(Mrs S Garton, County Performance and Evaluation Manager, Mr R
Hardy, Head of Improvement and
Engagement, Ms Carolyn McKenzie, Greener Kent Manager, Ms L
McMullan, Director of Finance, Ms T Oliver, Director of Strategic
Development and Public Access, Mrs Debbie Smith - Policy Officer
(Public Health) and Miss Pauline Smith - County Manager -
Supporting Independence Programme were present for this
item.)
(1)
Mrs Garton presented the report which set out the process for
finalising the second Towards 2010 Annual Report prior to approval
by County Council on 16 October 2008 and a draft of the report on
progress on the 13 targets which came within the remit of this
Committee. Each of the officers
responsible for these targets gave a brief overview and invited
comments from Members.
(2)
Members questions and comments included the following:-
- In response to a question Ms
McMullan stated that the there was not a hard government target for
KCC spend with Kent Based Small Medium Sized Enterprises
(SME’s), however the current figure for KCC was 65% of total
expenditure. The Government has quoted
a figure of 35% which KCC was exceeding.
- Ms McMullan gave Members some
feedback from the meeting that Mr Chard and Mr A King had had with
representatives of the Federation of Small Business and undertook
to supply a resume of this meeting to Members.
- Page 17 – 2nd
bullet point – 20% of Highways contracts outside of the
Alliance contracts, in response to a question on whether this was
related to the percentage of work for SME’s, Ms McMullan
stated that the intention was that this work should not simply be
provided by one supplier and that there was an opportunity for work
to go to smaller Kent based contractors.
- The Chairman of the Governance and
Audit Committee informed Members that a Trading Activities
Sub-Group had been established to ensure that KCC contracts were
transparent and that there was greater communication with the
private sector.
- In response to a question on funding
for film, Ms Oliver stated that SEEDA and the SWEDA were the only
development agencies which did not invest in film. This put Kent at a disadvantage when competing
against other areas of the UK to attract film companies to use Kent
as a location. Ms Oliver stated that
attracting of EU money usually required a project bid which was not
necessary appropriate for attracting film production
companies. She was however submitting
an Interreg bid.
- In response to a question on whether
her team were working with Borough/District Councils and other
local agencies that do good work on the ground to make sure that
KCC adds value, Ms P Smith explained that part of her role with the
Supporting Independence programme was to facilitate conversations
at a local level, it was essential that issues were owned locally,
and she was also able to take an independent Kent wider view and
see how this linked in at the local level.
- Target 18 – 1,000
apprenticeships offered by a Kent Apprenticeship scheme –
clarification was sought of whether these were in addition to the
apprenticeships already being offered by Kent
Companies. Ms P Smith confirmed that
the 1,000 were facilitated by the Kent Apprenticeship scheme and
were in addition to those already being offered by other
organisations.
- In response to a question Ms P Smith
confirmed that apprentices received a minimum of £80 a week,
and not the minimum wage. A large
number of apprentices on the Kent Apprentice Scheme achieved full
employment within 3 – 6 months.
- Ms P Smith confirmed the impact of
the economic climate on the Apprenticeship scheme was
monitored.
- In response to a question on how to
ensure that
working neighbourhood funding was paid to the relevant
District Council to use in their area rather that being use to
support current KCC services, Ms P Smith confirmed she would wish
to ensure that this money was used to make real sustainable change
in the area and would be working with employers on this.
- Target 19 – in response to a
question on whether the 78% of young people with the Kent Community
Project teams who had been supported into further education came
from across Kent, Ms P Smith confirmed that this was the case.
- Target 24 – Kent TV –
In response to a question on funding, Ms Oliver
confirmed it would be a Member decision on the ongoing funding for
Kent TV and highlighted the savings made through publications as a
result of Kent TV existing. The current
financial year has a target of £200k saving and this was on
course to be met. Income generation was
proving more difficult in the current financial climate but efforts
were being focused on larger corporate sponsors. The Kent TV Board of Governors decided not to
focus on smaller-scale advertising as local media companies were
concerned about the impact on their revenue generation.
- Ms Oliver clarified that the
reference to “customer profiling” on page 34 referred
to the means by which we were working with partners to try to
understand more about the customers who were using the Gateways in
order to provide the most effective services.
- Members requested the Webcast viewing figures for each Committee be
supplied.
- Target 41 – In response to a
request for examples of new builds, Ms McKenzie
referred to Turner Contemporary and the Kent Highways
Depot.
- Ms McKenzie clarified
that “very good” in relation to BREEAM standards was
not the highest standard as there was also excellent and
exceptional.
- Target 48 – In
response to a question from a Member, Mrs Garton explained that
“Healthy Eating” came under Target 51 which was
within
Children, Families and Education Policy Overview
Committee’s remit.
- The issue of retailer
re-sizing children’s clothes (i.e. making them larger within
the same age range), which re-enforced the trend towards childhood
obesity was mentioned.
- Target 48 – the
importance of ensuring that any funding for physical exercise
initiatives focused on sustainability and that it supported
activities that people wanted to undertake was
emphasised.
(3) RESOLVED that the
report and the comments made by Members on the targets be
noted.