Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 April 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman explained that the issues surrounding Kent Design Guide would now progress onto the Environment, Highways and Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  A report had been circulated to Mr Dean and Mr Manning but they requested that it be amended to provide a complete record of the meeting before it was submitted to the Environment, Highways and Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

Regarding Kent Digital Service the Chairman explained that she and the spokespeople had met with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management and discussions were ongoing. 

On the issue of Local Member Information the Member Information Member Officer Group were taking this information forward and the Scrutiny Board were monitoring progress.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee note the follow up items report.

Regarding the discussion had on the evaluation of the budget process; Members commented on the training programme which had been set up to discuss the budget process.  This had been an excellent session and Members had got a lot out of it.  All Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees had agreed to set up Informal Member Groups to scrutinise their area of the Budget. 

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 14 April 2010. 

The Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues had asked the Council to approach the Government to request that they be able to work together on a review of the Local Government finance.  This request had been sent but no response had yet been received.  Ms McMullan would update Members when there was more information. 

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 14 May 2010.

A post meeting note within the notes explained that the issue of establishment figures and how they were reported would be revisited by the Budget Informal Member Group. 

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 10 June 2010. 

Mr John Simmonds, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ms Lynda McMullan, Director of Finance will attend the meeting between 10.15am and 11.00am to answer Members’ questions on this item.  

Mrs Sarah Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education and Mrs Rosalind Turner, Managing Director Children, Families & Education will attend the meeting between 10.15am and 11.00am to answer Members’ questions relating to the funding for academies contained within this item.

Mrs Hohler, Mr Simmonds, Ms Carey, Ms McMullan, Mr Abbott and Mr Wood were present for this item.

(1)   Ms McMullan explained that she would be taking on the role for the South East lead for Finance, which would involve being a representative for the South East Strategic Authorities.  Mr Manning asked for clarification on how this role might unfold.  Ms McMullan explained that the Council was offering its services and was waiting to see how other Authorities wanted to engage with the Council, useful debates could be had about what would actually make a difference.  Mr Christie asked whether this was the most appropriate time to be taking on additional roles, Mr Simmonds explained that it was important to share experiences and find the best way forward in the difficult economic circumstances, combining efforts would ensure benefits for Kent County Council.    The Chairman stated that presumably the Council were looking for cuts which would have the least effect on the residents of Kent so sharing best practice would be beneficial, Mr Simmonds explained that the Council was analysing the ways in which the services were delivered and looking at best practice in other authorities.  There were opportunities to work with other authorities and organisations and the Council was constantly looking at ways of delivering services in a more effective and efficient way.

(2)   In response to a question from Mr Christie, Ms McMullan confirmed that the same offer was made to the previous Government.  Meetings were held with Michael Lyons and there was input jointly across Kent into the comprehensive spending review.  

(3)   In response to a comment from the Chairman about conflicting evidence in the media and the effect of academies on the Local Authority.  Mrs Hohler explained that the Council faced a challenge and opportunity to think about how services were delivered without affecting standards.  The in-year cuts were particularly challenging.  A restructure was ongoing in the Children, Families and Education (CFE) Directorate to meet existing budget pressures and throughout this the staff had been resilient and patient.  CFE had a core budget of £213million which included special needs services, training and services provided to schools for example, there was not a lot of flexibility within the CFE budget because most of the budget was ring-fenced as Direct Service Grant. 

(4)   There had been an invitation from the Government to all schools to register their interest to become ‘new academies’ online.  If a school had been judged as outstanding by Ofsted it could fast track to becoming an academy.  A number of schools expressed interest and one issue of concern was transport and how it would be provided, if new academies changed the school hours or term times this could have huge implications on KCC budgets as the transport provider.  It was a complicated picture that was constantly changing. 

(5)   The Council had written to all schools to offer to discuss their issues, problems and concerns.  The discussions had to date had been useful and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Mr Simmonds, Ms Carey, Ms McMullan and Mr Wood were present for this item.

(1)   Mr Simmonds explained that it would be fair to say that the Council had been surprised when asked to make savings in this year’s budget; however what was revealed in the Government announcement of grant cuts was predictable. 

(2)   It was logical to look at the grants that were affected by the cuts and it was necessary to think through the implications of the grants and which were most beneficial to the residents of Kent.  Following the Leader’s decision of where the cuts would be made to meet the savings target for this year it was then necessary to analyse the services, what the effects of the cuts might be and it was hoped that Members would generally accept the direction of travel that had been made to meet this year’s savings targets. 

(3)   Mr Chittenden explained that he was a Member of the Police Authority with responsibility for road safety.  He had concerns around the effects of any cuts to the safety partnership and what support could be offered to minimise any effects, and he asked the Cabinet Member whether any further information was available on where the remaining £168,000 cuts would be made.  Mr Wood explained that in terms of the road safety grant £1.8milllion of the £2.3 million grant received went to the Kent and Medway Safety Partnership which employed 41 full time equivalent (FTE) staff at a cost of around £1.2million.  It was understood that the Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate were in discussions about how these cuts were dealt with operationally, the best use of the resources available and the best way of maintaining road safety. 

(4)   The speed limit review would not be going ahead at this stage so consequently the capital costs of the review were not required.  Mr Chittenden urged the Council to do everything in its power to mitigate the effects of the cuts to the safety partnership. 

(5)   The Chairman asked whether there was a longer list of options available originally; would it be possible to provide this list to Members? 

