Issue - meetings

Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.

Officers explained that In March 2023, they procured the Evolutive system to support the Business Anchor project, funded by the UK Government Shared Prosperity Fund. This decision was based on the successful experience delivering high volume of grants during COVID and feedback from economic development officers in Wales who found the system useful.

Officers initially secured a two-year contract with an optional one-year extension. However, this timeframe no longer aligns with the council's needs for current and upcoming programs, such as the Tata Transition Fund grants and the second round of the Shared Prosperity Fund starting in April.

Officers anticipate further funding from the government's equivalent to the Shared Prosperity Fund starting in 2026. The council has the opportunity to re-contract on a director board basis for three years at a cost of £30,381 plus VAT. This cost can be covered by current SPF projects, but it needs approval, invoicing, and payment by February. Members were advised that as this falls outside the council's contract procedure rules, officers are seeking members' approval to proceed.

The chair reminded members why the committee was scrutinising the report, explaining that the committee can choose what it scrutinises under the current system. Since this report departs from the contract procedure rules, he felt it was important for the committee to review it to ensure the council isn't deviating unreasonably. He noted there are no major concerns but a few questions.

Members had some observations about the format of the report in terms of how the report is written and it's understanding.

Members were confused by the financial impact section stating, "not applicable." They felt it wasn't clear how much the contract would cost or if the council could afford it until they reached the financial information later in the report. Members suggested it would have been more helpful if the report had clarified that the cost would be covered by the programme, rather than stating "not applicable."

The chair noted that there is a brief scrutiny covering report that goes before the substantive cabinet report. He felt that the scrutiny report was a little bit confusing as the impact sections are blank, he asked that this feedback be looked at corporately.

Members noted the graph in the report showing grant funding allocations and expressed that they hadn't been informed about the specific grants were for and felt it would be helpful if they could have details on where the grants were awarded and to whom. While they hoped for information on individual wards, they felt that all grant details should be accessible to members to facilitate sharing best practices.

Members suggested that it would be helpful to see examples of successful initiatives from other wards to share best practices. They felt that having access to this information, even if not included in this report, would be beneficial.

Members felt that a glossary of terms should be included on reports.

Officers noted the comments and advised that in terms of the grant fund, the SPF  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5