Agenda and minutes

1.           Mr Vye introduced his Select Committee Proposal on the Kent Support

 & Assistance Service (KSAS).    He explained that the main points to be addressed were identifying appropriate priorities for continuing the support in light of funding cuts, that the risk register should cross-reference the growing numbers of people dropping below the poverty threshold with associated risks such as health and wellbeing implications.

2.           A Select Committee would be able to establish a baseline of evidence

for use in future needs assessments and assist in identifying the best uses of available resources.

3.           Mr Gibbens responded as the relevant Cabinet Member, stating that he

supported the idea of finding a way to continue KSAS’ work but that it would be premature to set up a Select Committee at this time as the future of KSAS is uncertain and the Adult Social Care and Health Cabinet Committee would be considering alternative plans that were currently being developed to remodel this welfare assistance.

4.         Responding to questions, Mr Gibbens stated that a future Select

Committee to assess the success of the processes adopted to meet the demand after KSAS funding expires would be beneficial. 

Select Committee Proposal – Property Management

5.           Mr Wedgbury introduced his Select Committee proposal on Property

Management, suggesting that KCC should conduct a significant review into whether all KCC properties were still fit for purpose, not too expensive to maintain and represented good use of KCC assets.  He explained that carrying out such a detailed review would offer opportunities to identify potential savings, income generation and demonstrate to the public that KCC placed people before buildings.

6.           Mr Cooke responded as the relevant Cabinet Member, stating that the

proposal was sound but the timing was not appropriate.  He explained that KCC had just adopted a new corporate landlord programme and that numerous other reviews were already taking place around KCC property assets.  He commented that such reviews and oversight into property management were an ongoing process in order to ensure that KCC got best value from its assets.  Although he fully supported the goals of the proposal, he advised that these would be better achieved through the ongoing processes already in place.

Select Committee Proposal – Biodiversity

7.           Mr Whybrow introduced his Select Committee proposal on biodiversity,

which had been prompted by approaches from concerned residents who wish to see the excellent natural environments in Kent preserved. He explained that biodiversity captured the variety of life present in Kent and that Kent has excellent habitats that were now threatened by increasing development.  This has caused wildlife to disappear as their natural environment altered.  He explained that his initial work in this area revealed that KCC did not have a biodiversity strategy and that this meant there was too little consideration given to how biodiversity impacts on a whole range of other issues in which KCC already has a stake.

8.            Mr Whybrow hoped that a Select Committee would improve awareness

of the issues and promote better use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

1.         Mr Gibbens, as Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, presented a

verbal update in relation the inclusion of Social Care demand management on the corporate risk register.

·         Mr Gibbens outlined the main points as follows;

·         that the Care Act was adding obligations and would require more work with the consequent resource implications, the process on self-funders is not fully scoped meaning that the impact could not yet be predicted.  Mr Gibbens commented that at present, too much was changing in relation to the future of Social Care and that this was inherently high risk.

·         deprivation of Liberty assessments had been altered which had an impact on resources and processes. 

·         The high profile issues of child safeguarding which had   resulted in additional work and resource being required to confirm that Kent’s approach was fit for purpose and not exposed to unacceptable risk. 

·         the increasing pressure from people with learning disabilities   and their transition from supported young people to support adults.  Further work was being undertaken to make independent living a more viable option for people with learning disabilities but this had to be balanced with the need to ensure that service users received appropriate support. 

Mr Gibbens noted that all these factors were impacting on Kent and other counties.

·         Mr Ireland, Corporate Director for Social Care, gave an update on risk in his directorate.  He acknowledged that Children’s Social Care would always be a high risk issue as the consequences of failure were so significant.   In terms of Kent more specifically, Mr Ireland explained that the Service for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (SUASC) presented a particular set of challenges regarding child protection given the language and cultural issues and the resource intensive support work required to manage the service.  Additionally, the large size of Kent presented its own issues; disparate groups of young people requiring support in considerable numbers but spread across a large geographic area.  A more detailed strategy to ensure prioritising those with the greatest need was required to make the service more effective and this could not be achieved until better data and performance management was made available.

2.         Members made comments and asked questions regarding the wider

approach to Social Care in Kent.  The points raised included the growing costs of providing social care which were expected to continue growing year on year due to increased life expectancy and long term disability support systems.  Continued Asylum work added to the workload and was not expected to reduce given international events. 

3.         Mr Gibbens commented that he looked forward to Newton Europe,

acting as consultants, presenting their findings on updating the social worker system. 

4.          Mr Ireland referred to ongoing work to challenge Central

Government’s approach to allowing other Authorities to continue placing children in care within Kent without adequate support being arranged.

RESOLVED that the Committee thank Mr Gibbens and his officers for providing the verbal update and advises that they may be invited to return in the future with an update.

1.         The Committee considered a report which suggested ways to facilitate

the work of the Committee.

2.         In response to a question from a Member it was confirmed that any

Member had a statutory right to place an item on the agenda for the Scrutiny Committee on matters which affect the authority’s area or the inhabitants of the area.  It was acknowledged that every attempt should be made to avoid duplicating the work of the Cabinet Committees.

RESOLVED that:

(a) agenda setting meetings be held to at least 3 weeks before the Committee meeting

(b) KPIs, Budget Monitoring Information, the Corporate Risk Register and a list of KCC consultations be circulated to members of the Committee on a regular basis and at each agenda setting meeting consideration be given to whether any issues arising from these should be added to the agenda for the next or a future meeting

(c) the draft work programme as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be agreed, with items subject to final approval at the agenda setting meeting.

1.    The Chairman informed the Committee that he had agreed to take

consideration of this item as a matter of urgency due to the need to minimise the chance that the investment opportunity will be lost.

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 of part 1 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 grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The report of the external auditors requested at the meeting on 5 December will be available prior to the meeting.  Copies of the published open and exempt report circulated with the papers for the meeting on 5 December 2014 are attached for Members information.

1.         The Chairman welcomed Mark Dance as Economic Development

Cabinet Member, his officer team of Barbara Cooper, David Smith and Jacqui Ward as well as external auditors Martin Ellender and Paul Hughes from Grant Thornton.  He stated the he intended to invite Mrs Dean as one of the members who had submitted the call-in to introduce this matter and then to allow Mr Bird and Mr Whybrow to ask brief questions before opening up the questioning to the Members of the Committee.

2.         Mr Ellender from the external auditors, Mr Dance and Ms Ward briefly

presented their reports. Questions from Mr Bird, Mr Whybrow and members of the Committee relating to the decision making process used by the Cabinet Member,  the Regional Growth Fund terms of reference and confirmation that the investment decision had been taken within the appropriate guidelines, were answered by the guests.

RESOLVED that the Committee does not require that the decision be reconsidered and recommends that in future the Regional Growth Fund processes include sufficient and auditable due diligence in line with the audit report and comments from the Committee.