Agenda item

1.    Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Economic Development introduced the report, good work had previously been undertaken by the Council and the Select Committee, which had held numerous interviews and findings had provided a good basis on which to move forward.  The main aim was to repatriate as much money as possible back from European funds relevant to the people and businesses of Kent.  Other vital activities included developing partnerships in Europe and with Essex and East Sussex in the case of the Local Enterprise Partnership’s EU programme. 

2.    A Member commented on the areas not yet complete, there was a discussion about the appropriate timing of a report back to the Committee; Ms Fitch confirmed that the usual monitoring process for Select Committee reports was that one year on (March 2015) the Select Committee would meet to look at progress and report back to the Scrutiny Committee.

3.    Mr Dance explained that it might be a good time to review the progress during January/February when the guidance would be clearer, and this would be a good time to monitor bids. 

4.    A Member commended the report and any money that could be repatriated back was welcomed particularly bearing in mind the money put into the European Union. The Member looked forward to the progress report but was not happy with the way the issue had been handled. 

5.    Mr Dance explained that an options paper regarding Hardelot would be submitted to Cabinet Members on 14 July, in recent times circumstances had changed in favour of running Hardelot but this would be set out in the options paper.  The Economic Directorate was asked to save 20-25% and they had looked at options including the Brussels Office, there was an opportunity for a new office with a simple arrangement, this would produce savings of around 25%.  There was a need to work with other regions to access some funds, and this would be reviewed annually but currently it was considered the right decision to make.  

6.    A Member supported the review of progress earlier than one year on.  He then went on to ask whether, regarding Ashford Spur, phase one and two, did the Government make any contribution to either?  Mr Dance explained that for Ashford the International Station was crucial, it was a growth town, 37minutes to London.  A joint meeting had been held on the ‘Rock project’ recently and Rail track and Eurostar needed to agree a clear outcome.  A design had been proposed resulting in more trains stopping at Ashford, with better efficiency for Eurostar and this was a high priority.  Whether the Government financed phase one or two of the Ashford Spur was not known but would be investigated and reported back. 

7.    Referring to the £100million that it was possible to get from Europe, what was the likelihood of getting the full amount?  Mr Dance explained that Mr Moys’ team was very small in relation to other teams working towards European funding, so it was necessary to bear in mind that funding would be needed, if the capacity was not there, to enable the team to write bids to enable further funding.  It was the intention of the team to be proactive and access as much of the funding as possible and the £100million was well within limits.

8.    In response to a query Mr Dance explained that a letter was written, from KCC to Government, in relation to the EU Solidarity Fund for flood damage, but this had not been pursued by Government. 

9.    Referring to Hardelot, a Scrutiny Committee Member asked whether the options paper would include an option to close the building.  Mr Dance explained that there was not an option to close the building, there was an option to work with the private sector.  There was a view from the Scrutiny Committee Member that all options should be available within the options paper. 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee:

10. Thank Mr Dance and Mr Ron Moys for their attendance at the Scrutiny Committee meeting, for answering Members’ questions and for the excellent report submitted to the Committee;

11. Ask that the Select Committee be reconvened at the most appropriate time to receive feedback on progress with their recommendations even if this was before the normal 1 year monitoring period and report back to the Scrutiny Committee via their minutes.