Agenda and minutes

(1) The Chairman advised the Committee that, in addition to being webcast, some of the meeting would be filmed by local media.

Members are asked to note that Mr Gordon Cowan has replaced Mr Leslie Christie and has now become the Labour Spokesperson on the Committee.

(1) The Chairman advised the Committee that Mr Gordon Cowan, having been elected to the position of Leader of the Labour Group, had replaced Mr Leslie Christie as the Labour Spokesperson on the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman welcomed Mr Cowan on behalf of the Committee and paid tribute to the work carried out by Mr Christie while he was Labour Spokesperson.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2011 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Matters arising:

(1) Referring to agenda item 7 of the minutes, the Chairman informed Members that the outstanding recommendations relating to the Budget would be pursued at the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues.

(2) The Chairman asked that the outstanding actions from item 7 (paragraphs 18 and 23) and item 8 (paragraphs 4 and 14) be pursued.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2011 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Matters arising:

(1) The Chairman inquired whether anything had been done to improve sound quality of the equipment used for amplification at the meeting in Edenbridge. Mr Sass explained that the venue, rather than the equipment used, was the principal reason for the poor quality of sound on the day.

(2) Mr Manning expressed a view that district council offices should be used for meetings taking place away from County Hall; The Chairman explained that a number of venues had been explored for the Edenbridge meeting, and that the sports hall was the most suitable venue available on that day.

Bold Steps for Kent – the Medium Term Plan to 2014

(1) The Chairman explained that a response had been received to Recommendation 5 in the form of a report written in respect of the relevant Towards 2010 target. It was not yet possible to see the effect on Small and Medium sized Enterprises, particularly as there had been a reduction in the number of local contractors accessing KCC contracts because the overall number of contractors had also reduced. It was agreed that the issue would be passed to the Regeneration and Economic Development Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee (REDPOSC) for follow-up.

Older Person’s Modernisation

(2) The Chairman reminded Members that the papers provided in response to the recommendations were not considered at the 9 February meeting due to the fact that they were provided sufficiently in advance of the meeting. Regarding recommendation 11, the Chairman welcomed the high-level commitment to Member involvement from the Group Managing Director and asked that the Committee Report Format be circulated.

(3) Referring to the consultation process, the Chairman stated that there had been a complaint from Hawkhurst Parish Council that they had not been formally consulted. She had been informed by the lead officer that individual Parish Councillors had been written to or invited to meetings, but the Parish Council had not been consulted formally via the Parish Clerk. The officer had apologised to the Parish Council, and the consultation protocol had been amended as a result.

Edenbridge Community Centre

(4) The point was made that the report provided by the Cabinet Member in response to the recommendations dealt with the closure of the school, yet local people appeared to be more concerned with the move of the library and the opening of the community centre.

(5) Recommendations 6 – 11 related to consulting with or contacting local businesses and it was agreed that these outstanding recommendations be dealt with by the Customer and Communities POSC.

(6) Having made reference to Recommendation 2, the Chairman initiated a discussion about the attendance of Cabinet Members at Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, and invited Mr Sass to inform Members of the relevant legislation. Mr Sass quoted from subsections 13 and 14 of section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000, which state that an overview and scrutiny committee may require members of the executive to attend before it to answer questions, and that it is the duty of those members to comply with this requirement.

(7) A number of comments and views were expressed during the discussion, including that:

• the Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member had been unable to attend the Edenbridge meeting despite many dates being offered
• members of the Executive could frustrate the Committee by not making themselves available for meetings (but it was not being suggested that the Cabinet Member, Customer and Communities had done so on this occasion).
• the circumstances surrounding the Edenbridge meeting made it difficult for the Cabinet Member to attend (i.e. the fact that the meeting was held outside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 1 April 2011.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee approve the notes of the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 19 May 2011.

Mrs J Whittle, Cabinet Member, Specialist Children’s Services, Mr M Newsam, Interim Corporate Director, Families and Social Care and Ms A Beer, Corporate Director of Human Resources have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.30am and 11.45am to answer Members’ questions on this item.

Mr P Gilroy, the former Chief Executive of Kent County Council, Mrs S Hohler and Mr C Wells, the former Cabinet Members for Children, Families and Education and a representative from Ofsted have also been invited to attend the meeting to answer Members’ questions.

Mrs J Whittle, Cabinet Member, Specialist Children’s Services, Mr C Wells, former Cabinet Member, Children, Families and Education,  Mr M Newsam, Interim Corporate Director, Families and Social Care and Ms A Beer, Corporate Director of Human Resources were present for this item.

(1) There was a discussion about the nature of the call-in, with some Members questioning why it had been brought before the Committee, in view of the fact that Members had had an opportunity to debate it at full council and that the ultimate sanction of the Committee was to refer to full council in any case. Mr Sass reiterated the constitutional position, which was that the Committee had called in the Cabinet’s decision to note the Improvement Plan and that the scope of the debate was limited to that.

