Agenda and minutes

(1)   Members felt that the section of paragraph 18, which referred to the measurement of progress of implementation of the restructure, should be reworded to make it clearer.

RESOLVED: that, subject to the amendment of paragraph 18 for clarity, the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1) There was a discussion around the format of follow-up items report, and the Committee agreed that the individual recommendations should be presented in a format which made them easier to identify quickly.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(2) Note the follow-up items report and responses to previous recommendations

(3) Welcome the assurances given by Mr Sass and Mr Webb that the format of the report would be revised to make the recommendations easier to identify.

(1) Referring to paragraph 6(1) on page 41, the Chairman expressed a desire for clarification on whether the Council had taken a view on whether decisions about schools becoming academies would be made on and individual or whole council basis.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 8 October 2010.

(1) The notes were agreed

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 26 November 2010.

A briefing note has been provided by the Director of Kent Highway Services for Members’ information

Mr J Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services, was present for this item.

(1) Mr Burr spoke to the briefing note which had been circulated to Members with the agenda pack. He acknowledged that officers had not delivered what the Committee had originally requested, and had met with the Chairman a few weeks previously to discuss the issue.

(2) The original aim was to undertake needs-based gulley emptying, but that this had not progressed as much as officers would have liked. Instead gulley emptying had been reactive, but Kent Highways Services were moving toward a more needs-based approach.

(3) Mr Burr explained that Members had received maps of the ‘drainage hotspots’ in their individual divisions and that their specialist local knowledge could be used to add to the increasing number of gullies that had been recorded. There were approximately 300,000 gullies in the county, and they would ideally all be emptied within one year, but realistically this might take 18 months.

(4) Mr Manning expressed a view that since the originally-promised gulley emptying schedule was beyond the remit of Kent Highway Services to provide and a marathon task, and that Members were grateful for the further information that had been provided that the matter should not be pursued further by the Committee.

(5) Mrs Rook spoke of the significant issues that had been experienced in Deal and congratulated the drainage team on their response to the issues which has been communicated by the public, but expressed a view that an indication of when further gullies would be emptied should be made available. Mrs Law raised the specific issues of Station Road in Herne Bay, the only division with utility cables through its drainage system. Mr Burr said that he was in formal discussions with the utility company and would update Mrs Law outside of the meeting.

(7) The Chairman asked if officers would deliver on the original intention. Mr Burr explained that they were looking at which gullies needed prioritising, but that more cost was involved in travelling between sites than emptying individual gullies so it made sense to empty all the gullies in an area with each visit. Emptying gullies involved not only emptying water but also clearing any detritus blocking them.

Mr A Wood, Head of Financial Management, and Mr D Tonks, Head of Audit and Risk have been invited to attend the meeting from 9.10am to give a briefing to Members on how risks are identified and recorded.

Mr D Tonks, Head of Audit and Risk, and Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance, were present for this item.

(1) The Chairman explained that Mr Tonks had been invited to give Members a guide to how the process of risk assessment worked. Mr Tonks gave a brief presentation to Members, which covered:

•         Overview of Risk Management Process

•         Risk Assessment

–        Identification

–        Analysis

–        Evaluation

•         Theory of risk appetite

•         Recording of Risk

•         Role of Corporate Risk

(2) Mr Tonks responded to a number of questions from Members. He explained that all risks, including those outside Council control, such as the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, were recorded in the risk register. The interface with his team and the Directorates involved ‘risk champions’ who owned the risk register for their Directorate, and they came together quarterly to review risks. Officers within Directorates used their professional judgement to identify risks, with challenge taking place within that Directorate.  Where risks were shared between Directorates there would be associated risks on the risk recording system. Formal risk training would be delivered the following year. Mr Tonks spoke of the ability to terminate risk or transfer it. He explained that any duty of care that a local authority has cannot be transferred however.

(3) Mr Wood added that Appendix G of the Medium Term Plan contained three high risks, including the Comprehensive Spending Review. Responding to a question about disaster recovery, Mr Tonks stated that it sat along with emergency planning within the Communities Directorate, but that risk leads identified and employed treatment of risk and as Head of Audit he audited business continuity each year.

Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member, Children, Families and Education, and Ms R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education have been invited to attend the meeting between 9.40am and 10.25am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

At the request of the Chairman and Spokesmen, Mr A Wood and Mr D Tonks have been asked to stay for consideration of this item, in relation to the risk aspects.

