Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2011 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2011 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Mr J Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services. was present for this item.

(1) Mr Christie made the point that, taking into account the volume and timing of the information provided in respect of the Older Person’s Modernisation recommendations, it was difficult to do the papers justice. The Chairman explained that she was reluctant to defer discussing the follow-up items, but would return to the Older Person’s Modernisation recommendations at the next meeting of the Committee.

(2) Regarding the recommendation relating to gulley emptying schedules, the Chairman explained that this would remain outstanding until a report was provided by Mr Burr in the autumn. Mr Kit Smith added that the public should be made aware of the good work the Council was doing around this issue, including being reported through Joint Transportation Boards (JTBs).

(3) On the Kent Design Guide, the Chairman referred Members to the update provided by Environment, Highways and Waste in the follow-up items report. In light of the announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that maximum parking standards would be delegated to local planning authorities and the fact that the Kent Planning Officers’ Group (KPOG) was happy with the Guide, Mr Burr had asked that the Council leave the Guide as it stood.

(4) There was a discussion about whether the previous representations made about the Guide had hindered KCC’s relationship with district councils and developers. Mr Burr explained that the time taken to revisit the guide had not helped this relationship, and that the district councils, via KPOG, had asked the Council to leave the Guide as it stood. The Chairman felt that the Kent Design Guide had been pursued by the Committee as far as was possible, and that given the statement by the Secretary of State about planning decisions being taken at a district level, it should be removed from the list of outstanding recommendations.

(5) On the Review of SEN Units, the Chairman expressed disappointment that the report that would be taken to the Children, Families and Education Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and to Cabinet on 18 July 2011, could not be made available sooner, since schools were awaiting guidance on handling the SEN issue. On the Inspection of Safeguarding and Looked After Children Services, the Chairman explained that the Committee were awaiting a copy of the improvement plan in order that it could scrutinise it.

(6) In respect of recommendation 9 of the Older Persons Modernisation item, Mr Sass explained that he had attended a meeting with Mr Wild together with one of his senior solicitors and KASS officers, and that Mr Wild would give his opinion on the validity of the consultation in due course.

(7) There was discussion about Member involvement, in respect of recommendation 11 of Older Persons Modernisation. Mr Christie made the point that the closure of The Limes in Dartford, whilst not in his division, had a knock-on effect on a home that was, and therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 27 January 2011.

The attached Cabinet Scrutiny Protocol has been drafted with input from the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee. Members are asked to note and approve the Protocol.

(1) There was a discussion about the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee protocol, which had been drafted with input from the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Committee. The concept of a protocol was welcomed by Members, and a range of views were expressed about its content, particularly around the participation of witnesses. These views included:

• A reference to ‘the other two political parties’ should be replaced with ‘the other political parties’, or other suitable wording which accounts for the fact that the Council has an independent Member.
• Whether or not the amount of time witnesses would be allowed to speak should be limited
• That the distinction between internal witnesses (i.e. officers and Cabinet Members) and external witnesses should be clarified in the wording
• That the Committee should be flexible in its approach to witnesses, depending on the issues being debated, but the Chairman should ensure control of the meeting
• A concern whether witnesses should be able to question other witnesses, and whether such questioning has the potential to marginalise members of the Committee
• That the Committee, rather than finding ways of excluding the public from debates, should be seeking more public participation, and that anybody should be able to raise questions

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee Protocol be re-drafted in light of the points raised and be brought to the next meeting for approval.

Members are asked to bring their copy of the Draft Budget Book with them to the meeting

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Mr J Simmonds, Cabinet Member, Finance and Procurement, and Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance, have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.30am and 11.15am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr J Simmonds, Cabinet Member, Finance and Procurement, Miss S Carey, Deputy Cabinet Member, Finance and Procurement, Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance, Mr D Shipton, Finance Strategy Manager and Mr K Abbott, Director, Resources and Planning, were present for this item.

(1) Referring to the Cabinet report of 2 February, Mr Wood gave Members an update on changes to the Budget Book and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) since the draft was considered by the Committee on 24 January.