(6)   Mr Simmonds explained that the Council would be discussing possible options with the District authorities to determine the effects and possible implications of not continuing with particular projects and initiatives and how best to manage current situation.  Many contracts and projects were match funded and it would be in the residents’ best interests to continue with such projects.  It was vital to deal with the £15.5million in the short term to enable detailed examination of future cuts. 

(7)   The Chairman asked for clarification over the integrated transport schemes which were due to be going ahead this year.  Mr Simmonds explained that that should be addressed to Mr Chard as it was being looked at currently and all projects were under review.  All County Members were due to receive a full list of the schemes which would then be passed to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Mr John Simmonds, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ms Lynda McMullan, Director of Finance will attend the meeting between 10.15am and 11.00am to answer Members’ questions on this item.  

Discussed as part of the above item.

Mr Graham Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services and Mr Oliver Mills, Managing Director, Adult Social Services will attend the meeting at 11.00am to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr G Gibbens, Mr O Mills and Ms C Highwood were present for this item. 

(1)   Mr Manning clarified that he did not share the concerns of the Chairman and Spokesperson regarding the decision to go out to consultation on the Future of Older Persons’ Provision in Kent County Council. 

(2)   The Chairman explained that following a discussion with the Director of Strategic Business Support she had requested the following information:

a.      A breakdown of the differential costs between the County Council’s in house provision and private provision

b.      Details about the number of clients affected and the number of staff affected

c.      Alternative options explored

(3)   It was agreed that as much of the discussion as possible would be held in open session. 

(4)   In relation to the alternative options explored Mr Mills explained that there had been a lot of change with the in-house provision.  In 1992 9 homes were transferred to the Kent Community Trust and a further 9 were sold in 1998/99, link service centres had also been developed along with extra care sheltered housing and the establishment of Westview.  The Council had continually been looking at the options and the needs whilst focussing on the welfare of the existing residents and staff.  The current provision had been reviewed and the proposals in relation to the 11 homes were put forward for consultation. 

(5)   In relation to the numbers of staff and clients affected.  Ms Highwood circulated information setting out the number of beds both in the affected home and within a radius of five miles of each home and alternative provision.  

(6)   Mr Christie expressed his concern about the lack of Member attendance at the consultation exercises.  In relation to a question from Mr Christie, Mr Mills confirmed that alongside the consultation no new permanent residents were being accepted into the homes.  Mr Christie had concerns about the consultation exercise and whether decisions had already been made.  If the majority of people were against closure would the Council accept that decision?  Was this a financially driven exercise or was it in the interest of the clients.  It had been said that the homes were not fit for purpose, but wasn’t it the responsibility of the Council to update and modernise the care homes, why was this not done?  Would the current residents of care homes which may close have priority for the new care homes?  Mr Christie expressed his concern about respite beds and the availability of excellent beds particularly in areas which bordered other counties and therefore had competition. 

(7)   Mr Gibbens wished to assure the Committee that the consultation would be as wide as possible, a further consultation had been agreed for Dartford.  The Council would do everything possible to enable residents or Members to attend consultation discussions.  A full briefing would be given at the Adult Social Services Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Friday 25 June to which all Members had been invited and were able to ask  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Mr O Mills and Ms C Highwood were present for this item. 

(1)   Ms Highwood explained the methodology behind determining the cost of residential care.  The unit cost per bed was higher for smaller homes which still required a manager and a full complement of staff particularly if they had lower occupancy rates. 

(2)    Ms Highwood explained that staff pay rates were higher than in the independent sector, in addition Kent Adult Social Services staff were eligible to be members of the local government pension scheme.   A discussion was had around the use of TUPE and the effect of transferring existing staff into partner agencies. 

(3)   The Chairman asked what the typical pay rates would be for Kent County Council employed staff.  Ms Highwood agreed to get clarification on this point and respond to Members outside of the meeting. 

POST MEETING NOTE:  KASS care workers had an hourly rate of £8.28 minimum, rising to £8.70 maximum.  Kent Top Temps was recruiting care workers between £6.75 and £7.42 per hour within private residential homes.  A colleague from the Trade Association stated that the hourly rate for care workers usually fell close to the national minimum wage  (£5.80), albeit this might vary across the county with Sevenoaks attracting higher rates of pay than Chatham or Gravesend, for example.  The National Minimum Data Set (NMDS) local authority area profile for Kent stated that the median hourly rate for a care worker was £6.50.  These rates demonstrated a significant differential. On top of that, KASS staff were eligible to be members of the local government pension scheme, for which the employer's contribution was currently 23.1% of pay.

(4)   Mr Christie raised questions about the affected staff and the options available to them.  Ms Highwood explained that there were a number of alternatives, staff could be transferred through TUPE, the revenue savings were not assuming savings against existing staff.  Partnership arrangements could offer TUPE transfers, it was hoped that a balanced set of proposals could be produced.  However, where homes were closed staff would be made redundant, although every effort would be made to mitigate the effects of this by redeployment, where possible.  

(5)   In response to a question about the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and their power to close homes Mr Mills explained that the CQC applied the same regulations to in-house care, voluntary organisations or the private sector all with different histories.  This was a necessary consultation rather than it being optional.

(6)   There was a further discussion around the use of PFI funding and the sale cost of the buildings and Ms Highwood confirmed that PFI credits had been secured in partnership with district authorities.  Discussions were being had with the legal team regarding the potential restrictions on sale for some of the buildings.