Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2012 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as a true record.

(Item 4 – Report by Mr J Simmonds, Cabinet Member for Finance & Business Support and Mr A Wood, Corporate Director of Finance and Procurement).

            Cabinet received a report of the Member and officer named above.  Mr Simmonds introduced the report to Cabinet and in particular referred to the following details contained within it pertaining to the revenue Budget:

·        That the current underspend had increased since the report taken to cabinet in July to £3.297m

·        That this figure was expected to further increase to £4.568m following the implementation of management action within the ELS and BSP&HR portfolios.

·        That Specialist Children’s Services continued to face budgetary pressures owing to the continuing rise in demand for services.

·        That the Asylum budget was predicted to break-even following positive discussions with other Councils and UKBA.  However caution continued to be exercised until the outcome of arrangements in place for those young people who were considered to have ‘All Rights Exhausted’ were known.

·        That the Adult Social Care budget was forecast a £3.5m underspend and that this was largely a reflection of a fall in demand for direct payments and other services. 

·        That savings had been realised on debt charges as a result of the decision taken to use cash flow to enable no new borrowing to have occurred in the first quarter of 2012-13.

Mr Simmonds continued to describe the key points within the report pertaining, this time, to the Capital Budget as follows:

·        That the capital programme currently forecast a variance of   -£6.290m, but he reminded Cabinet members that this was set against a total budget of £621m that stretched over a three year period, 2012 – 2015.

·        This variance was partially attributable to delays in Planning and other functions; in particular he highlighted Drovers Roundabout and the Multi Agency Strategic Hubs.

Mr Simmonds brought to the attention of Cabinet the successful completion of three projects, delivered on time and within budget and providing excellent services and recreational benefits to the people of Kent, namely the Kent History and Library Centre, East Kent Access phase 2 and the A2 Cyclopark.

In drawing to a close Mr Simmonds referred Cabinet to further information of interest on reserves, staffing levels, debt maturities, levels of debt owed to Kent County Council and the settling of debts by KCC.  On this last point Mr Simmonds reported that the Council had struggled, on occasion, to meet its deadlines for payment and that this was under review.  Options being considered were centralisation of payment services and / or e-invoicing

Mr Simmonds urged cabinet to agree the recommendations contained within the report, which would enable technical actions to be completed such as virement of monies, which were needed following the conclusion of the directorate restructure in April 2012.

In conclusion he reiterated the positive nature of the messages contained within the report.

In response to a question from the Leader the Director of Finance and Procurement reported that in the two and a half months from the end of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

(Item 5 – Report by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Business, Mr John Simmonds and the Corporate Director of Finance and Procurement, Mr Andy Wood)

Cabinet received a report of the Member and officer named above, the purpose of which was to detail, and seek agreement to, changes to the Council’s Annual Treasury Strategy as originally agreed by Cabinet in January 2012.  Mr Simmonds introduced the report to Cabinet and in particular referred to the following details contained within it:  

• That the current economic climate continued to provide challenges for treasury management and the important balances to be made between risk and return.
• That the Government’s Debt Management office was currently offering very low interest rates of approximately 0.2%.  In addition, ratings agencies had undertaken various reviews of financial institutions, and indeed countries, which had affected the investment landscape.
• In light of this Kent County Council’s ratings criteria for those organisations in which it would invest, had been reduced to A+ to A- in light of rating reviews and available returns. This would enable continued investments without it being necessary to use the DMO.  A Multi-Party Treasury Advisory Group had been established in order that in the current volatile financial climate all of the council’s current and future investments were tightly monitored.
• That the council’s current investments were considered to be sound and in particular officers were confident that investment in Santander was wholly safe given the separation between the UK and European entities.
• That £55m of cash reserves had been utilised in order to settle debts matured this year.  This decision reflected the disparity between interest rates on cash and on borrowing.
• That initial research was being undertaken into investments in other countries, particularly in Australia and Canada as alternatives to K banking investments should ratings fall further in the future.  Agreement was sought for banks from both countries to be added to the agreed counterparty list with certain conditions detailed within the report and recommendations.
• That in order to establish the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme intended to help local residents to purchase homes KCC would need to invest monies in Lloyds bank for a minimum term.  The actual deposit was not yet known but there was a maximum liability of £12m.  Formal agreement for this course of action was sought and detailed within the report and recommendations.

Following a question from the Leader of the County Council, Mr Carter, regarding the figures quoted within the report, the Corporate Director for Finance and Performance confirmed that they were separate from the Pension Fund which had its own banking arrangements and treasury management strategy.  Therefore any strategy agreed today would be relevant only to the main KCC budget.

Mr Dance further elaborate don this theme and reported conversations that took place at a recent meeting on local authority investment that had taken place in London.  Here it had been reported that Canadian firms had used pension fund monies to invest in long term projects expected to return profits,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

(Item 6 – Report by the Cabinet Member for Business Strategy, Performance and Health Reform, Mr Roger Gough and the Corporate Director for Business Strategy and Support, Mr David Cockburn)

Cabinet received a report of the above named Cabinet Member and officer, the purpose of which was to provide the latest quarterly figures, relating to key areas of the council’s performance.  Mr Gough introduced the report to Cabinet and in particular referred to the following details contained within it:

·        That Key Performance Indicators had been refreshed in order to better reflect the council’s priorities.

