This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Report by Leader of the Council (Oral)

    Minutes:

    (1)       The Leader updated the Council on events since the previous meeting.

    (2)       Mr Carter stated that his report would focus on the autumn budget statement and the progress in delivering the strategic outcomes which were both substantive items being considered later in the meeting.

    (3)       Mr Carter noted that there had been continuous improvements to the delivery of services and progress had been made towards achieving the three strategic outcomes: children and young people in Kent getting the best start in life, older and vulnerable residents being safe and supported with choices to live independently; and Kent communities feeling the benefits of economic growth by being in-work, healthy and enjoying a good quality of life.

    (4)       Mr Carter referred to unfairness in the current methodology used by the Department for Communities and Local Government and central government in distributing grants to support local government particularly to county councils such as Kent.  He reported that he had been lobbying for additional help, in the form of a two- year transitional fund, prior to the introduction of a new funding methodology for local government in 2020/2021 and the full repatriation of business rates.

    (5)       Mr Carter stated that the existing two-year transitional grant, which had provided an additional £6 million of funding a year, would conclude at the end of the financial year; in addition to other grant reductions including the Revenue Support Grant. He reported that good progress had been made in terms of the authority’s submission, in conjunction with the borough and district councils, to become one of the 100% business rate retention pilot areas; the pilot would bring £6 – 7 million of additional funding over the next two years.

    (6)       Mr Carter provided figures to highlight the variation in reductions to the Revenue Support Grant. He noted that the average council tax paid per head of population was £185 in Inner London, £241 in Outer London, £260 in metropolitan areas, £290 in unitary areas and £360 in county council areas; £360.09 per head was paid in Kent. He outlined the estimated Revenue Support Grant per head in 2018/19: £109 in Inner London, £58 in Outer London, £87 in metropolitan areas, £54 in unitary areas and £24.31 in county council areas; it was estimated that Kent would receive £24.69 per head.  He stated that there had been a 58.6% reduction to the Revenue Support Grant in Inner London over the past four years, in contrast to county councils in particular Kent whose grants had reduced to 94.6% and 94.4% respectively.  Further, county councils did not fully benefit from the New Homes Bonus, like unitary authorities did, as the bonus was split 80:20 between district and county councils.

    (7) Mr Carter stated that despite grant reductions, Kent had modernised and transformed services, so that it delivered the same or better outcomes for less money, through commissioning and procurement; whilst providing a range of non-statutory services such as the £80 million Freedom Pass, £6 million subsidised bus routes and £16 million enablement service to help and support people as they came out of hospital. He reported that if additional transitional and pilot funding was not made available, he was confident that the authority would continue to modernise and transform services for less money. He highlighted, as part of the proposal to reduce subsidies for uneconomic bus routes, the authority was looking to develop community provision through the potential use of an Uber type technology to allow taxi sharing in rural areas.

    (8)       Mr Carter reported that county councils across the country were looking to reduce services including children centres, libraries and uneconomic bus routes; in contrast to Kent where services had been maintained and improved as a result of the  support, hard work  and innovation of staff across the authority. He praised the staff for all their efforts.

    (9)       Mr Bird, the Leader of the Opposition, stated that whilst he recognised that the authority had been able to manage its resources effectively and preserve services due to the hard work and dedication of the staff; he expressed concerns about the continuation of austerity measures. He referred to the long term consequences on the NHS if the ring-fenced public health budget continued to be reduced despite demographic growth and rising inflation.

    (10)     Mr Bird requested that budget monitoring reports be reinstated to Cabinet Committees and be discussed by Members; he stated that those reports had not been presented to Cabinet Committees this year. He acknowledged that Cabinet Members would have to take difficult decisions to ensure the budget was met and it was important that Members were advised and had the opportunity to provide their input.

    (11)     Mr Bird stated his Group’s support for Mr Carter in seeking further funding for the authority.

    (12)     Mr Farrell, Leader of the Labour Group, began by referring to a claim by the Department for Communities and Local Government, that the needs and resources of local authorities were taken into account when funding was allocated, which he disputed.  He emphasised the importance of Mr Carter lobbying central government to seek further funding for the authority particularly for the provision of social care.

    (13)     In relation to education, Mr Farrell raised concerns about capital funding for new schools; the provision of school places; the Free School programme; attainment levels for children in receipt of free school meals and the sale of community assets such as schools. He welcomed central government’s decision not to proceed with grammar school expansion and cautioned against the authority pursuing the policy by stealth.

    (14)     Mr Farrell referred to the statistics relating to children and young people in the Strategic Statement including over 9,000 being classified as children in need; 45,000 diagnosed with a mental health issue; 80,000 living in poverty; and 1,500 sexual offences being committed against children in 2016/17 . He stated that these statistics highlighted further work was required to ensure that children and young people in Kent got the best start in life.

    (15)     Mr Farrell stated that the Labour Group would work with the administration to improve rates of attendance at mental health services, develop services to offer welfare assistance, identify opportunities for preventative activity and improve support services for children particularly those in the criminal justice system; the Labour Group would also work with district councils to provide local support packages for low income working families.

    (16)     Mr Farrell referred to the omission of finance during the Secretary of State’s speech at the Local Government Conference; he concluded that local government was being left to deal with crises in social care, schools and its own finance.

    (17)     Mr Whybrow, Leader of the Independents Group, began by welcoming Mr Carter’s increased lobbying for further local government funding; he stated that the he hoped that central government particularly the Chancellor was listening.  He reported that parish councils in his division were aware of the lobbying and the strong arguments being put forward by Mr Carter. He stated that whilst he would like an uplift for all local authorities, he recognised the imbalance in funding as demonstrated in the figures provided by Mr Carter.

    (18)     Mr Whybrow expressed concerns about the reduction to public health services particularly in relation to the infant feeding consultation. He stated that it had been evidenced that preventative services such as drug and alcohol services provided a societal saving of £8 for every £1 spent in addition to helping people with addiction. He reported that there had been cuts to frontline services and highlighted the closure of the Folkestone drug and alcohol walk-in centre; service users were now required to go to Ashford or Dover to access services. He noted that more and more residents in Kent would begin to feel the impact of cuts made by the authority.

    (19)     Mr Whybrow concluded that if central government did not provide local government with additional funding, he would consider this to be a dereliction of duty.

    (20)     In replying to the other Leaders’ comments, Mr Carter referred to the work being undertaken by local government particularly in Kent to deliver challenging savings. He stated that he was working with and lobbying the Kent MPs and Cabinet Ministers for additional funding. He reported that he had recently met with the Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening, to discuss the pressures on special educational needs and the capital programme which had received a warm reception; he recognised that the outcome was not yet known.

    (21)     Mr Carter reported that the authority had previously been successful in receiving additional funding. He highlighted the release of £5 – 6 million of funding, as part of the second round of Better Care Funding, after  the setting of the County Council’s budget in February to strengthen the domiciliary care markets; staff had noted improved terms and conditions including paid travel time and increased recruitment.

    (22)     In conclusion Mr Carter stated that the Local Government Association and the County Council Network as a collective was pressuring central government to release some of the £15 billion of funding which had been accrued through the underfunding of local government. He concluded that if this funding was not released, local government would not be able to invest in preventative services and the costs of supporting people, who did not previously require further support, would escalate.