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, Ms R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education, Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance, and Mr D Tonks, Head of Audit and Risk were present for this item.

(1) The Chairman asked whether the report by Ofsted was a fair one and if problems had occurred more recently than a number of earlier judgements which had not raised any serious concerns. These included a 4-star rating received in 2008, a report in April 2010 by the then Chief Executive and the report by a consultant who was employed to look at serious case reviews after the Baby P case.

(2) Ms Turner explained that the Ofsted framework was now very different - it was case based, and only two weeks’ notice was given. All open cases were given to Ofsted, and the Council was asked to audit them. It was a test of performance management and audit and as such was different to a Joint Area Review, where one year’s notice was given and preparation could take place over several months. It was not possible to say if it was a fair assessment, but it had been a more managed process.

(3) Members had already been aware of a number of risks, including a high level of vacancies, a difficulty retaining social workers, many newly qualified social workers and increasing demand. The judgement found process-driven practice and a focus on performance indicators, resulting in quality assurance and performance management which was not sufficient to report on outcomes. The Council’s response had been to take a radical look at the service and Ms Turner added that it was crucial that managers within the service flagged up problems, such as increasing demand and the working conditions of social workers in order that they could be addressed.

(4) The Leader felt this was the most important issue that had been before the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, and there was a need to reflect on and address the issues outlined in the report. Although there had been warning signs, including a report by the former Chief Executive which portrayed a service just about coping, the severity of the Ofsted report had been a surprise. He believed that it was a mistake to disaggregate children’s and adult social care across the country, and this is why they were being brought back together in the restructure proposals. Kent had areas of high deprivation and large numbers of Looked After Children (LAC) placed by other Councils, and this was why a detailed report had been commissioned in 2008.

(5) The Leader stated that if the recommendations of the reports by the previous Chief Executive and the external consultant had been acted upon more promptly and rigorously and embedded across the organisation, KCC would not have received such a critical judgement. He felt there had been failures in delivery of the recommendations and there had also been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director, and Mr D Whittle, Policy Manager, have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.25am and 11.10am to answer Members’ question on this item.

At the request of the Chairman and Spokesmen, Mr A Wood and Mr D Tonks have been asked to stay for consideration of this item, in relation to the risk aspects.

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director,

Mr D Whittle, Policy Manager, Mr D Shipton, Finance Strategy Manager, and Mr D Tonks, Head of Audit and Risk were present for this item.

(1) The Leader introduced Bold Steps for Kent, the Medium Term Plan, explaining that it was in keeping with the localism agenda and the control shift from central to local government and from local government to communities and local boards. County Councillors and District Councillors would work together more closely as part of the local boards, and pilots would be taking place in a number of districts before it was rolled out more widely.

(2) The Leader explained that the Medium Term Plan should be read in conjunction with the regeneration framework, ‘Unlocking Kent’s Potential’. The Council needed to embed the activity in the framework in its change and transformation over the next four years, and to build on successes in education, and look to the changing health agenda for opportunities for locality based commissioning and the joining up of health and social care. He welcomed the performance monitoring framework that would be based on implementation and outcomes.

(3) On the aspiration for new City Region powers and responsibilities to be made available to Kent, it was explained that there was a desire for this to be utilised by all tiers of local government in Kent. There was a desire for greater progress in the ‘control shift’ from central Government to the Council, and from KCC to a more local level, in line with localism agenda. This would include changes to governance and more delegation of functions held by Government departments.

(4) Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and opening up the market to greater competition including voluntary organisations and social enterprises were referred to in several places in the report. A concern was raised about the setting up of arms length organisations by KCC and their effect on local businesses and it was explained that such measures would not stifle open competition if provided intelligently and with sufficient scrutiny. Responding to a query about whether a greater number of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) were accessing KCC contracts, it was explained that good examples had been set in education and the tender for the pothole repair work, but greater progress could be made, with transparency and Member scrutiny of the tender process embedded across the organisation.

(5) There was a discussion about the funding of schools in the most deprived wards in Kent. The Leader explained that funding would need to be used sensibly to ensure that the needs of all schools, not just those in the most deprived areas, were met. On the Council’s commitment in the document to continue supporting the Kent Schools Games and whether this would be affected by the proposed withdrawal of School Sports Partnership funding by Government, the Leader confirmed that the money would be made available  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.