Agenda item

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director, and Mr D Whittle, Policy Manager, have been invited to attend the meeting between 10.25am and 11.10am to answer Members’ question on this item.

At the request of the Chairman and Spokesmen, Mr A Wood and Mr D Tonks have been asked to stay for consideration of this item, in relation to the risk aspects.

Mr P Carter, Leader of the Council, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director,

Mr D Whittle, Policy Manager, Mr D Shipton, Finance Strategy Manager, and Mr D Tonks, Head of Audit and Risk were present for this item.

(1) The Leader introduced Bold Steps for Kent, the Medium Term Plan, explaining that it was in keeping with the localism agenda and the control shift from central to local government and from local government to communities and local boards. County Councillors and District Councillors would work together more closely as part of the local boards, and pilots would be taking place in a number of districts before it was rolled out more widely.

(2) The Leader explained that the Medium Term Plan should be read in conjunction with the regeneration framework, ‘Unlocking Kent’s Potential’. The Council needed to embed the activity in the framework in its change and transformation over the next four years, and to build on successes in education, and look to the changing health agenda for opportunities for locality based commissioning and the joining up of health and social care. He welcomed the performance monitoring framework that would be based on implementation and outcomes.

(3) On the aspiration for new City Region powers and responsibilities to be made available to Kent, it was explained that there was a desire for this to be utilised by all tiers of local government in Kent. There was a desire for greater progress in the ‘control shift’ from central Government to the Council, and from KCC to a more local level, in line with localism agenda. This would include changes to governance and more delegation of functions held by Government departments.

(4) Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and opening up the market to greater competition including voluntary organisations and social enterprises were referred to in several places in the report. A concern was raised about the setting up of arms length organisations by KCC and their effect on local businesses and it was explained that such measures would not stifle open competition if provided intelligently and with sufficient scrutiny. Responding to a query about whether a greater number of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) were accessing KCC contracts, it was explained that good examples had been set in education and the tender for the pothole repair work, but greater progress could be made, with transparency and Member scrutiny of the tender process embedded across the organisation.

(5) There was a discussion about the funding of schools in the most deprived wards in Kent. The Leader explained that funding would need to be used sensibly to ensure that the needs of all schools, not just those in the most deprived areas, were met. On the Council’s commitment in the document to continue supporting the Kent Schools Games and whether this would be affected by the proposed withdrawal of School Sports Partnership funding by Government, the Leader confirmed that the money would be made available in the budget for them to continue.

(6) A concern was expressed about how the transfer of economic development functions to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) of Kent, East Sussex and Essex would be funded. The Leader made the point that Kent would need to make the case to Government about the atypical profile of the South East, with more people living in deprivation in Kent and East Sussex than in the North East, and that this should be reflected in any upcoming funding redistribution.

(7) Responding to a query on the funding of the major infrastructure projects referred to in Bold Steps for Kent, the Leader referred to Growth Without Gridlock, the recently launched integrated transport strategy. The strategy put the cost of the required infrastructure at over £1.7 billion, but additional annual revenue at over £615 million; Roughly 20% of this additional revenue would allow Kent to deliver its highways objectives over the next 20 years.

(8) In relation to the Kent Schools Association and whether different types of school, such as academies, would be able to do work together, the Leader stated that he believed there would be willingness for this to happen. The appropriate mechanisms would be put in place to allow schools to build on previous progress, including a district focus and Children’s Trust cooperation arrangements, while removing bureaucracy.

(9) A view was expressed that Members would have a role in developing the Big Society, particularly in terms of being a conduit between officers and the public in relation to the re-provision of services, and that Member grants would also play an important role in progressing the Big Society agenda and should be maintained within the budget if possible.

(10) A question was raised about the risk assessment in Change to Keep Succeeding, which Members had been encouraged to read in conjunction with Bold Steps for Kent, and the process involved in ensuring risk was accurately assessed. Mr Tonks explained that he had gone through the risk assessment with Mr Hawkins (Project Manager, Transformation) and that a few risks had been added and tweaked and these had been re-reported through the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committees (POSCs) and Cabinet.

(11) The Chairman expressed a view that the greatest risk associated with the restructure was the creation of a single Families, Health and Social Care Directorate which brought together the major risks to the Council of delivering care to children and vulnerable adults at the same time as absorbing Supporting People and the emerging Health agenda. Responding to a question about his role in assessing these risks, Mr Tonks explained that ownership of the risk register for the restructure sat with Ms Kerswell and Mr Hawkins, and he advised in a technical capacity. It was also explained that three risks related to Change to Keep Succeeding featured in the strategic risk register for the County Council, and these related to the financial framework, governance arrangements, and the timing of the restructure.

(12) Referring to the report and his earlier presentation, Mr Tonks explained that the risk cycle began with objectives set out by the organisation for the next four years, and these objectives would cascade into business plans and strategy documents. Bold Steps for Kent set out what the organisation wanted to achieve, and the next stage of the risk assessment process would involve Directorates identifying the risks associated with the delivery of these objectives.

