Agenda item

To provide Joint Committee with an update on next steps with regard to the EUSIF funding

The Committee was reminded that the ‘Full’ EUSIF application had been submitted to the Department for Work and Pensions on 14 August 2015.  Since submission, the DWP had sought and been provided with additional information.  At the same time, they had been asked for additional clarity around process/match and a draft funding agreement so as to make the necessary arrangements with regard to compliance and partnership agreements.  In late December, the DWP indicated that the proposed outputs and results for the EUSIF element of the wider programme had been revised.:

‘’Please can you send me your updated outputs and results indicators.  As discussed the last version sent to me did not have the 50/50 split for Male and Female and although there was an increase from 1650, it is still lower than would be required overall – given the amount of proposed funding. (Although I am unable at this stage to share with you the final agreed Indicators for Thames Valley Berkshire – we do know that for this Investment priority we anticipate that the total number of participants should be over 3000)’’

In response, the DWP had been asked to clarify how they had worked this number out, and the unit cost, bearing in mind the call had indicated the aim was to work with those furthest away from the labour market with multiple barriers to employment

Furthermore, the DWP had again asked for clarification and for some additional information to be provided.  The information and granularity required by the DWP and guidance information had not been set out at the beginning of the application process and it was clear that the full application that had been sent in August (supplementary evidence in October) was only now being reviewed.

Paul Gresty reported that verbal agreement had been reached with the DWP that the match was fine including the Adviza framework.  Applying this retrospectively from November 2015 had also been agreed.  He added that he had been assured that the Thames Valley Berkshire application would be considered by the Board either late this week or early next week.  Paul was to meet the person reviewing the application and reminded the Committee that he required the additional information sought by Monday 25 January 2016.  This involved a complete breakdown of cost details including the basis of the calculations.

In response to questions, he advised that:

·                     There remained some doubt about whether the funding would be confirmed although Paul remained optimistic..

·                     He had sought a timeline for agreement but had yet to receive a response from the DWP.

The importance of seeking written answers to ensure that there was an audit trail was stressed.

There was concern about the protracted process and delays which some viewed as maladministration.  The Committee’s greatest concern was for the young people who could be missing out if the matter was not settled quickly. 

It was suggested that that there was a degree of risk aversion nationally given past problems with EU funding.  Whilst there was a suggestion that if the delays continued, consideration should be given to pulling out, the Committee was advised that to do so would be damaging as there would not be the capacity to provide the support needed by young people without the funding.

All agreed that if progress was not made in the coming week, they should seek to put pressure on their own contacts and the new relationship manager to bring the matter to a conclusion.

Paul agreed to notify members of progress during the following week, and brief them on what he needed, if anything, so they could approach their contacts.

ACTION: Paul Gresty