Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) be referred back to Cabinet recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee/Panel of seven. The remit of the group would be to evaluate the schemes and submit its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval. Reason for referral: To ensure increased Member involvement and transparency in the awarding of the UKSPF.
There were no apologies for absence received.
No requests were received.
Councillor Steve Alderman declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of his wife being employed by the ‘Multiply’ programme which was linked to the Shared Prosperity Fund. [Councillor Steve Alderman left the meeting at this juncture.]
Due to a personal and prejudicial interest being declared by the Vice-Chair, Councillor Steve Alderman, the Chair nominated Councillor Simon Hancock to be elected as Vice-Chair for the meeting; Seconded by Councillor Pat Davies. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Simon Hancock be duly elected as Vice-Chair for the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) be referred back to Cabinet recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee/Panel of seven. The remit of the group would be to evaluate the schemes and submit its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval. Reason for referral: To ensure increased Member involvement and transparency in the awarding of the UKSPF.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Procurement and Revenue Services on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) following a call-in of a Cabinet decision. On 13 January 2025, Cabinet considered a report on the matter which provided an update on announcements concerning the UKSPF as a part of the UK Government Autumn Statement and sought Cabinet’s agreement regarding the use to be made of a further tranche of funding expected in 2025-26. It also proposed the delegation of certain decisions concerning the UKSPF to Officers, and the reservation of others to Cabinet, following a recent Internal Audit review of the UKSPF in Pembrokeshire. Following consideration of the report, Cabinet made the following decision: (1) That the report be noted. (2) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader to determine the 2025-26 UKSPF allocation to Anchor Projects and the Open-Call. (3) That responsibility for approval of UKSPF Anchor projects for 2025-26 be delegated to the Director of Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Capital programme to be updated to reflect any decisions that impact capital projects. (4) That, if possible, within the UKSPF allocation, an Open-Call be launched with successful applications to be determined by Cabinet at an Extraordinary meeting on 31 March 2025. (5) That the policy on Project Change Requests be agreed, whereby: (a) Changes in project objectives are to be approved only by Cabinet in exceptional circumstances. (b) Approval for reductions in output and outcome targets are to be considered through the Individual Cabinet Member process. (c) Other significant changes, to include increases in individual budget lines beyond 15%, introduction of a new element compatible with the originally approved objectives of the project or any other significant change outside the scope of Recommendations 5a and 5b, are delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. (d) Administrative changes are delegated to the UKSPF Lead Officer (External Funding Manager, Resources Directorate). (6) That the Pembrokeshire Eco-Park be approved in principle as a project to be part-financed by UKSPF, with the responsibility for formally approving the project delegated to the Director of Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Reason for Decisions: To implement UK Government policy utilising the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. In accordance with the Section 7.23.1(b) and Section 14 of the Authority’s Constitution for Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Councillor Huw Murphy called-in the above decision on 16 January 2025 with the support of Councillors Iwan Ward, Alan Dennison, Elwyn Morse, Delme Harries, John Davies, Michael James and John Cole. The reason for the call-in being requested was: For further scrutiny to occur to identify the draft location of all proposed “Anchor” projects (which are currently unknown) to ensure that 2025/26 UKSPF investment is equitable to all of Pembrokeshire, to confirm their viability and to gain an insight of what they will contribute to the County and people of Pembrokeshire. b) To scrutinise the decision of Cabinet to vest all Anchor project decisions to only one County Councillor and to propose an alternative that instead of one Councillor being given an almost executive decision on where UKSPF investment is allocated that a politically balanced group of Councillors (size to be determined) be formed to examine every “Anchor” project proposal to ensure that the benefit of UKSPF is done in an open and transparent manner that will no doubt improve confidence in the allocation process. This is especially relevant given that UKSPF funding has been so dramatically reduced meaning that all UKSPF funding requests merit increased scrutiny and full transparency to ensure that UKSPF funding is shared County wide. The Chair welcomed the submitter of the call-in, Councillor Huw Murphy, who was a Committee Member, to outline the reasoning for the call-in. Councillor Huw Murphy made reference to his full call-in submission, which was appended to the report, and outlined the main points. He reiterated a request for future UKSPF decisions for Anchor, Open-Call, and other projects to be assessed by a small, politically balanced Committee of Councillors to ensure transparency. He highlighted that during the 13 January 2025 Cabinet meeting it was stated that the proposed Anchor projects had not been fully developed and budgets were unknown and sought further information on this from the Deputy Leader. A request was made for the £7.444 million allocated by UKSPF not to be used for ongoing projects that may face funding gaps and confirmation was sought from the Deputy Leader that the entire amount would instead be dedicated to new initiatives, instead of bridging budget shortfalls for existing projects, unless Full Council approval was obtained. A further request was made, for the Deputy Leader to provide clarification that the funding would be allocated to the Open-Call, which would reduce the number of Anchor projects. It was stated that due to the significant reduction in