Agenda and minutes

Mr Simmonds declared a personal interest in item C1 of the agenda as he was involved in the decision-making process for Phase Two of the Children’s Centres as a former Cabinet Member.

Mrs Dean declared a personal interest in item C1 of the agenda as she was a trustee of St James’ Centre which would incorporate one of the Children’s Centres in Round Two.

Mr Chell declared a personal interest in item C1 of the agenda as he was a Chair of Governors (Local Authority Governor) at Greenfield School.

The minutes of the meeting on 10 February 2009 were approved as a correct record.

Mr Cowan referred to the Committee’s previous request for figures on the Chief Officers’ bonus scheme and asked that these figures be provided to the Committee in both percentage and cash terms.  Mrs Dean referred to an email sent the previous Monday on the Chief Executive’s salary and information on the Tax Payers Alliance website and requests of the Information Commissioner.  Mrs Dean stated that figures provided to the Tax Payers Alliance and the Information Commissioner differed to the figures in KCC’s Statement of Accounts.  It was understood that in light of the pressure from the Information Commissioner the County Council had signalled that it intended to reveal those salaries.  Mrs Dean requested that the Committee invite Ms Beer to the meeting to clarify the difference in figures and that this should be taken as an urgent item. 

Mrs Dean also referred to the note circulated on page 21 of the agenda in which it stated that ‘consultation on the Treasury Strategy and Treasury Management in general will, with the agreement of the Chairman, be added to the terms of reference of the Budget IMG’.  Mr Smyth confirmed that he regarded the document in question as a suggestion rather than a ‘done deal’ and discussions would be held about the role of the Budget IMG in Treasury Management.

The Chairman referred to Mrs Dean’s request to take an urgent item on the discrepancies in published figures for the Chief Executive’s salary under Part E of the agenda, and agreed that it should be declared urgent due to the importance of correcting the figures which had appeared in the national press on the two previous days and the extramail which had been circulated.  Mr Simmonds explained that not all Members had received a copy of the email in question and stated that he would be reluctant to discuss the issue without any background information.  The Chairman announced that he was minded to take it as an urgent item and requested that copies of the information be circulated to the Committee.  Ms Carey requested that, although she would prefer to see the item at a future meeting, if the Committee were to look at it  the background information was made available.  Mrs Dean confirmed that the background information was available and the Chairman agreed that this be circulated under item E of the agenda.    

The Chairman explained that Members had received a restricted minute on the IMG on Budgetary Issues discussion about developer contributions.  Mr Smyth explained that the full detail on the minute regarding Member’s concerns about the level of capital finding for Special Schools and SEN Units was contained on page 17 of the Cabinet Scrutiny agenda.  Mr Smyth also referred to item 5 of the Budget IMG notes, Sustainable Communities Act 2007: Local Spending Report, he explained that it was an act which required the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the production of spending reports. 

The Committee approved the notes of the IMG on Budgetary Issues held on 25 March 2009.

Mr Horne explained to the Committee that the Informal Member Group had had a very interesting opportunity to talk to the representative from Southern Water; the group had heard that the water companies were able to invest their assets in other activities, such as leisure activities but Southern Water were reluctant because it was not commercially viable.  Mr Horne queried whether it should be open to other companies who would be prepared to maximise the opportunity of public assets.  Mr Horne also commented on the availability of maps showing where sewers and water supplies and electricity ran, he questioned who should hold the map showing where these services were provided. 

Ms Carey confirmed that the group was still awaiting confirmation of the location of the definitive map of the sewer system.  The group had had concerns about Southern Water’s investment plan which had a high expenditure and there was a concern about the effect on residents’ bills, Ms Carey reiterated that it had been a very useful IMG which would be worthwhile to follow up in a couple of years.

Mrs Law stated that she would be interested to join any future IMG on Southern Water.

The Committee approved the notes of the IMG on Southern Water’s Draft Business Plan held on 2 March 2009. 

Mr Dance, Mrs Gamby, Ms Smith and Mr Tipping were present for this item. 

In relation to Round Three Children’s Centres, Mr Northey asked for information on the Canterbury Centre and the progress as he had not been consulted.  Ms Smith confirmed that a proposal regarding Littlebourne School would be coming forward which Mr Northey would be consulted on.  Mr Smyth asked for clarification on the percentage figures provided for the deprivation levels in each ward where a Children’s Centre was being considered.  Mrs Gamby confirmed that the figures were the level of deprivation in the super output areas in each ward.  The Chairman asked whether there was a general deprivation figure for each ward so that it was possible to compare the lowest deprived super output area with the ward in general which might be relatively affluent.  Mrs Gamby explained that those figures were available but the average deprivation for a ward could hide the pockets of deprivation within it.  Mrs Gamby confirmed that the closer the figure was to 100% the less deprived the area was. 

Mr Hart expressed his concern about the way the figures for deprivation levels were presented and he asked for information on the average level of deprivation for the whole ward, Mrs Gamby agreed to request that information and it would be supplied to Committee Members. 

The Chairman stated that he had received a letter explaining the reasons behind the delays to the Round Two Children’s Centres, he asked for further information on the concerns that Officers had had in relation to the framework consultants and the cost of moving from one framework consultant to another.  Mr Dance explained that regarding the original contractor, there was a series of warnings which were addressed, the contracted amount was not paid in full and this had generated a saving.  Mr Tipping explained that the original appointment was for the delivery of the complete programme, there were three different elements of work; refurbishment, new build and modular.  Regarding the new build and modular element, concerns were raised about the administration of the contract and the work being undertaken, the Council was becoming less confident that the agent was delivering value for money services, the Council and the agent eventually came to an agreement where the work ceased and the Council engaged with another employer’s agent in August 2008.  The new employer’s agent needed time to get up to speed with the programme which resulted in delays to the projects.

