Minutes:
(1) The Leader updated the County Council on events since the previous meeting.
(2) Mr Carter referred to the outcome of inspection of the Member Development programme yesterday by South East Employers (SEE). He was delighted to be able to inform the meeting that KCC had retained the Member Development Charter Plus accreditation which was the highest level that could be awarded. SEE had noted particular strengths including a clear commitment to member development across all political parties in KCC, a sensible Member Development budget, strong feedback from partner organisations and that a significant number of Members had a Personal Development Plan. Mr Carter expressed his thanks to Mr Wickenden, Democratic Services Manager (Members) who had organised the evidence for the inspection and similarly Mr Bowles, as chairman of the Member Development Steering Group.
(3) Mr Carter referred to the mention that he had been made at the last County Council meeting of the massive work programme that was underway to deliver £100’s m worth of savings. Through the summer period, including August, he reported that rapid progress had been made and that we are now on time and in a good place. He referred to the work carried out by Newton Europe Ltd which had been shared with all political parties in relation to the Portfolio Transformation agenda. £10’s m of savings had already been delivered in the phases of work that they were undertaking. Procurement activities were now in full swing especially for back office services. He stated that it would soon be necessary to get fully engaged with the outcome of the private sector interest in delivering various programmes of work. He expressed the expectation that the private sector would deliver a great deal and stressed that all Members would be fully involved in the decision making.
(4) Another major piece of work, involving Andy Wood and John Simmonds, had been the framing of the Medium Term Budget which would be launched in early October for consultation with the endorsement of the Conservative group. He referred to the massive progress that was being made with efficiencies and savings and that front line services were being delivered and improved with a lot less money. He stated that it would not be the ‘slash and burn’ budget which opposition Members would like to see but it would sit well with residents in relation to change and improvements for front line services. He referred to the item, later in the meeting, which would illustrate how KCC was working in partnership to improve health and social care integration.
(5) He stated he looked forward, at the next meeting of the County Council, to receiving the interim recommendations from the Member’s Working Group on Commissioning that Mr Hotson was chairing.
(6) Mr Carter referred to the good work, involving all parties on the County Councils’ Network (CCN) to launch a document at party conferences to encourage further decentralisation to empower local government in England, whilst today Scotland votes on its future. He reported that the document put forward a good case to all parties to ask for significant trust and greater capacity to be given to county governance across the country. The County Council had already demonstrated that that it was able to deliver complex infrastructure and facilitated strong partners especially with NHS commissioners and providers.
(7) Mr Carter stated that county governance represented 40% of English local authorities and some 23 million people were residents of County Council areas. This put County Councils at the centre of public sector reform. The CCN document suggested “one area one budget” and provided the opportunity to look at the operational management of the total of public spending in Kent. He stated that localism was well intended but there was micro management by government departments and civil servants were creating unnecessary bureaucracy. An example of centralism with a Government Department taking control where the County Council had a record of successfully delivering was the priority schools building programme.
(8) Mr Carter mentioned the Local Enterprise Partnership which needed to be empowered to enable local government to work in partnership with business communities in their areas making good locality based decisions and developing locally based strategies.
(9) Mr Carter referred to the inequality of allocation for social care funding: County Councils received £496 per person for over 75’s in comparison to Metropolitan Boroughs (£978) and London Boroughs (£2,000). In relation to the revenue support grant, London Boroughs received £705 per head, Metropolitan Boroughs £475 per head and County Councils received £207 per head. He stated that there needed to be consideration given to re-calculating the way that public sector funding was distributed. Scotland received 20% more than the average for England per capita. He expressed the hope that the document when launched will have traction with all nation political parties and receive publicity.
(10) Mr Latchford, the Leader of the Opposition, responded by referring to the Scottish referendum. He stated that he was confident that without exception Members were saddened that a “Yes” vote could meant the possible breakup of United Kingdom. He referred to the government’s agreement to the referendum and to the way in which the main political parties had supported the “No” campaign. He stated that he truly hoped that we will remain a United Kingdom.
(11) Mr Latchford then referred to the Transformation Programme and stated that he fully supported the Leader’s statement regarding the success of the programme which was going to plan due to the hard work and dedication of the officers and those Members closely involved. He expressed his gratitude to the Leader for choosing to involve all Group Leaders from the outset. He felt that they have had a voice, which he acknowledged would not necessarily make a difference to the outcome, but appreciated the opportunity to have an input. He stated that all involved at all levels should be congratulated.
(12) Mr Latchford then referred to the Commissioning Working Group, set up under Mr Hotson’s chairmanship, where officers and Members had been working together closely as a team. They had received excellent presentations from officers and these meeting’ had been skilfully chaired by Mr Hotson. He stated that there was much to do and we must work together to identify savings necessary and accept the change.
(13) Mr Latchford mentioned Manston which was at a critical stage; he was pleased to note the positive situation that had been reached and hoped that a good decision would result.
(14) With regard to the Member Development Charter Plus, Mr Latchford expressed his thanks to Mr Wickenden and his team who been instrumental in assisting Members with this achievement. He stated that his Group had received enormous support from Mr Wickenden and his team since they were elected in May 2013.