UKSPF funding, the total value of potential Anchor projects exceeded the available £7.444 million without reallocating any funds to the Open-Call. The decision-making process for UKSPF was referred to and it was stated that it was similar to that for Anchor project approvals from 2022-25, with the only change being that the Leader had made the decision to now place UKSPF under the Deputy Leader's portfolio. It was stated that the Leader had the opportunity to create a small, politically balanced Committee, similar to the one established for School Reorganisation, which was stated to be working well, however, chose not to. It was expressed that Councillors should promote transparency in deciding how to invest £7.444 million of UKSPF in Pembrokeshire and not leave the decisions in the hands of very few. Reference was made to the challenges posed by the UKSPF 2025-26 process which highlighted the need for a more transparent evaluation process which would also eliminate geographical disparities in the granting of funding within Pembrokeshire. In summing up, Councillor Murphy proposed that the decision be referred back to Cabinet recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee which would evaluate the schemes and submit recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval. The Chair welcomed the Deputy Leader of Council/Cabinet Member with responsibility for Place, the Region, Climate Change and Rural Affairs to the meeting and gave him the opportunity to provide further information on the matter and respond to the points raised by Councillor Huw Murphy. The Deputy Leader provided some background information on what the UKSPF was, how it was delivered by the Council, in partnership with Regional peers, and an update on the impending conclusion of the initial three year programme. It was stated that one year of additional funding had been made available, albeit with a 40% reduction in comparison to the previous year’s allocation. It was noted that the scheme had been delivered through four Anchor schemes, with an additional entry option through ‘Open-Call’ of which further information was provided. Reference was then made to the decision made by Cabinet, with it being stated that the funding allocation from UK Government had been received later than expected which left the timescales of progressing the schemes very tight, which Cabinet was mindful of. It was stated that Cabinet was also aware that the mechanisms for the grant had been well established and, in general, run successfully over the previous three years, so was content with delegating Authority to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with himself as Deputy Leader, to finalise the balance of the funding available. Following the request made by Councillor Huw Murphy to establish a small politically balanced Committee, the Deputy Leader stated that whilst he was not opposed to the suggestion for future, it was not his preferred course of action at this time due to the affect it would have on timescales. He added that a small politically balanced Committee did already exist for oversight of the Open-Call projects; and in the instance another one was established, it would have no decision making powers so could only make recommendations to himself as Deputy Leader or to Cabinet which would be a replica of the Open-Call panel but for Anchor projects. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the updates provided and the key points were highlighted as follows: · The Chair made reference to the small politically balanced Committee which already existed for oversight of the Open-Call projects and requested further information. The Deputy Leader outlined the remit of the Panel which reviewed recommendations from Officers in relation to Open-Call applications which had been submitted, before they are submitted to Cabinet for approval. · Councillor Huw Murphy expressed that he was not in agreement that the suggestion of a Committee could not work for the current extension of funding. [Councillor Tom Tudor joined the meeting at this juncture.] · Following clarification sought by the Chair as to what effect the establishment of a Panel would have on securing funding for projects, the Deputy Leader expressed that timescales were tight as the spend window had to be closed by January 2026 to allow the required paperwork to be completed and stated that it would not be sensible to introduce further delays if not necessary. He added that there was staff who were currently on temporary contracts that expire at the end of February 2025, in line with the grant funding, and until funding for the Anchor projects is confirmed, staff contracts cannot be renewed, which would also be effected by delaying the decision making. · Following confirmation sought by the Chair, the Deputy Leader confirmed that the Open-Call Panel would meet to collate recommendations ahead of the planned Extraordinary Cabinet meeting in March. · Councillor Simon Hancock concurred with the Deputy Leader’s request to not initiate anything that would cause further delays to the confirmation of funding and expressed that he would not support the establishment of an additional Panel. · Following clarification sought by Councillor Alan Dennison as to what level of funding would be dedicated outside of the Anchor projects, the Deputy Leader advised that the decision would be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive, in consultation with himself as Deputy Leader; however, a ball-park figure of £0.5 - £1 Million was stated to be the current assumption. · Councillor Alan Dennison queried if the decision of allocation of Open-Call funding was transferred to the Deputy Leader would it lead to any conflicts of interest. In response the Deputy Leader stated that Cabinet would be considering the recommendations of the Panel but in the case that a decision was delegated to him and he deemed to have a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter, the decision would transfer to a higher authority, i.e. the Leader or a meeting of Cabinet. · Following further information sought by Councillor Alan Dennison as to why the authority to determine the 2025-26 UKSPF allocation to Anchor Projects and the Open-Call was being transferred from the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Finance and Efficiencies to the Deputy Leader, the Deputy Leader stated that the matter was more aligned with his portfolio of regeneration activity so would be clearer in terms of political lines of accountability. · In response to further information sought by