Agenda item

Provisional item depending on the discussion at the Cabinet meeting.

Mr Paul Carter, Leader of the Council and Ms Katherine Kerswell, Group Managing Director have been invited to attend the meeting between 2.45pm and 3.15pm 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 and Ms D Exall, Head Of Strategic Policy, were present for this item.

(1) The Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that a decision to call in a particular item could be made to celebrate good progress, not just when something might have gone wrong. She added that page 22 of the report mentioned that local media would be very interested and possibly very critical, and so this is why she had decided to invite Paul Francis, of the Kent Messenger Group to this meeting as a witness.

(2) In response to concerns that invited witnesses from the media could appear at all public meetings and ask questions of witnesses and Members, Mr Sass clarified that the Constitution does allow the Committee to invite witnesses, but suggested that he and the Chairman and Committee Spokespersons meet to discuss a protocol for witnesses. Mr Christie and Mr Manning acknowledged the need for a protocol.

(3) Ms Kerswell introduced the report as part of a ‘journey’, and emphasised the Programme was a learning process for the organisation; a cultural as well as a technical challenge. Ms Kerswell expressed a desire to be ahead of the Government and the recommendations in the report would ensure this. The programme will begin with the Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate and will form part of the learning process.

(4) Early conversations with Cabinet Members had shown there is strong support in taking the next step. There was acknowledgement that the data would need to be put into context to help the public understand what the Council does with their money and to help them be more aware and informed citizens.

(5) The report was welcomed but some risks were underlined: If the Council does not deliver information promptly it may face criticism that it is hiding something; the number of transactions that would be questioned through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests was difficult to predict; and what were the workload implications for staff?

(6) The fact there would be risks was acknowledged, such as the danger of publishing personal information, or losing the confidence of the public, but it was felt that the media could help the Council and public understand the cultural change that would be required. There was also an acknowledgement that it would be important to get things right first time so extra staff were not required to correct mistakes; all transactions would need to go through Oracle so they could be tracked. There was no evidence of an increase in FOI requests in other councils which had already delivered similar programmes, and publishing information may actually avoid having to constantly respond to requests; Mr Francis suggested that this would be a channel for the media and public to clarify data, but that if the data was already accessible the Council would be able to signpost people to it instead.

(7) In response to a query from a Member whether the next Council Tax Leaflet could be presented as money spent per household on each service to be more meaningful, it was explained that the communications team had devised something that showed what services one could buy with £200,000 (the average cost of a house in Kent). This would feature in the next edition of Around Kent, which would inform the public of challenges facing Kent in the upcoming Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

(8) A Member questioned whether there should be parity between Members and officers in relation to publishing salaries, because of their different status. The differences were acknowledged, but the public nature of a senior officer’s job meant it was in the public interest to be transparent and that the public should be able to see how these senior officers were serving them. There was a feeling that the world was changing in this regard, and that the change should be embraced.

(9) Responding to a query about the ‘bubble diagrams’ mentioned in the report, Ms Kerswell made reference to a similar depiction published in the Guardian showing a breakdown of Government spending. The intention was to do something similar, by Directorate, to show different elements of spending and this had the potential to reduce FOI requests, as the public would be able to see what elements of expenditure related to. A request was made for a copy of the bubble diagram to made available to Members; it was noted that this would be appearing on the website shortly and an email would be sent to all Members alerting them when this had been done.

(10) In response to concerns about the publication of data as Excel spreadsheets and how accessible this format would be, it was explained that it would be consistent with the spirit of the Transparency Programme to ensure the data could be easily manipulated and analysed, and publishing in both Excel and pdf formats was a sensible starting point.

(11) A concern was expressed that transparency might drive decision-making underground, whereas the whole culture of the organisation should be transparent. Referring to the fact there could always be exempt items on the agenda at meetings; the suggestion was made that Members should be more challenging of exempt items. There was also a concern that Informal Member Groups (IMGs) could proliferate and there was the potential for Select Committees to be set up instead, which were held in public. It was acknowledged that sometimes private discussions needed to take place, but these should not pre-empt decisions. Mr Gough mentioned that he was happy to look into the subject of exempt items, which were in fact mentioned in the report, and did not rule out looking at IMGs. The timetable for consultations meant that they cannot always be brought to public meetings but ultimately the Council’s response would be published.