(15) Mr Latchford expressed his disappointment at the Leader’s comment, in relation to the Medium Term Budget and opposition groups. He stated that he believed that all groups accepted that changes had to be made and his group supported those changes where they were necessary and were supportive where they considered these changes to be right.
(16) Mr Cowan, Leader of the Labour Group, referred to devolution for Scotland and expressed the view that Scotland and the Britain would be poorer if there was a “Yes” vote. He acknowledged the enormous contribution that Scotland had made to the United Kingdom and the benefit that Scotland had secured from togetherness.
(17) In relation to devolution of power from Westminster, Mr Cowan stated that whatever the outcome of the referendum, his group were are happy to join this debate. If Scotland voted “No” and the political leader’s fulfilled their promises then there would need to be a root and branch discussion about the rest of the UK including the devolution of powers from the centre and how that could be funded. He stated that the referendum had shown that people were too far removed from decisions that affected their lives and that there needed to be discussion around funding for the public sector.
(18) Regarding the Members Development Charter Plus, Mr Cowan expressed his thanks to Mr Wickenden and his team.
(19) Mr Cowan referred to the Leader’s comments on the Medium Term Budget and stated that all Members aimed to get the best savings for their communities. He referred to the report to Cabinet on 15 September 2014 and the reference to a possible overspend of £12.4m for 2014/15 and the plans to reduce the overspend to £5.5m through management action.
(20) Mr Cowan emphasised the importance of the first phase of the Transformation, which was due in May 2015, being a success.
(21) Mr Vye, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, began by stating that his Group supported the process of transformation which was proceeding at a pace. He noted that the pace was leaving, even, the Transformation Advisory Board gasping for breath. He emphasised that the Transformation was sorely needed.
(22) Mr Vye referred to the Newton Europe report on adult care and children services. This report showed that expenditure by Specialist Children’s Services per deprived child or young person under 18 was seven times greater in Tonbridge and Malling than in Swale; despite the same percentage of the population being supported by Specialist Children’s Services. He stated that if all Districts spent the same as Swale per deprived child and achieved the same outcomes this would result in a saving for the County of £10m. He questioned why this had not been picked up before.
(23) Mr Vye stated that when the consultants had finished their work, KCC needed to do much better if the conclusion was not to be drawn that this organisation was too big to manage effectively; this would not help the case for devolution.
(24) Mr Vye referred to the recent report to Cabinet on the first quarter’s financial monitoring which showed a total predicted overspend for Children’s Services of £7.5m. He stated that the Budget set in February 2014 was unrealistic as the demand for Children’s Services was neither reducing nor increasing. He stated that the newly formed Early Help Services could not be expected to work if an unrealistic budget was set as this could result in management action to bring it back within the budget. He asked the Leader what effect such management action would have on an already over stretched service.
(25) Mr Vye expressed his full support for the idea of having a Members Commissioning Advisory Board. He commended Mr Hotson for his chairing of the Member Working Group which appeared to have achieved a cross party consensus on the way forward. This would enable Members to gain an understanding on what is happening regarding commissioning and procurement.
(27) Regarding devolution, Mr Vye hoped that all groups would look at each other’s manifestos. He stated that he was proud of the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto and was happy to share it with the Leader.
(28) Mr Whybrow, Leader of the Independents Group, stated that he was sorry to hear the Leader say that the opposition would love to see a slash and burn budget. He believed that Members would be disappointed that the budget targets were missed. Although the opposition may not always agree with the direction of travel, the Leader should be aware of the constructive cross party work carried out in the Members Working Group on Commissioning. He did not believe that anyone on his side of the Chamber would be delighted to see a slash and burn budget.
(29) Regarding devolution, Mr Whybrow stated that he agreed with the Leader’s sentiments. Mr Whybrow believed that pressure was now building in the CCN to achieve devolution to local authorities in England. He expressed the view that localism had been vapid. This could be seen in Kent in the way that Central Government had taken away planning decisions from local authorities such as Ebbsfleet, the Urban Development Corporation and the NPPF, which was intended to give central government more control.
(30) Mr Whybrow referred to the Adonis Growth Review which had promised £39b devolved to local government and said that he was not optimistic about this being delivered. He stated that the Local Government Association had put it well, devolution must not stop at the border, local authorities should raise and spend money in the way that best suited the people in their area. He looked forward to the CCN report generating a lot of publicity and debate.
(31) In response to the Opposition Group Leader’s responses, Mr Carter stated that he was looking forward to a mature debate at County Council in February when the budget for 2015-16 would be agreed. He referred to the turning off of street lighting at night, providing that there were no safety or criminality implications, which had improved KCC’s carbon footprint and achieved savings of £1m a year. It had contributed to keeping the Council tax low whilst preserving valuable statutory and non- statutory front line services.
(32) Mr Carter referred to the latest quarterly monitoring report submitted to the last Cabinet meeting and stated that he was confident that the budget would be brought into line by the end of the year.
(33) Mr Carter agreed that it was important to respond to the challenges identified in the Newton Europe report and to consider whether resources could be re-directed to provide the expected outcomes with less expenditure. It was important to learn from the past and to make sure every Kent £1 was used to good effect.
(34) RESOLVED that the Leaders report be noted.