(13) On promoting apprenticeships to SMEs, it was suggested that small companies needed advice and the confidence to grow, particularly in the current economic climate, and by offering advice and support to them, the Council could ensure that innovation was turned into employment and growth. It was also suggested that local businesses should be helped where possible through the Council’s procurement strategy. Mr Whittle referred Members to the section in Bold Steps for Kent on liberalising the market and the ‘Modernising Commissioning’ Green Paper, which addressed some of these issues, including how community interest companies and social enterprises could better compete for KCC contracts. Kent was in a position to build on its existing progress on apprenticeships, but that there was an issue around the national provision and advice services not dealing with businesses with less than 200 employees. Under the Sustainable Communities Act, Kent could make a case for transfer of these responsibilities where it thought it could better serve the people of Kent.

(14) On the level of responses, including that five out of twelve district councils had replied, Mr Whittle explained it had been difficult to balance the length of the consultation period and the time required to amend the document as a result of responses. However, the councils that had responded were very positive and engaged.

(15) Referring to the New Homes bonus that had been announced by Government, the Chairman enquired about how the grant would be divided between County and District Councils, and whether there was an expectation that the Council would pass on its share to town and parish councils. Mr Shipton explained that in the New Homes consultation, the government was suggesting an 80/20 split between District and County Councils respectively, with mechanisms for local negotiation to vary the proportions and also to pass down some of the grant to lower tiers of government.

(16) Responding to a concern that environmental issues were not featured strongly enough in the document, particularly in relation to car use and pollution, Mr Whittle explained that it was not possible to set out every issue and priority, but there was a clear strategy in relation to the environment in the form of the Kent Environment Strategy. Priorities and actions that arose from the documents in the regeneration framework would be built into the monitoring arrangements for Bold Steps for Kent.

(17) On the proposal that Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) might become locality boards the Chairman pointed out that they had different terms of reference and asked if they were being invited to make this change. Mr Whittle explained District Councils which gave strong consultation responses endorsed the locality board model, but there were ongoing discussions on how these were designed within each district and would depend on local appetite. On the possibility of commissioning through locality boards, it was explained that this would potentially go beyond what LSPs and locality boards currently do, but it was expected that appropriate legal advice would be sought on a case by case basis.

(18) Responding to a question about whether the breaking down of silos and the emphasis on one KCC brand would conflict with the Gateway model, Mr Whittle explained that there would need to be a balancing act between Gateways being a multi-agency route into accessing services as well as a central route to accessing KCC services. In relation to a query about how residents not involved in social enterprises or locality boards would interact with KCC, Mr Whittle hoped that a re-emphasis on meeting what the people of Kent want in relation to services rather was implicit in the document. Although it was accepted that Bold Steps for Kent should be read in conjunction with Change to Keep Succeeding, which covered this issue in greater depth, the Chairman expressed the view that the public would be less likely to read the restructuring document.

(19) A Member sought assurances that acronyms were spelled out in full to make the document more accessible to the public. In response to a request for a revised list of consultees, Mr Whittle explained that a more detailed analysis of the consultation responses would be going to County Council. Mr Manning asked what number of companies in Kent employed less than 250 people. Mr Whittle stated that he would find this out and Mr Shipton explained that approximately 97% of UK companies employed less than 200 people.

RESOLVED: that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(20) Thank Mr Carter, Ms Kerswell, Mr Whittle, Mr Tonks and Mr Shipton for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions

(21) Ask the Leader to explore how there can be greater Member involvement and scrutiny of the award of KCC contracts to ensure anti-competitive behaviour does not stifle the opportunity of small businesses in Kent

(22) Ask the Leader to ensure that specific and measurable targets and milestones are set against each of the objectives in the Medium Term Plan, and that an appropriate performance management framework is put in place that ensures robust reporting of the performance of the Organisation against those targets and milestones

(23) Ask the Leader to ensure that the reporting of risk is embedded into the next steps of the development of the Medium Term Plan.

(24) Ask the Leader that any data on the increase in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) accessing KCC contracts be made available

(25) Ask that the Leader provide a report on the number of companies in Kent that employ less than 250 people

(26) Ask the Leader that any acronyms within the document be spelled out in full to ensure that it is understandable to the public.

(27) Ask the Leader that ways of engaging members of the public in the Big Society who are not members of Local Strategic Partnerships or other similar bodies be addressed in the Medium Term Plan.

(28) Welcome the assurance that the Kent School Games would continue with KCC funding, following the recent announcement from the Coalition Government to withdraw funding for school sports activity.

(Post Meeting Note: Education Secretary, Michael Gove, announced that £112m would be available to provide continued funding for the School Sports Partnerships (SSPs)).