the Chair as to who sat on the Open-Call Panel, the External Funding Manager outlined the Membership of the UKSPF Panel. · Councillors Mike Stoddart and Michael Williams expressed their support for a Panel to be established to consider the schemes ahead of Cabinet approval. · Councillor Steve Yelland made reference to the projects which were behind spend and queried if it was being suggested that they would lose the funding. The External Funding Manager provided information in relation to the type and number of projects which were behind spend, stating that figures were changing rapidly but it was thought that most would spend-up in time. It was advised that support was being provided where possible. The Deputy Leader advised that Cabinet had agreed a ‘safety-net’ where in the instance of an underspend in the programme, the money would be allocated to the Eco-Park project. · Councillor Pat Davies expressed that she was in agreement that the process of allocating UKSPF grant funding required more Member involvement but understood that timescales may not allow for a Panel to be set up for the current year. Councillors Jonathan Grimes and Michael Williams echoed the comments of requiring more Member involvement. Councillor Davies stated that following a request made by her, matters in relation to UKSPF grant funding would be considered in more depth by the Committee in future, as part of its work programme. The Deputy Leader stated that he welcomed more scrutiny of the UKSPF programme to provide an oversight of what was being delivered and provided a commitment that whatever the future of the programme may be, he would be happy for the Committee to consider the arrangements. · The Chair queried why the delegation was not altered for the UKSPF Panel to consider the Anchor projects, in addition to the Open-Call projects. In response the Deputy Leader stated that Anchor projects were often of a much larger scale in comparison to Open-Call projects and it would not be possible for the Panel to be brought up to speed with all projects and to then make decisions on them all in one meeting. As a suggestion for future, the Chair proposed that the remit of the current Panel be expanded, to save an additional Panel being set up. The Deputy Leader agreed that only one Panel would be sufficient. · To ensure the ongoing Anchor projects are able to be successfully completed, Councillor Alan Dennison queried if the status-quo would be the most beneficial result today, to which the Deputy Leader advised that it would as the arrangements would remain broadly the same just with less funding for the final year. · Councillor Mike Stoddart expressed the need for Member involvement before decisions are made, not after the allocations had been decided. The Deputy Leader stated that involvement would depend on each project circumstance as in some specific cases, the allocating of the funding had to come first before any Member involvement; however, he stated that he was happy to work with Members for future arrangements to include Members in the shaping of the Anchor projects. · Councillor Alan Dennison queried why a portion of North-Pembrokeshire had been removed from the grant map, to which the Deputy Leader stated that he did not know which map was being referred to but provided assurance that the whole of Pembrokeshire was eligible for funding. Following a range of suggestions made during the debate, Councillor Huw Murphy stated that it would still be his proposal for the decision to be referred back to Cabinet, recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee which would evaluate the schemes and submit recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval. He stated that he did not agree that timescales were a deterrent for not supporting the call-in and expressed that it would promote transparency in the evaluation process, which in turn would increase both Member and public confidence in the bidding and allocation process. He stated that whilst he had noted all comments made throughout the debate, Members must always endeavour to improve the democratic process. In summing up, he stated that he was aware that nothing prohibits Members approaching Cabinet Members over potential grant funding, but felt a politically balanced Committee was a fairer and more transparent process; and moving forward, any politically balanced Committee could continue to support any funding that comes as a successor to UKSPF. Councillor Mike Stoddart suggested that the Panel be formed of seven Members, of which no objection was raised. Councillor Alan Dennison expressed the importance of unaffiliated Members being represented on the Panel. Councillor Mike James requested that if a Panel was formed, that updates, possibly in the form of the Minutes of Panel meetings, be shared with all Members. Councillor Huw Murphy Moved that the UKSPF be referred back to Cabinet recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee/Panel of seven. The remit of the group would be to evaluate the schemes and submit its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison. The Head of Economic Development and Regeneration sought clarity as to whether the proposal made by Councillor Huw Murphy was for future iterations of the UKSPF or if was being recommended that a Panel be implemented for the existing projects. In response Councillor Huw Murphy stated that it would be for both and reiterated that the call-in was in relation to UKSPF 2025-26 and any successor projects. Following a question raised by Councillor Michael Williams, the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration confirmed that the establishment of an additional panel would cause delays, particularly if staff contracts come to an end before projects are completed. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Michael John, Pat Davies, Alan Dennison, Jonathan Grimes, Mike James, Huw Murphy, Bethan Price, Mike Stoddart, Steve Yelland and Michael Williams [10] Against the Motion: Councillors Simon Hancock and Tom Tudor [2] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) be referred back to Cabinet recommending that Pembrokeshire UKSPF funding schemes for 2025-26 and successive years be evaluated by a politically balanced Committee/Panel of seven. The remit of the group would be to evaluate the schemes and submit its recommendations to the Director of Resources and Deputy Leader for final approval. Reason for referral: To ensure increased Member involvement and transparency in the awarding of the UKSPF.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.