Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2007 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED that the notes of the meeting of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 11 September 2007 be noted.

RESOLVED that the report on the actions taken as a result of the Committee’s decisions at previous meetings, and the updated report on progress with Select Committee Topic Reviews, be noted.

(a)       Possible additional meeting – December 2007

            Wednesday 5 December 2007 at 10.00 am has been reserved for a possible additional meeting of the Committee should it be needed following the special Cabinet meeting arranged for 26 November.

(b)       Proposed meeting dates 2008

            To note the proposed dates of meetings of the Committee for 2008 as follows (all at 10.00 am):-

Wednesday 23 January                                Wednesday 25 June

Friday 1 February (budget)                          Wednesday 23 July

Friday 15 February (provisional)                 Wednesday 24 September

Wednesday 26 March                                  Wednesday 22 October

Wednesday 21 May                                      Wednesday 10 December

The Committee noted:-

(a)       that Wednesday 5 December 2007 at 10.00 am had been reserved for a possible additional meeting of the Committee should it be needed following the special Cabinet meeting recently arranged for 26 November;

(b)       the proposed dates of the Committee’s meetings for 2008.

Representatives of Post Office Ltd and Postwatch (the consumer watchdog), Mr R W Gough, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence; and Mr A Wilkinson, Managing Director, Environment and Regeneration, have been invited to attend the meeting at 10.10 am to discuss this item.

(1)       Representatives of Post Office Ltd (Mr Gary Herbert, Network Development Manager; Ms Martine Munby, Senior External Relations Manager; and Mr Craig Tuthill, Regional Development Manager) and of Postwatch (Mr Andy Burrows, National Policy Group; Ms Marie Casey, South East Network Adviser; and Mr Ray Holdstock, South East Vice-Chair); Mr R W Gough, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence; Mr S Gibbons, Head of Rural Regeneration; and Mrs E Haswell, Economic Development Officer, Environment and Regeneration Directorate, attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       In answer to questions and comments from Members of the Committee, the representatives of Post Office Ltd (POL) provided the following information:-

·              POL would be sending a consultation pack containing full details of the closures proposed for Kent to all interested parties, including the County Council, the Federation of Small Businesses and Chambers of Commerce, to arrive on 2 October.  The County Council’s pack would be addressed to the Chief Executive.  The contents of the consultation pack would also be published on POL’s website on 2 October.

·              POL would not be consulting on the principle of closing Post Office branches (because that had already been decided) but, given that a certain number of branches would have to close, and there was very little flexibility about this number, POL were keen to obtain the County Council’s views on achieving the best network for Kent, post-closures.

·              To this end, in addition to the material already provided by the County Council, POL would welcome information about the location of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs); home-based businesses; proposals for major infrastructure and proposals for major development.

·              As part of the consultation pack POL would provide ‘customer transaction data’ for each branch, but would not be able to provide financial information because this was related to the business of the individual sub-postmaster and was therefore confidential to him or her.

·              Representatives of POL were willing to attend a further meeting after 2     October to brief County Councillors on POL’s detailed proposals for Kent.

·              Although the consultation period was only six weeks, sub-postmasters and others who wished to make proposals for the continued operation of branches or outreach options would be allowed a longer period to finalise their proposals.

·              In considering proposals for closure, POL would use the published criteria, weighting each according to a complex scoring system.  Members could be briefed on this if a further meeting was arranged between representatives of POL and KCC.

·              POL would also take account of the accessibility requirements set by Government, and of specific issues relating to individual branches and the communities they served (such as availability of ATMs, etc).

·              The same criteria would apply to both urban and rural branches, and in cases where there were two branches serving the same community.

·              The information about each branch and the community it served would be validated by visits from POL staff.

·              The ‘financial impact’ criterion did not mean that all loss-making branches would have to close.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services, and Mr O Mills, Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services, will attend the meeting at 11.10 am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(1)       Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services; Mr O Mills, Managing Director, and Mr M Thomas-Sam, Head of Policy and Service Development, Kent Adult Social Services, attended the meeting to answer Members’ questions on this matter, which covered the following issues:-

Design of Consultation Exercise

(2)       In answer to questions from Mr Christie and Mrs Dean, Mr Mills explained that Kent Adult Social Services (KASS) usually involved disabled people fully in plans for consultations, but that it had been inappropriate to do so on this occasion because the proposals had to remain confidential until they had been reported to the Adult Social Services Policy Overview Committee.

(3)       He accepted that the issues covered by the consultation were very complex and he and his staff had made every effort to present the information in a readily-understood way without over simplifying it.  He believed that the response to the consultation (at 30%) demonstrated that they had struck the right balance.

Public Meetings

(4)       In answer to questions from Mr Christie and Dr Eddy, Mr Mills said that the public meetings were only one of a number of ways offered to service-users to enable them to respond to the consultation.  Venues had been chosen for the public meetings which were reasonably central, had adequate parking, and offered accessibility for disabled people.  Feedback from those attending the meetings would be taken into account when considering venues for future public meetings.

Responses to Consultation Exercise

(5)       In answer to a question from Mr Christie, Mr Mills accepted that those likely to be affected by the increase in charges had a greater incentive to respond than others, and that human nature meant that they were likely to oppose the increase.  Taking this into account, the Consultation Analysis Report attempted to summarise the responses to the consultation fairly.

Analysis of Key Topics from Consultation

(6)       In answer to a question from Mr Christie, Mr Lynes said that he did not accept that KASS “wasted money”.  Indeed, he believed that it was consistently seeking better value for money and this was illustrated by the many initiatives being taken by KASS to make access to services easier and to improve efficiency.

Proposed Increase from 65% to 85% of Available Income Taken into Account to Work Out a Person’s Charge

(7)       In answer to questions from Mrs Newell, Mr Mills said that the new level was in line with Government policy.  Nevertheless, the decision to adopt this level of increase had only been taken after very careful thought, recognising the impact it would have on service-users, particularly those on fixed incomes.

(8)       Mr Lynes said that, at 65%, Kent had been at a lower level than all neighbouring authorities.  Even at 85%, Kent was still lower than most of its neighbours.

(9)       Mr Mills confirmed that consideration had been given to phasing in the increase over time but it would be difficult to do this in a way that would be equitable to all service-users,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Mr N J D Chard, Cabinet Member for Finance, and Ms L McMullan, Director of Finance, will attend the meeting at 12.10 pm to answer Members’ questions on this item.

In view of the length of time the meeting had already taken, the Committee agreed to refer this item for consideration by the Budgetary Issues Informal Member Group at its meeting later on the same day.