Written Evidence Submitted by the Isle of Anglesey County Council (SPF0015)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Written evidence submitted by the Isle of Anglesey County Council (SPF0015) Introduction Anglesey is just over 700km in size and is mostly made up of small towns, villages and farm land. The 225km of beautiful coastline, made up of a mixture of sandy beaches and rocky coves, attracts a large number of tourists, especially during the summer. The A55 road connects the island to the rest of Wales and is a main route to and from Holyhead Port. Almost 70,000 people live on Anglesey. 61% are of working age and 76.5% of these are in work - this is higher than the Welsh average. The number of working-age population that are either managers, directors or senior officials is higher than the Welsh average and we have one of the highest rates of self-employment in the country – mostly small and sole trader businesses. The Island is split in to 11 wards, each being served by more than one County Councillor. There are 30 County Councillors in total. Being an Island, Anglesey has some unique socio-economic challenges through being rural in nature and its peripheral location. This has led to an outward migration of young people an increasingly ageing population and a rise in second home ownership. Anglesey is amongst the happiest places to live in Wales. In a recent Annual Population Survey undertaken by the Office for National Statistics, Anglesey was ranked 1st in Wales in relation to overall Life Satisfaction. In terms of happiness Anglesey was ranked 2nd in Wales. Anglesey is also amongst the safest of places to live in Wales. Specific Responses 1. How effective have existing arrangements for the management of European Structural Funds been? Like many other Council’s in Wales, the Isle of Anglesey County Council (IACC) has found arrangements can be varied with response times to queries being dealt with quickly and at other times taking much longer. This can often be detrimental in establishing projects and in working with other grant funders. It is appreciated that appropriate checks need to be taken but IACC believe they could at times be dealt with much quicker. Complexities in the awarding and delivery of funding has caused delays in the distribution of funds and delivery on the ground affecting the positive change brought through investment. In any future replacement scheme lessons must be learned from the shortcomings of the process and administration of EU funding and these be addressed in the proposed UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF). It is suggested the following be addressed: • A proportionate approach to audit and compliance with a degree of trust in existing systems being incorporated as part of the design of the fund; 1 • A recognition of the match funding constraints that organisations delivering the UKSPF face (lack of private sector confidence after the recent public health crisis); • The need for local input into the design and management of the fund with greater flexibility to take account of differing challenges in the various regions across Wales (addressing perceptions programmes are often designed for the South Wales Valleys, not North Wales); • Innovation being recognised as an important element of the fund, but this should not be interpreted as being only about university spin outs; • A priority to promote inclusive growth by tackling economic and labour market inequality; • A new priority, hitherto constrained by EU rules, to finance infrastructure and connectivity, and • A focus on outcomes rather than inputs. 2. What impact have Structural Funds had on the Welsh economy? The basis of Structural Funds has been to invest in job creation and a sustainable and healthy European economy and environment. On Anglesey, they have played a vital role in reducing disparities on the Island and Wales/UK as a whole for many years. The funds have enabled wider private sector investment through infrastructure development which has attracted income which may otherwise have been invested elsewhere other than Wales. It should be noted however, that benefits between rural and urban areas have been very different. Under the current 2014-2020 programme, Anglesey has benefited from such funding through the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. This provides investment for key policies such as Modern Apprenticeship schemes (TRAC) and Urban Regeneration through the Connectivity & Urban Development Theme, amongst others. The loss of this funding will have a significant impact on the ability of the Local Authority to work in partnership with community and third sector bodies (Menter Mon), other funding bodies (the Lottery Boards and Welsh Government) to deliver the kinds of initiatives that will drive inclusive economic growth and promote wellbeing and cohesion in communities across the Island. There is no doubt that Structural Funds have had a positive impact on the Welsh Economy and certainly the impacts on Anglesey are viewed as very positive. The following table1 highlights the areas where structural funds have had the greatest impact. Unitary Enterprises Enterprise Gross jobs Participants Participants Participants Participants Authority assisted s created created (ESF entering entering gaining (ERDF (ERDF) (ERDF) employment further qualifications 1 https://gov.wales/eu-structural-funds-programme-2014-2020-key-indicator-achievements 2 (ESF learning (ESF) (ESF) Isle of 290 56 249 6573 600 2163 62 Anglesey It should also be noted that the Structural Funds have a very wide ranging remit and help both the rural economies of Anglesey as well as the larger industrial elements. 3. What lessons should be drawn from previous rounds of European Structural Funds in Wales? In addition to continuing and encouraging the close work of local authorities through regional partnerships for economic development, such as the North Wales Economic Ambition Board (NWEAB) and Welsh Government, there is a need to ensure that lessons are learnt from previous EU funding streams whether they were successful or not. The replacement of EU funding should be done through a single funding pot that reflects the strategic nature of regional ambitions for Wales allowing more flexibility than currently available. Any future funding should be supported by evidence and highlight the variances between Rural and Urban areas. This should avoid the unnecessary gaps, inconsistencies and overlaps that have undermined the combined delivery of the various EU Structural Funds in the past. It will be necessary to ensure that the devolved levels of the EU Structural Funds are retained for any form of UK-wide EU replacement funding. While Welsh Government should retain an over-arching role it should not necessarily dictate regional priorities/ working and more co-operation and co-working should be encouraged. Simplification of this potential new funding would allow us to do away with certain EU imposed earmarks, or the expectation of spending far lower percentages of rural funds in village renewal and economic diversification. This is both an opportunity to reflect regional needs, especially for areas such as Anglesey which are largely rural and to reflect and invest in their communities needs. In addition, there is no need to replicate the same match-funding rates currently set by EU rules. Match funding obligations could be done away with altogether. A replacement fund with no match funding will be more effective, efficient, easier to allocate and spend, speeding delivery and the impact of the funding on the ground The principle of additionality should be retained. This means that spending priorities should focus on medium term priorities that need to be locally determined, but refer to wider national and international priorities. While there is recognition of the added value of some of the policy and governance elements of the EU funds, there is a clear view that we should not be tied to path dependencies and should develop Wales’s relevant replacement frameworks. We also need to manage expectations however. There should be no illusion that it cannot be expected any replacement fund to address deeper structural issues such 3 as a lack of access to services in deeply rural areas but there should be a clear focus on tangible and achievable outcomes, rather than outputs. 4. What should be the priorities and objectives of the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and what, if any, improvements are needed to the current European funding system? While the UK Government has indicated its intention to provide successor funding to EU Structural Funds through its proposed UKSPF, unfortunately there still remains little or no detail as yet on the scale, objectives or allocation of such funding. In the absence of such detail to ensure the continuity of experience in both the formulation and successful delivery of projects it is strongly suggested the priorities of any new fund should be closely aligned on the successes of the previous European funding while being responsive to both UK and regional needs. The training and upskilling of individuals and projects to stimulate economic development (such as urban regeneration and providing industrial premises due to market failure) has been successful and should be continued. Support to established and new enterprises should also be prioritised. The rural economy on Anglesey has also been helped through European funding and where possible this should be maintained. Furthermore, it is suggested the following principles be adopted: Wales-based Linked to the Well-being goals and ways of working Delivered through existing Regional Partnerships (i.e. NWEAB) Co-operation in relation to Project Development and Delivery central Commitment beyond a single parliamentary term/two Spending Review periods Available funds at least commensurate with existing ESIF funding allocations Focused medium to long term objectives relating to inclusive economic growth and wider societal/international goals but also with sustainability goals of Welsh Government Consolidates the scope and resources currently disbursed by the several existing EU funds (the single pot approach) Targets territorial inequality and opportunity, urban, rural and mixed urban- rural areas.