Agenda and minutes

(1)       The Chairman mentioned that Mr Stuart Ballard, Head of Democratic Services, would be retiring on 31 March 2008.

(2)       RESOLVED that the Committee place on record its thanks to Mr Ballard for his advice and support to the Committee and its best wishes for his retirement.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 23 January and 1 February 2008 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)       In relation to Minute 33 (1),  Mr Law informed the Committee that following his meeting with the Leader, in future all recommendations from this Committee would be responded to by Cabinet at their next meeting.

(2)       Mr Smyth drew Members’ attention to the Kent Credit Union meeting that was being held on Monday 7 April 2008 at 1.00pm at Oakwood House.

(3)       RESOLVED that the actions taken on the Committee’s recommendations be noted.

RESOLVED that the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues, held on 10 March 2008, be noted.

(1)       Mr G K Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Public Health, and Mr M Lemon, Policy Manager, Kent Department of Public Health, attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       Mr Gibbens welcomed the opportunity to answer questions from Members.  He  pointed out that reports on Kent Health Watch and/or LINks would be considered by the Corporate Policy Overview Committee and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee shortly.  He stated that it was important to recognise that the roles of LINks and Kent Health Watch were different. LINks was not a complaints mechanism, it was an opportunity and a means for Groups to form a link and to make representations in relation to healthcare provision in a particular local authority area.  Kent Health Watch was a means by which individuals could be signposted to make complaints in relation to Heath and Social Care.

(3)       Members’ questions covered the following issues:-

LINks and Kent Health Watch

(4)       Mr Gibbens in response to a question from Mr Smyth, reiterated that LINks was not fundamentally a complaints mechanism and that Kent Heath Watch had been established to help people progress through the complex method of making their complaints and was a signposting mechanism.

(5)       In response to a question from Mr Law, Mr Gibbens stated that he would ensure that Kent Heath Watch and LINks appeared on the agendas for both Corporate Policy Overview Committee and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  He also expressed a willingness to come back to Cabinet Scrutiny after Health Watch had been established.

Social Care and Kent Health Watch

(6)       In answer to a question from Mr Smyth, Mr Gibbens stated that the reason why social care would not come online with Kent Health Watch until 2009, was that they wanted to make sure that the staff in the Contact Centre dealing with these issues fully understood the Health Service. There was already a knowledge of social care within the Contact Centre.  It was important to ensure that these Call Centre contacts were versed in Health Service matters.  Mr Lemon, in addition, pointed out that April 2009 was the latest date that Social Care would be added to Health Watch.  He also mentioned that Kent was likely to be an early adopter for the new streamlined complaints procedure for health and social care proposed under the Making Experiences Count (MEC) initiative.

Health Service Complaints system

(7)       In answer to a question from Mr Hart, Mr Gibbens stated that the evidence across the country was that the Health Service Complaints procedure was complex and not working effectively.  He stated that our health service colleagues were welcoming the introduction of Health Watch as a means to encourage complaints.  He stated that what was being proposed here would be a massive benefit to the people of Kent and would enable them to make complaints and express concerns.  He accepted that the evidence was that people had not been able to easily work their way through the complaints process within the Health Service.

(8)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

(1)       Mr K A Ferrin, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and Mr G Harrison-Mee, Director – Kent Highway Services, attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       It was noted that representatives of the Highways Agency had been invited to attend the meeting for this item but had declined to do so.

(3)       Mr Ferrin stated that an issue in relation to this was that KCC did not have an officer or Member representative on the Regional Transport Board.  He stated that this project was at the top of KCC’s agenda and that he was disappointed that representatives from the Highways Agency had not come along to answer questions as it was a Highways Agency Scheme.

(4)       Mr Ferrin explained that the Department of Transport had commissioned the Nicholls Report to recommend changes in procedures and this had the potential of delaying highway schemes in Kent due to the need to re-estimate some of the Highway Agency schemes which had reached a key stage of their delivery. This included the A21 and East Kent Access Schemes.  The re-assessment of these schemes had led to considerable cost increases, and it was difficult to see how this could be met from the fixed budget allocated.  He stated that the delay of these schemes could have an impact on the building of the Pembury Hospital. This scheme was badly needed and every effort needed to be made to press for it and to urge the Government to make adequate funding available.  Mr Ferrin confirmed that the cost difference meant that it would not be possible for KCC to contribute the additional amount required for this scheme, responsibility for which, as a Highways Agency scheme, lay with the Government.

