Agenda and minutes

(1) Mr Manion declared an interest in item D1 – “Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS” since he worked for his wife who was a General Practitioner, and may be affected by the proposals to create GP consortia.

(1) Regarding Item C2, Core Monitoring, paragraph 6 it was clarified that it should read ‘feed-in’ tariff instead of ‘feeding’.

Matters arising:

(2) Regarding Item C1, the Transparency Programme, paragraph 2, the need for a meeting to devise a protocol for invited witnesses was reiterated, and it was asked that this take place in the following weeks.

RESOLVED: that subject to the amendment of Item C2 paragraph 6, the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1) The Chairman noted that some information about gulley emptying schedules had been circulated to Members and Mr Long commented that this information was incomplete. The Chairman stated that the desire was to know which gulleys would be emptied on a more regular basis to avoid flooding, and this information had still not been received. It was agreed that Mr Sass would draft a letter from the Chairman and Spokesmen to Mr Chard requesting that the information be provided.

(2) Regarding the Interim Guidance Note on Residential Parking, the Committee were informed that a meeting had taken place between the Head of Transport and Development and the Chairman and Spokesmen of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee. At this meeting, there had been acceptance by the Head of Transport and Development that the consultation on the proposals could have been better executed, particularly in relation to the database used to contact consultees. It was noted that a report would be going to the Kent Planning Officers Group (KPOG) on this issue, and that the Committee would look forward to hearing the outcome of the discussions.

(3) Regarding comparative information on Ofsted’s assessment of safeguarding in other councils being supplied at the next meeting of the Vulnerable Children and Partnerships Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee (POSC), it was noted that this was not on the agenda for the meeting of that Committee on 21 October. A Member sought assurances that this information would be provided to the POSC and be circulated to Members of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(4) Note the follow up items report and the responses to previous recommendations.

(5) Welcome the assurance given by Mr Sass that a letter would be sent to Mr Chard requesting the gulley emptying schedules.

(6) Await the outcome of the discussions at KPOG regarding in the Interim Guidance Note on Residential Parking.

(7) Request that comparative information on Ofsted’s assessment of safeguarding on other councils be supplied to the Vulnerable Children and Partnerships POSC and to Cabinet Scrutiny Committee Members.

(1) The Chairman decided that the notes from Budget IMG of 8 October would be considered at the next meeting, due to concerns that Members had not had sufficient time to read them.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee consider the notes of the Budget IMG on 8 October at its next meeting.

Mrs Sarah Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, Ms Joanna Wainright, Director, Commissioning and Partnerships and Mr Sean Kearns, Chief Executive of Connexions Kent and Medway have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.15am and 10.45am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, Ms J Wainwright, Director, Commissioning & Partnerships and Mr S Kearns, Chief Executive, Connexions Kent and Medway were present for this item.

(1) Mr Christie explained that his concern was that at a time when some of the most vulnerable young people were at risk, a reduction of £5 million to the Connexions budget over two years (which constituted 20% of the budget) would have a major impact on those who use Connexions services, particularly those Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs).

(2) Mr Kearns informed the Committee of Connexions’ focus on vulnerable young people and NEETs, and how it carried out preventative work in conjunction with schools and colleges. Discussions had already demonstrated the impact on non-teaching staff in schools, and there was the possibility that Connexions would be asked to do more direct work with young people who did not attend school or college.

(3) Mrs Hohler made the point that other councils had to make similar savings, as had other local Connexions services. Connexions Kent and Medway were doing a valuable and effective job and rates of NEETs in Kent were lower than most other council areas. Later on in the discussion, Members’ attention was drawn to page 26 of the agenda, which contained a table showing percentages of young people who were NEET in Kent, England and the South East. Kent’s lower percentages demonstrated it was performing well against comparator authorities. Mr Kearns explained that Connexions were acutely aware of the funding situation and had been expecting to have to negotiate funding for future years, since other Connexions services around the country had experienced significant funding pressures

(4) Mr Christie pointed out that Kent, unlike some other councils, had allocated the full amount of available funding to Connexions and this perhaps explained its excellent relative performance with NEETs. He expressed a concern that reducing funding would have a negative impact on this performance. Mr Christie asked if, in the same way Government protects certain budgets, whether the work done by Connexions in helping young people into employment could be protected, and whether this was considered during discussions to identify savings. Mrs Hohler responded that the Council’s priorities were for children to go through school and into gainful employment, and to reduce the attainment gap of disadvantaged children, and she believed Connexions would still be able to deliver services that would achieve this within a reduced budget.