·        That ‘Lead indicators’ had been tested and reported for the first time.  These indicators were intended to focus on the ‘demand’ side of council provided services in order that peaks or troughs in that demand might be better predicted and, therefore, managed.

·        Qualitative indicators were currently being developed and would be added to the report for Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Gough assured Cabinet that although the report was somewhat dated by the time it was considered by Cabinet work began immediately on its production to rectify red status indicators.  He particularly cited the Contact Centre issues included within the report, as an example where good work was already underway.

Performance Manager for the Department for Business Strategy and Support, Mr Richard Fitzgerald was asked by the leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter to comment.  He added to Mr Gough’s comments that the Cabinet Committees recently introduced as part of the council’s new governance arrangements were being fully and effectively utilised by allowing consideration of more detailed dashboard information, in a more timely fashion, further strengthening the council’s performance management mechanisms.

To further that end, the Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter reported that he had agreed with the Leader of Hampshire County Council that each would provide for the other a light touch peer review of performance management structures, actions and reporting.

(Item 7 – Report by the Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities, Mr Mike Hill and the Corporate Director for Customer and Communities, Mrs Amanda Honey)

Cabinet received a report of the above named Cabinet Member and officer, the purpose of which was to seek agreement of the new Equality Statement and Policy Objectives for Kent County Council produced in response to the implementation of the Equality Act 2010.  Mr Hill introduced the report to Cabinet and in particular referred to the following details contained within it:

• That Kent County Council must adhere fully to the Equality Act in order to provide the right services for residents and in order to protect the council from legal challenge and possible costs.
• That an essential part of this work would be to ensure that all reports received by Cabinet contained an Equality Impact Assessment in order that decisions could be taken with full knowledge of the potential impacts for all residents of Kent.  Furthermore decisions taken without evidence of Equality Impact assessments having been conducted could be open to Judicial Review and costly delays.

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, asked the Director of Communications and Engagement, Mr Matt Burrows to comment further.  He echoed Mr Hill’s comments regarding the imperative to produce Equality Impact Assessments for all decisions and in addition he highlighted the need, detailed further in the report, for the council’s decisions and resulting actions to have clear and measurable objectives.  Six objectives had been devised and recommended and detailed within the appendix of the report for consideration. 

In conclusion he drew to the attention of Cabinet to the positive internal and external consultation that had taken place in the production of the recommendations before it today, and the more general improvements in this area which continued to further engage members of the public in the decision making process at Kent.

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, welcomed the intention of the Equality Impact Assessments but proposed that they be named locally as Customer Impact Assessments.  Following advice for the Director of Legal and Governance, Mr Geoff Wild, that this would not put the council at risk so long as the ‘Customer Impact Assessments’ met the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, Mr Carter agreed to take the decision away for discussion between members and officers, whereby proposals would follow should it be decided that this would better reflect the intention of the council in producing these documents.

RECORD OF DECISION

(Item 8 – Report by the Cabinet Member for Education, Learning and Skills and the Corporate Director for Customer and Communities, Mr Patrick Leeson)

Cabinet received a report of the above named Cabinet Member and officer, the purpose of which was to seek agreement of Kent County Council’s new Commissioning Plan for Education Provision 2012 - 2017. 

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, introduced the item; he described the aim of the plan, which was to provide an adequate supply of school places for children in Kent, addressing some of the issues that had occurred in previous years, particularly where spikes of demand had occurred in particular localities.  This plan he hoped, would provide sensible solutions to such issues not only countywide, or in district areas but also in smaller community localities.  In addition he hoped that the dissolution of the Audit Commission would reduce the pressure on Councils to limit surplus places to such an extent that the choices of parents in the future might be affected.

Mr Whiting introduced the report to Cabinet and in particular referred to the following details contained within it:

• That there were three main aims of the Plan:
  • The effective provision of local school places for local people
  • Provision of more choice for parents
  • Improvement in the standards of education provided by all of the counties schools.
• These aims reflected the responsibilities of the Local Authority in terms of education provision in a much changed educational sphere.
• In addition the plan sought to deliver other goals of the County Council including those relating to parental preferences, namely, 85% of all parents having received their first preference of school and 95% of parents having received their first or second preference.  The provision of parental preference being aided by maintaining a 5–10% surplus of school places in each phase of education.
• Challenges resulting from the aims detailed above had been identified within the report; in particular he referred to the need for 10,000 new primary school places required in the relatively short term and 3,200 new nursery places for entitled 2 year olds by September of 2013.
• The plan would be continuously reviewed at County and District level to ensure that it was fit for purpose and amended if necessary to better meet local needs as they develop.

The Leader of the County Council, Mr Paul Carter, sought further information on the following points:

·        how the Cabinet Member and officers had taken steps to define and provide for the smaller localities that had been described

·        how the plan would continue to provide school places in response to external influences, particularly new housing developments in particular localities that may already be running at capacity in terms of education provision.

·        How any continued provision in such circumstances would be made affordable for the council particularly in those localities where CIL or Section 106 agreements might deliver less value than in other more affluent areas

In response Mr Leeson reported:

(a)   That localities had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

There were no urgent items to be considered.