Cost of Scheme

(5)       In response to a question from Mr Bullock, Mr Harrison-Mee said that it was not possible to compel the Highways Agency to provide a break down of the increased costs but he could ask them for this.  It would be possible for officers to do a comparison of costs, but this would also have a cost element to it.  Mr Ferrin questioned the value of KCC doing its own breakdown of costs as it was a Highway Agency scheme.

(6)       In response to questions from Members, Mr Harrison-Mee confirmed that the only thing that had changed in relation to the scheme was the funding and that, therefore, it was important to press the Highways Agency for a start date.

Funding

(7)       In response to a question from Dr Eddy, Mr Ferrin said that the key issue was whether the Government would be willing to put forward the extra money. He was concerned that, if they did and they insisted that the budget stayed as it was, the Regional Transport Board would be compelled to take one of the schemes out.

(8)       In response to a suggestion from a Member that a percentage could be raised on every Section 106 agreement in Kent to fund  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Kent Adult Social Services, and Mr O Mills, Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services Directorate, will attend the meeting from 12.15 pm to 1.00 pm to answer Members’ questions on this item.  Some service-users may also attend to give evidence.

(1)       Mr K G Lynes, Cabinet Member for Kent Adult Social Services, Mr O Mills, Managing Director, Kent Adult Social Services Directorate, Mrs M Howard, Director of Commissioning and Provision, West Kent (KASS), Mr C Holden, Project Manager (KASS), Ms B Henry, Modernisation Manager (KASS), and Mrs S Mallion and Mr P Wright, Service Users of Queen Elizabeth Resource Centre attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       The Chairman welcome Mrs Mallion and Mr Wright, service users of the Queen Elizabeth Resource Centre, to the meeting, and invited them to address the Committee and to answer questions from Members.

(3)       Mrs Mallion explained that the Queen Elizabeth Resource Centre had activity-based day services which included a gym, a computer room and woodwork room and that through the Centre, trips were arranged and support given on a “buddy” basis to users.  The Centre was open five days a week and people tended to access it for a maximum of three days per week.  The services were based around the individual and their needs.  Mrs Mallion stated that a lot of people who used the service had acquired their disability and therefore had changing needs.  She stated that there was a great fear of isolation amongst users.

(4)       Mr Wright stated that one of the big strengths of the Centre was that it gave people the opportunity to help each other and to gain information and support.  They would also access outside services and used a “buddy” system.  This was a valuable service, which was led by the Members of the Centre.  He gave the example of a new member who wanted to try sub-aqua.  The Centre members looked into whether this could be provided including its cost-effectiveness and managed to arrange for seven members to try sub aqua in a pool environment.  He emphasised the important role that the Centre played in providing a place for people to meet and provide support and facilities.  If people were based at home, it would be difficult to come together.  One of the important strengths of the Centre was its ability to help people build up their confidence levels.  The members of the Centre wanted people to look at what they could do, not what they could not do. 

(5)       Mr Wright stated that he and other users had been encouraged to go out into the community and see what was actually available.  He had tried to go to a computer café and initially he could not gain access, and, of the users that could gain access, some could not get near the table.  There was also no assistance available to help them with co-ordination.  Users had also been to local gyms and sports centres but had found these also difficult to access by people in a wheelchair.  He mentioned a refurbishment of a bowling alley which used to be used by service users.  When it had been refurbished there was no access for wheelchair users without assistance.  One of the issues that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following business of the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

RESOLVED that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 or Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Mr M C Dance, Cabinet Member for Operations, Resources and Skills (CFE); Mr G Badman, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education Directorate; and Mr M Austerberry, Director of Property, Chief Executive’s Directorate, will attend the meeting from 1.00 pm to 1.30 pm to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(Decision 08/01144) (This is an unrestricted minute of a matter which was exempt)

(Mr Simmonds declared a prejudicial interest in accordance with paragraph 11(2) of the Code of Member Conduct adopted on 21 June 2007 he remained in the meeting but took no part in the debate or decision.)

(1)       Mr M C Dance, Cabinet Member for Operations, Resources and Skills (CFE), Dr I Craig, Director, Operations (CFE), Mr G Ward, Director, Resources (CFE) and Mr P Binnie, Head of Operations attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       The Cabinet Member and Officers answered questions from Cabinet Scrutiny Committee Members in relation to this item.

            (3)       Mr Dance agreed to supply a copy of the summary of     costs for the New Build KCC Children’s Centres sites.

(4)       RESOLVED that:

(a)       Mr Dance, Mr Craig, Mr Ward and Mr Binnie be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Members questions.; and

(b)       In light of the information provided at the meeting in response to questions, the Committee agreed that they did not need to make any formal comments to Cabinet.