(2) The Chairman expressed a view that Members should raise their concerns about call-ins in advance of the actual meeting. She went on to express some of her reasons for the call-in, including:

• that there had been no discussion about costs and sustainability of the Improvement Plan
• to explore the outstanding issues raised at the December 2010 meeting of the Committee

(3) The Chairman explained that at the December 2010 meeting, the Committee was informed that the Improvement Plan would be shared, and it would take 6-7 weeks for it to be drafted. The Improvement Plan was made available on 7 April, and having exercised a call-in, the Committee was advised that it could not be discussed as it was in a completed form.

(4) Mr Newsam explained that he was not at KCC in December, but it was important that the Improvement Plan responded not only to the Ofsted recommendations but also their causes. He felt that the version from January would not have been of the required standard, and it was normal for the Local Authority (LA) to draft the Improvement Plan before taking it to the Improvement Board and thence the Department for Education. Mr Newsam stated that if the Improvement Plan had gone to Cabinet, Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and then the Improvement Board it would been an expensive exercise, and that perhaps the Committee had received inappropriate advice back in December.

(5) In response to a question about whether the Improvement Plan could have gone to Cabinet for Members’ views, Mr Newsam explained that there was no set procedure, and that common sense and judgement had been applied. The Improvement Plan had been signed off by all the KCC partners and the External Board because all the stakeholders must endorse an Improvement Plan.

(6) The Chairman asked when Members would know who underperformed, whether they were replaced and who misrepresented the situation. She referred to the fact that the Leader had said there would be a ‘post mortem’ and the recommendation, endorsed by many Members at the December meeting, that a report be brought back to the Committee.

(7)  Mrs Whittle, who had been brought into the Cabinet to focus on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Mr M Hill, Cabinet Member, Customer and Communities, Ms A Slaven, Director of Service Improvement and Mr J Turner, Assistant Head of Youth Service have been invited to attend the meeting between 11.45am and 12.15pm to answer Members’ questions on a specific aspect of this item relating to the Youth Service.

Mr M Hill, Cabinet Member, Customer and Communities, Ms A Slaven, Director of Service Improvement, Mr J Turner, Assistant Head of Youth Service and Mr K Tilson, Head of Finance, Customer and Communities were present for this item.

(1) Mr Cowan, who had requested the call in, explained that his local youth centre raised funds that could then be reinvested, for example in subsidising day trips for young people from deprived areas who otherwise would not be able to go. There were youth centres across the county that were efficiently run and generated income for the benefit of the young people they served, and Mr Cowan questioned what incentive they would have to raise these additional funds if they would be taken away and put in a central reserve. He went onto explain that youth centres, including in his area, had been asked if money had been ear-marked for specific projects yet this had still been taken away, and therefore questioned the purpose of asking them.

(2) Mr Hill explained that the purpose of the exercise was primarily financial tidying up. During the previous twenty years the youth centres had maintained separate bank accounts, with money raised from letting out KCC buildings kept distinct from that raised through other charitable activities. It had since been pointed out by Finance that these separate KCC bank accounts were not permitted. Underspends would normally be rolled into a central reserve, but Mr Hill had negotiated with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Business Support and the Cabinet that the underspend be retained within the Youth Service.

(3) Responding to a question about whether this process had already occurred and whether there had been a formal decision on the Forward Plan, Mr Tilson stated that there had not been a formal decision. He explained that the youth centres had been rolling their underspends into reserves when they were part of Education, but that accounting legislation only permitted schools to roll forward any income generated during the year.

(4) The Chairman asked for clarification of why the decision to create a Youth Centre reserve had not been a Key Decision, since it was likely to affect a significant amount of people, and some youth centres served more than one electoral division. Mr Hill explained that the situation was an anomaly that had built up over a number of years, and when he discovered that it would be illegal to allow it to continue he had no choice but to take the decision. Mr Sass also advised Members that, in his opinion, it did not constitute a Key Decision.

(5) On the question of whether Local Members and young people were informed that the changes would be occurring, Mr Turner responded that this had not happened, mainly because there was no longer a management committee at every youth project but that it was the Council’s money, raised through the hiring of its premises. 

(6) Replying to an inquiry regarding the length of time that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

This item is provisional dependent on discussions that are due to take place between the Conservative Spokesperson, the Cabinet Member, Environment, Highways and Waste and the Director of Highways. The item will be withdrawn should the concerns of the Conservative Spokesperson be resolved in the course of those discussions.

Mr D Brazier, Deputy Cabinet Member, Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr M Austerberry, Corporate Director, Enterprise and Environment and Mr J Burr, Director of Highways have been invited to attend the meeting between 12.15pm and 12.45pm to answer Member’s questions on this item.

Mr Manning explained that he had met with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste and relevant officers to discuss this matter and that his various queries and questions had been responded to satisfactorily. Accordingly, this item was withdrawn from the agenda.