The Chairman asked Mr Tipping to confirm what the concerns were that KCC had with the agent.  Mr Tipping explained that the contract for the modular build should have been straight forward but the agent took an unusual route to take on the design element role from the contractor which caused confusion for the contractor and for the employer’s agent.  Mr Gough referred to the decision to re-tender the new build sites and he asked what level of savings the Council was expecting to achieve due  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

Mr K A Ferrin, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; Mr D Hall, Head of Transport and Development, Environment & Regeneration; and Mr G D Wild, Director of Law and Governance, will attend the meeting from 11.30 am to 12 noon to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr Ferrin, Mr Hall and Mr Clark were present for this item.

The Chairman explained that the Committee’s concerns were that some of those whose families were paying tax in Kent might not be able to access the Freedom Pass service because it was administered through schools. 

Mr Ferrin stated that from the start there had been two criteria for eligibility to the Freedom Pass, 1) the child had to live in Kent, 2) the child had to go to school in Kent and he emphasised that that had been clear from the beginning.  Mr Ferrin was not aware that the scheme had been seriously questioned, no legal advice had been received which suggested that the criteria were illegal or, in a legal sense, unfair or that the arrangements that had been made for the Freedom Pass were unlawful.  Mr Ferrin did state that Officers had been instructed to review the scheme in light of experience, it was the intention to review the scheme in September and the review would take into account Member’s views on the scheme and the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee might wish to indicate the areas that it wants reviewing.  Mr Clark explained that the legislation gave the local authority the discretion to set up a scheme on the basis it chose either for people living in, and going to school in an area, or not, as the Council decided, the discretion was entirely with the local authority, there was no obligation on them to provide free transport to those who live in the county and go to school outside it.

Ms Carey stated that the Committee had invited the witnesses because the Freedom Pass was a brilliant scheme the Committee welcomed the review and enquired whether it was practical to extend the scheme to the 16 – 18 year old age group.  In response Mr Ferrin explained that it was not within his power to decide to extend the scheme to 16 – 18 year olds and there would be major budget implications to doing that.  The review would look at the day to day issues of the current scheme, involving all the relevant groups of people including the views of the bus operators.  Mr Chell explained that in his experience young people who lived in Kent but went to school outside of Kent felt disadvantaged because they did not receive the freedom pass.  Mr Ferrin was aware of these issues and they had been discussed at great length when the scheme was originally implemented.  Mr Chell responded by saying that the Freedom Pass was also intended for leisure and social activities within Kent, Mr Ferrin pointed out that it was difficult to separate a pass for social activities and a pass for transport to school.  The issue of low income families with multiple children of school age also needed to be addressed and Mr Ferrin hoped that the Kent Credit Union would be able to assist in these cases. 

Mr Truelove concurred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

The Chairman explained that the report on the Business Plans was to alert Members to the plans and that at the next meeting Members of the Committee would be asked to put forward initial proposals for the first meeting of the Committee after the election. 

The Committee agreed that proposals on which business plans to scrutinise would be put forward at the next meeting. 

No other Cabinet decisions have been proposed for call in but any Member of the Committee is entitled to propose discussion and/or postponement of any decision taken by the Cabinet at its last meeting.

(Members who wish to exercise their right under this item are asked to notify the Head of Democratic Services and Local Leadership of the decision concerned in advance.)

The Chairman raised Mrs Dean’s earlier request to take an urgent item on the discrepancies in published figures for the Chief Executive’s salary under Part E of the agenda.  Mr Sass confirmed that Ms Beer had been out of Maidstone during the morning but was able to attend the Cabinet Scrutiny meeting at 2pm if Members required.   Mrs Dean confirmed that she didn’t want to keep Members of the Committee waiting until 2pm but it was to be put on record that she had concerns over the articles so that Ms Beer would know the questions that were being raised. 

Mrs Dean had concerns over the discrepancies within published figures for the Chief Executive’s salary.  The Telegraph quoted £255,000; the Council’s Statement of Accounts £240,000 - £249,999; the Tax Payers Alliance and the Information Commissioner had the figures £240,000 – £249,999; the Mail online quoted £255,000 and also referred to an increase of 6%; The Independent quoted £225,000 and in the same article £255,000 excluding bonuses or expenses.  The figures provided to the Tax Payers Alliance and the Information Commissioner did not accord with the Council’s Statement of Accounts.  The Chairman suggested that this come forward as a substantive item on the Committee’s next agenda for 29 April, the Committee agreed with this suggestion. 

Mr Simmonds asked the Chairman to clarify what the objectives of having this item on a future agenda were.  Mrs Dean confirmed that there were two questions; the Committee requested figures of the salaries of the Chief Executive and the Chief Officer Group and a reconciliation of the figures in the Statement of Accounts and those which had been supplied to the Tax Payers Alliance and the Information Commissioner.

Members requested that:

1. Information regarding the Chief Officers’ salary be supplied as a matter of urgency;
2. Ms Beer be asked to explain the discrepancies between a) those figures which had been supplied to the TaxPayers’ Alliance and the Information Commissioner, and which had appeared in the national press, and b) those which appeared in the County Council Annual Statement of Accounts;
3. This issue be placed on the next Cabinet Scrutiny agenda.