both organisations are unelected government nominees, and answer to no-one over whom they appear to claim executive power. 

 

I have to admit not paying much attention to SEEDA in recent times, apart from a few pithy exchanges with the chairman, James Braithwaite, a small businessman with delusions of grandeur and a taste for extensive travel at public expense.

 

So I have made it my business to dig a little deeper and bring myself up to date.  My researches have proved enlightening, and alarming.

 

Had I had the opportunity to participate in the Dispatches programme, these are the things I would have tried to mention:

 

1. The bulk of SEEDA’s funds come from the EU, which in turn acquired it from British taxpayers.  Yet the British taxpayer has no effective means of holding the quango to account.
2. The chief executive Pam Alexander is a career bureaucrat who earned £202,842 in 2007/8.  She is the highest paid CEO of a regional development agency in the UK. 
3. All regional development agencies are supposedly “business led”, but the reality is different.  Not only has Pat Alexander no direct business experience, but neither have half the board members and none of the senior staff.
4. Chairman James Braithwaite’s travel expenses are legendry and, amongst others, they have attracted the close interest of the Sunday Times and the Brighton Evening Argus.   According to those reports, in addition to his £78,000 annual salary for a three-day week, Mr Braithwaite claimed over £50,000 travel expenses in both 2005/6 and 2006/7.  He has had directorships in, and consultancies with, companies with which SEEDA does business, and his private secretary was for a time paid from public funds.   .
5. After public criticism of his extravagant life-style at public expense, Mr Braithwaite was said to be standing down at the end of 2008.   However, the SEEDA press office confirmed to me last week that he had been reappointed as chairman for another year by – of all people – Peter Mandelson.  No further comment necessary!

 

 

 

Turning to the activities of SEEDA itself, the picture is equally unacceptable.

 

SEEDA’s annual published accounts – like the EU’s – are capable of being “restated” (code for altered) retrospectively.  This is strictly illegal for commercial enterprises who are obliged to file audited accounts on time, even if they are qualified.

 

Last year, with a declared income of £40 million, of which £11 million came from the EU, SEEDA managed to spend £159 million.  Most of that expenditure appears to have been secured on “development assets”, whatever they are, on a balance sheet claiming total assets of almost £200 million.  I suspect a forensic accountant would have a field day examining SEEDA’s books.

 

The National Audit Office is next to useless in this context.  SEEDA is asked annually to complete a self-assessment form, answering questions about ‘ambition’, ‘priorities’ and ‘capacity’.  Quite what this tells taxpayers about how their taxes have been spent defies logic. 

 

‘Money no object’ appears to be SEEDA’s attitude to spending public funds.   It has ten overseas offices incurring operating costs of well over half-a-million pounds a year.  On one occasion, a consultant working out of Stuttgart, Germany, was paid £89,000 for eight months work.  In 2005/6 SEEDA paid over £190,000 for 13 staff to attend a meeting on the French Riviera.  Quite why a UK development agency has need of such international resources and interests is far from clear.

 

SEEDA claims its objectives are “to create a prosperous, dynamic and inspirational region by helping businesses compete more effectively, training a highly-skilled workforce, supporting and enabling ‘our’ communities, whilst safeguarding our natural resources and cherishing our rich cultural heritage”.  Worthy political gobble-de-gook which does not get past first base in any sort of critical examination.

 

Do we need any of that from another quango, anyway?  The south-east of England is one of the wealthiest and most successful communities on the face of the earth.  It was before SEEDA, and – leaving aside present difficulties – will be long after SEEDA has been burned on a giant quango bonfire.

 

It claims to have supported over 500 hi-tech start-up companies.  But if their commercial prospects were viable, they would normally have found the resources for themselves.  SEEDA also claims to have “enabled” 350 new companies to be created.  Same applies – viable business prospects find the resources for themselves.  That is how the market works.

 

Somehow, SEEDA claims to have safeguarded or created 30,000 jobs, but does not say how.  And – until recently - since when has there been a job shortage in the south-east?  Why else were foreigners pouring in during most of SEEDA’s ten-year existence?  SEEDA claims credit for the arrival of 124 overseas businesses, bringing 8000 employees with them.  With living space at a premium did we need that?

 

And so it goes on – improving literacy, which is the job of our appalling educational system.  Introducing IT to small companies, who could find it for themselves.  Spending £500 million on regeneration and restoring brownfield sites to useable condition – all of which we could do for ourselves.  SEEDA even boasts of giving advice to other quangos!   

 

As for the “major” projects SEEDA claims for itself, they are almost invisible, taking the south-east as a whole.  A few coastal towns, including Chatham, and the former Kent coalfield areas, appear to be the largest beneficiaries.   Tell that to the people of Aylesbury, Oxford, Winchester, Southampton, Maidenhead, Guildford, Basingstoke, Leatherhead, Tonbridge, Maidstone and scores more towns and villages whose residents are paying for all this.

 

SEEDA also boasts of giving advice to the farmers of the south-east about overcoming foot and mouth, mad-cow disease and the general downturn in agriculture – can you imagine!  There are no farmers on the board, nor on the senior staff.  And what are Defra and the NFU for?

 

SEEDA makes no mention of the massive problems facing agriculture today and which lie firmly at the door of the EU itself.  It has catastrophically damaged farming ever since we joined in 1973, most recently with the imposition of expensive ear-tagging of sheep, a wide ban on pesticides, and new controls on muck-spreading.

 

But back to SEEDA’s mandated objectives – employment, competitiveness and correcting regional imbalances.  On none of these three criteria does SEEDA emerge in credit. 

 

The biggest increase in employment by far has been in the public sector.  The number of new businesses registering each year for VAT has actually fallen since SEEDA came into existence.  The enterprise culture which built this country, and which is still strong, responds to market conditions and the development of new technologies or ways of doing things.  Bureaucrats merely hold such enterprises back by putting in the way regulations or other obstructions to new initiatives.

 

Competitiveness is a function of cost, the market’s willingness to pay a viable price, and commercial efficiency.  What a bunch of bureaucrats bring to the table is unknown, and SEEDA makes no claims to have improved competitiveness in the south-east.  Indeed, how it might do so is a mystery, despite its being in their mandate.  Likewise, correcting regional imbalances.  No claims are made.

 

Most alarmingly, however, is the British government’s stated objective to give SEEDA, and the other Regional Development Agencies, planning powers which have hitherto been the prerogative of local authorities.  But if the bureaucratic mind sees merit in further removing controversial decisions from accountable elected representatives of the community, what better means is there?

 

SEEDA should be abolished.

 

(end)

 

To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com