(12) A Member pointed out the potential for the Council to pay multiple invoices under £500 to avoid publication, to which Ms Kerswell replied that, rather than ‘gaming’, officers and Members as public servants should be transparent about how public money is being spent.

(13) It was queried why officers and Members should explain why offers of hospitality have been declined; Ms Kerswell stated that this would demonstrate that proper judgement had been exercised and individuals were acting with principles.

(14) Regarding decisions not to publish data and whether there would be a mechanism for Members to challenge specific decisions around this, Ms Kerswell indicated that she would be happy to explore suggestions of how this could be scrutinised but would need to avoid a time lag to ensure the data published was timely and still relevant.

(15) A question was raised in relation to Open Kent querying how far down the road the Council was with development of the platform; whether a budget had been identified and if there was a risk that costs escalate; whether we were talking to our partners about sharing it; and whether there were plans to charge for accessing it. It was explained that Open Kent, previously known as ‘pic ‘n’ mix’ had already been developed with IBM and that what was involved was adding data sets, so there was no question of costs escalating. It was confirmed that access would be free, and it was emphasised that this was Government policy, and about engaging with the public and their ownership of the data. No decisions would be taken about costs until investigations about broadening the use of the platform, paying for licences, and taking forward the project with IBM had been completed. District Councils had already been approached as partners, as the desire was for the platform to be used across Kent.

(16) The Chairman was interested in the synergy between the report and the Member Information Group, and welcomed the support it received at the highest level and also asked that when the pattern of proposals emerges it be taken through Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees for Member input.

(17) In response to a request for clarification of paragraph 4.5 and the treatment of Commercial Services in the transparency programme it was confirmed that as an arms length organisation it would be treated like any other supplier

(18) Paul Francis stated that he welcomed the report and principles it outlined. Mr Francis suggested the public would want to know the value as well as cost of any services procured by the Council, and that when contracts go out to tender the other tender prices received should also be published.

(19) A Member expressed disappointment that although the report suggested the media would be interested and potentially critical of the programme, it did not suggest it should be undertaken with their cooperation, particularly as they had a critical role on behalf of the public. A question was posed to Mr Francis on how he thought the media would put questions and disseminate answers in relation to the data on behalf of the public, to which he replied that it would not be possible to say until it was published, but the Council might want to consider briefing local media in advance of publication of the data.

(20) Mr Francis made the point that the media would be asking questions about items of expenditure and he had already seen this happening in other Councils. There was a danger of misinterpreting data, and media would be asking pointed questions, so there was a role for the media in helping the Council be more transparent. In response to concerns that the media may put a certain angle on the data, Mr Francis suggested that the Council had the opportunity to be the source of the data, and it would therefore be more difficult to ‘spin’ the information and in fact this would be an incentive for the Council to be more transparent. Asked if he had any criticisms of the report, Mr Francis responded that he broadly supported it, but that expenditure was only one aspect of transparency, and that local authorities could look more widely at being more open.

(21) RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(22) Thank Mr Gough, Ms Kerswell, Ms Exall and Mr Francis for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions.

(23) Welcome the introduction of the Transparency Programme, as outlined in the report to Cabinet

(24) Ask the Cabinet to monitor the effectiveness of the various reporting mechanisms to ensure that they were cost-effective and delivering genuine value to KCC in terms of the objectives of the programme and that the Cabinet should receive regular monitoring reports; the first such report being in December 2010 and then six-monthly thereafter

(25) Ask that the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees should be involved in the monitoring process to ensure that they were given the opportunity to suggest improvements to the programme.

(26) Ask that Members be notified when the bubble diagrams were published on the website.

(27) Ask that ways of scrutinising decisions not to publish specific items of expenditure be explored.