(5) The Government had not taken the decision to reduce the Connexions budget, but rather had reduced the Area Based Grant (ABG) which was not ring-fenced. Mr Christie asked whether reducing funding to other less frontline services, Value for Money or Invest to Save schemes had been considered. He made the point that a NEET who has regular contact with Connexions would cost around £8,000 per year, yet a young offender could cost up to £60,000 per year and asked whether consideration had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management, Ms Katherine Kerswell, Group Managing Director and Mr Martyn Ayre, Senior Policy Manager have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.45am and 11.30am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services And Performance Management, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director, Mr O Mills, Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services and Mr M Ayre Senior Policy Manager were present for this item.

(1) In response to a request from the Chairman for an overview of what local authority responsibilities would be expected to be, Mr Mills set out the details and implications of the proposals in the White Paper, ‘Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS’. These included:

o         The proposals were in line with the Government’s approach to localism, which is a different way of approaching how local services support local communities.

o         There would be a much stronger role for Councils than currently within the NHS.

o         The creation of GP Consortia, which would commission most health services, and the NHS commissioning board

o         Local Health and Wellbeing Boards, which would mean that Councils would be overseeing the health improvement agenda.

o         A closer alignment of Health and Social Care

o         The role of Local Improvement Networks (LINks) being undertaken by Healthwatch (inspired by an existing model in Kent) which would present opportunities for user voice to be brought together at the local level and for Healthwatch to be shaped beyond the way LINKs was operating.

o         A change to the role of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It was not clear what the scrutiny arrangements would be, but Councils would be likely to have a role. 

(2) Mr Christie raised the point that the outline of the response was discussed at the Adult Social Services Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Members were told that it would be presented at County Council on 14 October. He went on to ask why this had not happened, given the importance of the subject, and Mr Manning asked if there would be another opportunity for Members to comment on the Government proposals. Mr Gough responded that County Council was after the submission and the agenda was extremely full, but given the importance of the topic there would be a Member seminar on 8 November which would provide an opportunity to debate the issues. There were still significant uncertainties, and the publication of the Bill would present additional opportunities for the Council to feed back on the proposals. Mr Ayre added that there would be a Government response to the feedback received during the formal consultation process, and that when the Bill was presented the Council would be briefing whichever organisation had the ear of those debating the issues (for example the Local Government Association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives or the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services). This would be particularly important at the committee stage, when most changes that may be required to legislation were carried out.

(3) Assurances were sought that a subject of paramount importance to the people of Kent was being dealt with appropriately, rather than as part of another agenda, with input from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Mr Alex King, Deputy Leader of the Council, Ms Katherine Kerswell, Group Managing Director, Ms Sue Garton, County Performance and Evaluation Manager and Mr Richard Fitzgerald, Performance Monitoring Officer have been invited to attend the meeting between 11.30am and 12.15pm to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Members are asked to bring their hard copy of the Towards 2010 Closedown Report from the County Council  papers to the meeting due to the size of the report.

Mr A King, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Policy Localism and Partnerships, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director, Mrs S Garton, County Performance And Evaluation Manager and Mr R Fitzgerald, Performance Monitoring Officer, were present for this item.

(1) The Chairman explained that the item had been called in because the discussion at County Council regarded the Towards 2010 targets, but she wanted the opportunity to discuss what the next steps would be. Specifically, if the Council was preparing a new set of targets, where would they be reported and would Members have an opportunity for input. She also had concerns with qualitative targets, because she felt that the Council could not be a reasonable judge of its own performance.

(2) Mr King acknowledged that there had been many debates over the years about qualitative and quantitative targets for the medium term, but that it was sometimes necessary to have aspirational targets for Members and officers that were not entirely measurable. This was because the ethos of the organisation included a desire to achieve new things and explore new opportunities.

(3) On the preceding Monday, Bold Steps for Kent was released, and it comprised a different form of targets, setting out the direction that the Council wanted to take. This included three priorities:

• Protecting people who cannot help themselves
• Strengthening the Kent economy
• Encouraging people to take responsibility for their own lives.

Mr King explained that this was in recognition of the move to a different society in which people would need to take responsibility for themselves and those around them.

(4) Bold Steps for Kent was published the preceding Monday to separate it from the end of Towards 2010. Having been released for consultation, Mr King hoped it would be debated properly and as many views as possible would be sought before it was debated at County Council, which would hopefully happen in December.

(5) In response to a question about whether the Core Monitoring Report would be a successor to the Towards 2010 targets, Mr King explained that the context was different because the Core Monitoring process was about ensuring that the organisation continued to perform in its core business. He added that the Council would have to avoid self congratulation and that future years would be difficult and also that the Councils would have to continue to strive to improve.

(6) Ms Kerswell added that as part of the Change to Keep Succeeding proposals, the Business Strategy Division would bring together performance management functions from across the whole authority. She explained that this was a response to the changes happening in Whitehall and a different approach in performance management reporting to Government. Learning from Towards 2010 and the Core Monitoring report, the Council’s commitments for the future and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) initiative to make data from Councils more comparable would all come together to shape what the Council would report.

(7) Mrs Garton explained that having been through the Towards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.