Agenda item

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Mr R Moys, Head of European Policy and Mr R Gill, Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, were present for this item)

1.               The report set out two reviews undertaken at a similar timescale on Regional Aid and Structural Funds. The Head of European Policy, Mr Moys and the Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, Mr Gill raised the following points:-

Structural Funds

• Kent had secured £30 million in EU grants under the current programme period of 2007-2013. This had supported 60 projects in KCC and Kent, a number of which had related to economic development including; a future tourism event in March 2013,  Visit Kent had secured projects from European funding eg the World Project which secured £1 million of EU grant.
• The current programme ends in 2013 therefore it was for Kent to be in a position to benefit from the new Structural Funds programme which would run from 2014-2020.  The Commission’s proposals suggested that Kent remained eligible for significant programmes; INTERREG Transnational programmes and the European Regional Development Fund Competitiveness Programme which at present was based on the former South East Region.
• Progress reports would be submitted to future meetings to this Cabinet Committee.

Regional Aid

• At the same time that the European Commission revised the Structural rules it had also changed the rules surrounding Regional Aid and assistance to business and consultation would take place shortly.
• The Regional Aid rules set the limits for the amount of public assistance that could be given to businesses through schemes such as Expansion East Kent and other public sector grant schemes.  They also defined the geography that  enabled certain areas to have higher thresholds for distributing various forms of public assistance.
• Kent benefitted from having Assisted Area Status for the whole of Thanet and the northern part of Dover, including Sandwich that enabled KCC to offer grant assistance to companies [SMEs and larger companies] in those areas at higher intervention rates than would otherwise be realised.
• There was a threat within the new process.  The first stage of the European Commission’s review would be the publication of the overall amount of the UK that would be eligible for Assisted Area Status.  At present that was 24% of the country.  It was predicted that the percentage would reduce to 23% which meant that there may be a challenge to keep the status in East Kent. Once the Commission’s Aid Guidelines had been published it was anticipated that the UK government would consult on the criteria for designating assisted areas in mid 2013 and would publish a map for consultation thereafter.
• Kent’s position would be to retain what it already had rather than adding to it with diminished funding overall, but it may be that the criteria could allow the County Council to look at other parts of Kent other than Dover and Thanet such as Shepway and Swale.

2.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:  

a)    A comment was made that this was a good new story and the report showed what could be achieved and that the County Council’s sights should be set much higher.  This work should be promoted because it was important for the future of Kent communities. 

b)    It was considered that this would be the worst time to downgrade the International Policy Unit with KCC.

c)     A comment was made that there was a strong case for including the Isle of Sheppey in the Assisted Area Status especially in light of the closure of the Steel Works with the loss of 500 jobs.

d)    The status that Kent already had must not be lost by adding additional areas that need not be added.

3.               RESOLVED that:-

a)    the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted;

b)    the current position on the review of Regional Aid and the Structural Funds be noted; and

c)     the issues raised in paragraphs 2.12 and 3.9 respectively in the report be noted.