(2) A key change included an additional £1.3m in the council tax base, due an increase of 0.74% on 2010/11 levels, which was higher than the 0.5% increase originally estimated in the draft. This additional sum had been used to:

• Fund an additional £1m for children’s social services, due to demand-led pressures

• Put an extra £100k into the highways maintenance budget, to mitigate the loss of the Area Based Grant (ABG) from the Department of Transport

• Fund the £70k relating to District Councils’ share of the increased tax yield relating to the reduction in the discount on second homes

• The remaining balance had been set aside to fund prudential borrowing on the Rushenden relief road

(3) An additional £2m which had arisen from the surplus on collection funds had been added to the £1.5m contingency that was held in the Finance portfolio for the Children’s Social Care Improvement Plan. The contingent sum had not been allocated to the Children, Families and Education (CFE) portfolio as officers had not yet seen the cost of the Improvement Plan.

(4) There were a number of questions about how decisions on the use of the additional £1.3m from council tax had been made, including:

• whether Cabinet Members or Directors had been able to make representations for additional support
• since the sum corresponded to the demand-led pressures in children’s social services, what would have been done if the money had not been made available
• whether a 1% pay increase for staff earning less than £21,000 per annum had been considered, since this would cost approximately £1m

(5) Mr Simmonds explained that Budget setting had been a thorough process, with Members kept informed of where savings were to be made. He felt there was a need for communication and consultation with organisations such as those in the voluntary sector, and to work together to achieve the savings, but there was also a need to be resolute in order to balance the books. Later in the discussion, a Member expressed the view that some voluntary organisations could be more efficient, but that the Council needed to support them to achieve this.

(6) On the additional pressure in children’s social services, Mr Wood explained that the pressure was not known when the Budget was originally drafted, and had the additional £1.3m not been made available, there would need to be a plan to reduce the numbers in foster care or another £1m of savings would need to be found since the Council was committed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Mr J Simmonds, Cabinet Member, Finance and Procurement, Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member, Business Strategy and Support, Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance and Mr G Wild, Director of Governance and Law have been invited to attend the meeting from 11.15am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr K Pugh, Deputy Cabinet Member, Business Strategy and Support, Mr J Simmonds, Cabinet Member, Finance and Procurement, Miss S Carey, Deputy Cabinet Member, Finance and Procurement and Mr A Wood, Acting Director of Finance, were present for this item.

(1) Mr Simmonds explained that the protocol was prompted by the increasing number of KCC companies. He felt that the appendix which set out some detail of existing KCC companies could be more up to date, and the protocol was still in the early stages of development. Mr Simmonds explained that expert advice had been sought about the tax implications for the Council, and how the companies should be structured. Mr Wood explained that KCC-owned companies might have a good business case, but this might not be in the interest of the Council as a whole, and this was another reason for the development of the protocol.

(2) Mr Simmonds explained that, since the protocol was at the early stages of development, taking it through the Governance and Audit Committee would enable it to be further refined, and it would then be taken back to Cabinet. Mr Long, as Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee, suggested that detailed discussion on the protocol could take place at the Trading Activities sub-group of Governance and Audit before it was brought to the full committee.

(3) The Chairman felt that it was not clear who was responsible for appointing a director, since there were references to directors being appointed by the Council, the Cabinet or a Cabinet Member. Mr Wood undertook to feed back this observation during the development of the protocol. In response to a question about what checks were carried out before directors of KCC companies were appointed, Mr Wood confirmed that some checks were carried out, but would find out more information.

(4) Referring to paragraph 4(e) of the protocol, the Chairman inquired why, given the fact that no Member or officer of the Council currently received income from a company, the protocol introduced that possibility. Mr Wood explained that there was not an intention to make any payments, but the paragraph would allow this to be done in specific circumstances. He stated he would be happy to remove this paragraph if required.

(5) Mr Manning inquired about the need for the protocol, what the aspirations for setting up separate companies were, and how the protocol related to how commercial companies operated in practice. Mr Simmonds explained that the protocol was designed to establish how the Council conducted itself in the corporate market, but some companies would involve other partners, and not all companies would be operating solely with a profit motive. There was also a need for the protocol where Directorates may have set up companies for a valid purpose, but these had financial implications, particularly in relation to tax, because they had not been considered corporately.

(6) Mr Pugh referred Members to a KCC document had been in existence since 2006 which incorporated the Companies Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.