Minutes:
(A) Mr Hunt asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Will the Leader indicate whether the
County Council welcomes the Government's Cycling and Walking Investment
Strategy published on 21st April 2017 following extensive consultation?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy
2. Would you agree that Local Cycling and
Walking Investment Plans fit in with Strategic Priorities in our Environment
& Transport Interim Commissioning Strategic Delivery Plan 2017/18?
3. How does the County Council, working with
the LLEP, intend to respond to the Strategy?”
Mr Pain
replied as follows:-
“1. Leicestershire County Council fully
supports the Government’s ambition to increase levels of cycling and walking in
England, recognising the significant economic, health and environmental
benefits that this will bring at the local level. The approach and actions are
to be welcomed in particular the commitments to the Access Fund, Bikeability funding and support for Local Cycling and
Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).
2. The principles of the Government’s
Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy and Local Cycling and Walking
Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) are already embedded in the County Councils
infrastructure planning and delivery. The area based approach developed by
Local Transport Plan 3 places the County Council in a good position to respond
to the LCWIP’s. The work undertaken developing and securing the Local
Sustainable Transport Fund and Access Fund has enabled LCWIP’s to be delivered
on the ground in Loughborough, Hinckley and Coalville
and the corridors into Leicester. Moving forward opportunities will be
developed as part of Single Local Growth Fund and National Productivity
Investment Fund bids, targeting delivery in other parts of the County.
3. The County Council will be submitting an
Expression of Interest form to the Department for Transport in order to secure
60 days technical support for the development of LCWIP’s. If successful this
would enable us to have plans in place which will put the County Council in an
excellent position to secure future external funding for walking and cycling
infrastructure requirements, supporting the needs of local businesses and
residents.”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question:-
“Could I first of all congratulate and welcome the new Environment and
Transport Spokesperson on the Cabinet and ask under item 3 whether the
expression of interest which the County Council will be submitting to the
Department of Transport in order to secure the technical support will be a
joint one with the City Council or will we be out on our own with this which
has particular advantages for the County Council?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“Just to answer the question directly – I don’t know. I understand that we will be submitting an
expression of interest but I will get some clarity on that and will write back
to you.”
(B) Mr Hunt asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:-
“In a previous era the County Council led several initiatives to
increase trade and investment with business in the County. Could the Leader advise me:-
1. What happened to the
Leicestershire India Trade Bureau?
2. Is the East Midlands China
Trade Bureau still actively engaged in the County?
3. When did the County last welcome trade
missions from Sichuan and are any such visits with our Chinese or Indian
partners to be planned in the foreseeable future?
4. Is the LLEP developing any plans to
respond to a decline in trade between Leicestershire businesses and the EU
occasioned by our leaving the Single Market and Customs Union?
5. What steps are the County Council and the
LLEP considering to replace the EU European Structural
and Investment Funds as a source of investment?”
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
“1. The ‘Leicestershire India Trade Bureau’
was an initiative established through the LSEP (LeicesterShire
Economic Partnership) in conjunction with EMDA (East Midlands Development
Agency). This ceased to operate
following the abolition of Regional Development Agencies (March 2012).
2. No.
In respect of Questions 1 and 2 the County
Council, alongside the City Council, has agreed that place marketing, inward
investment and strategic tourism activities will be delivered by a new Place
Marketing Organisation owned by the two local authorities.
The new organisation will be established in
July 2017. Further details can be found in the Cabinet report presented on 23
November 2016.
3. The County Council has hosted two recent
delegations from Sichuan Province in May 2015 and August 2016. Both events involved senior officer
representation from the Council and focussed on promoting common economic interests
around agriculture (food and drink) and transport whilst exploring potential
for closer relationships in trade and commerce.
The delegation in August 2016 was hosted by Cllr Blake Pain.
There is a further inward delegation
currently being planned for July 2017, which will involve the Vice-Governor of
the Sichuan Provincial Government, and include senior Member and officer
representation from the County Council, together with relevant partners. The delegation will focus on trade,
investment and finance.
4. The LLEP is currently undertaking a
refresh of its Strategic Economic Plan and this is taking account of changing
economic conditions and circumstances, including the impacts of Brexit, and new
economic evidence.
The County Council is working with partners
to collate and share information on the potential impacts, positive and
negative, of Brexit. A Leicester and
Leicestershire Business Survey (approx. 1,000 businesses) is
being commissioned to supplement current anecdotal information. This will be used by the LLEP and partners to
inform any required interventions resulting from Brexit.
5. The
Council and LLEP are awaiting clarification from central Government regarding
future funding arrangements to replace the various ESIF funding streams. In the meantime the Council and LLEP continue
to seek to maximise receipt of funding from other sources (e.g. the Local
Growth Fund) and effectively deploy locally generated funds (e.g. the Business
Rates Pool).”
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary
question:-
“Now that we are leaving the European Union, as we are used to hearing
too often these days I have to say, and the Prime Minister has been touring the
world looking for trade, is it not surprising that the Leicestershire link with
Indian trade seems to have taken a back seat.
I would ask the Leader if, within the Place Marketing Organisation which
was previewed in November, it will have a special place for potential trade
with Southern Asia that we have aspired to and enjoyed from time to time within
the City and County?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:-
“In terms of Brexit, well we are all Brexiteers
now if you believe the polls, 65% of the population would now vote for
Brexit. As you know, I was a remainer but if asked to vote again would vote for
Brexit.
On Indian trade, it is certainly very important. As an ex-colony with exactly the same legal
system, and other things, as ours, and the amount of people who have left the
Indian continent to come to the United Kingdom, I think they are a very
important trading partner and I often express the view that we look too often
to China and not enough to India and that sort of area and so I will certainly
take that up on the County Council’s, and the people of Leicestershire’s,
behalf.”
(C) Mr Bray asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:-
“Does the Leader agree with the incoming Conservative Deputy Leader of
Derbyshire County Council that reversing charges at recycling centres is
straight-forward common sense? It’s the
service that tax-payers expect and it’s the right thing to do to protect our
countryside and local communities?”
Mr Pain
replied as follows:-
“In April the Government published a Litter Strategy, which referred to
guidance being issued to local authorities on various matters. In respect of what the Government describe as
‘DIY household waste’ it is fair to say that more clarity is required as to
what that constitutes. If charges for
some construction and demolition waste from householders are to be stopped or
reduced, it will be equally important to ensure that a new charging regime does
not allow loopholes for builders and small traders seeking to dispose of their
waste at the County Council’s ‘Household Waste and Recycling Centres’.”
Mr Bray asked the following supplementary
question:-
“Can I thank Mr Pain for his response but could I ask him to clarify the
response since he didn’t actually answer the question, whether he would be
following Derbyshire’s lead and scrapping the charges?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“In terms of the proposal to scrap charges, I am not sure whether they
currently charge or not. What I can tell
Mr Bray is that the leadership of this Council has asked me to look at
this. It is something I think we all
recognise from the doorstep, during the campaign up to the County Council
elections, that people have asked questions about and I have been tasked to
look at this under my responsibilities.”