Agenda item

(1)       Mr Simmonds, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement, Mr Whittle, Head of Policy and Strategic Relationships and Mr Hallett, Head of Business Intelligence introduced the report which: presented information about the range of reforms taking place; gave an analysis of the scale and scope of those changes; considered the potential impacts for Kent; and suggested responses to mitigate the impacts and manage risk.  A framework to monitor and assess impacts, including population shifts into Kent, had been developed and was included in the report.

(2)       Mr Whittle drew the Committee’s attention to section 2 of the research report which set out the main welfare reform measures and the timetable for their introduction and to section 5 which set out the potential cumulative impact of the changes.  

(3)       Mr Hallett said that it was important to establish a baseline for migration into Kent in order to distinguish between these “normal” migration patterns (the baseline) and future migration patterns which might change as a result of the impact of benefit changes.  He said there was initial indication of an increase, but not just from London as was originally expected.  Initial findings showed that an equivalent number of people were coming from other parts of the UK as were coming from London and there was a need to establish the reasons for this and check that these findings were correct   He also said it was difficult to differentiate between moves made as a result of benefit changes and those caused by the general economic situation.  He further said that Business Intelligence would produce a research report, twice a year, drawing together a range of evidence to address questions such as; whether there was increased in-migration; what the impacts on people in Kent were; whether there was more demand for KCC and district council services; and the impact on places.

(4)       Ms Carey said she was pleased to note the reference to economic development and regeneration, as employment was particularly important in lifting people out of poverty, and people should not be trapped in a benefits system.  She said the report was a “worst case scenario” and she drew attention to the benefits of people moving to Kent to live while continuing to work in London, the benefits of good rail links and the support being offered by at least one council in London to those who needed to move out of London.

(5)       In response to a question about the impact of paying benefits monthly rather than weekly or fortnightly, Mr Whittle said that this was still being tested in a few areas by the DWP, it was down to local delivery partnerships to co-ordinate advice in response to universal credit and KCC was hosting a website to enable individuals understand the impact of universal credit and to demonstrate that in most cases people would be better off working. 

(6)       Concerns were raised about the projection that both relative and absolute poverty would increase for children and working age people and it was confirmed that the government had not made any additional resources available to local authorities to support the transition and the money to be made available under the Local Support Services Framework had not yet been determined. 

(7)       RESOLVED:

(a)       That the evidence, potential impacts and implications presented in the report be noted;

(b)       That the research questions in the framework to monitor and assess impacts addressed KCC’s information needs.