Minutes:
(1) Mr Gough referred to the rise in Covid-19 infection rates and the introduction of restrictions in other parts of the country. Kent had a 7-day positive test figure of 48.4 per 100,000 which was 29% of the national rate and even in the worst affected districts in the county the rate was half of the national rate. He said KCC’s response to the changing situation would be guided by a rigorous assessment of the data and the advice of the Director of Public Health, and that it was important to work closely with Medway and other partners. He acknowledged the devastating impact that restrictions and shutdowns had for the economy, livelihoods, physical and mental health and said that, in his opinion and that of the Director of Public Health, Kent had not yet reached the point where a local lockdown needed to be considered. He urged all Kent residents to continue to follow rules and public health guidance to prevent the growth of infections in the county and the damaging effects of the consequent restrictions.
(2) In relation to the economic impacts of Covid- 19, Mr Gough agreed that even while the county was in tier 1 the impact was significant. Unemployment had more than doubled and 244,000 people had been furloughed across the county. He referred to the launch of the economic renewal and resilience plan in August, the re-launch of the Kent and Medway business fund and the establishment of the multi-agency Employment Taskforce, under his chairmanship, whose focus was to ensure that business and job seekers had a clear picture of the jobs and support available, as well as linking re-skilling initiatives with job opportunities.
(3) Mr Gough referred to the planning consultations that had been reported to Cabinet. In response to the Government’s consultations on changes to the planning system, including the new methodology for the housing needs assessment, and the planning white paper, KCC members had emphasised the importance of appropriate and timely building of infrastructure to support development and had raised concerns about: housing numbers; the impact on local democracy; and the implications for strategic planning.
(4) Mr Gough said that the review of the first tranche of funding for Active Travel, which had been reported to Cabinet, indicated that the Government’s timescales had resulted in inadequate engagement with communities about the schemes, and that better engagement would be central to travel schemes funded from tranche two.
(5) Mr Gough said the devolution white paper, which he referred to at the County Council meeting in September, had now been deferred until the spring. He emphasised the importance of a voluntary approach and a range of non-structural solutions and highlighted the principles set out in September including sustaining the delivery of large-scale services, and the importance of Kent and Medway continuing to work together in the interests of communities in Kent and Medway.
(6) In relation to the Strategic Plan which had been deferred from March 2020, Mr Gough said an interim version, covering the next 18 months, had been developed and members could contribute before it was submitted to the next meeting of the County Council on 10 December 2020.
(7) In conclusion Mr Gough referred to the strong response to the current budget consultation which was due to close on 24 November and which was vital to the setting of priorities in difficult times.
(8) Mr Bird, the Leader of the Opposition, started by expressing concern about government handling of Covid-19, including the test, track and trace system, the Brexit transition period, rising unemployment and contract management.
(9) Mr Bird commended the close working relationship between Kent and Medway’s Directors of Public Health. He hoped that Kent would be spared going into Tier 2 conditions and if Kent was ever considered for Tier 3 conditions that there would not be inappropriate pressure from government.
(10) Mr Bird thanked Mrs Chandler for her update on UASC and supported the robust line that the administration had taken with the government. KCC’s experience since August had strengthened the view that there must be a mandatory national transfer scheme, not only to spread the unfair costs incurred by Kent but also to ensure that young people needing care receive the best possible service.
(11) Regarding the governments planning proposals, which Mr Bird considered to be unacceptable and unrealistic, he stated that he was pleased with the robust response that had been submitted by the Leader and the cabinet member for economic development to the government consultations.
(12) Mr Bird welcomed the economic initiatives referred to by Mr Gough but stated that there was more to be done, especially for young people who had recently left education, there was a need to be creative to help them acquire the skills needed for employment to enable them to take advantage of the recovery.
(13) Mr Bird stated that more needed to be done to address widening education inequalities and there was a need to know which Kent schools had missed out on government catch up funding.
(14) Mr Bird highlighted the mishandling by the DfT of the first tranche of the Active travel funding by providing insufficient time for public consultation and engagement, consequently although some Kent schemes had been well received others had not and lessons needed to be learned before the second tranche was implemented.
(15) Mr Bird commended the work undertaken by Kent Highways to implement a proactive approach to drains and gullies maintenance and, if successful, he hoped that the scheme would be rolled out across the county.
(16) in conclusion Mr Bird stated that he was confident that KCC’s staff would continue to do their best whatever happened over the winter despite a very difficult year. He referred to the people of Kent and the enormous challenges that they had faced and hoped that we would be through this situation soon and looked forward to better times.
(17) Mr Farrell, Leader of the Labour Group, stated that his response would outline just what the people of Kent had been experiencing over the last few months. He referred to the lack of clarity in the guidance regarding the hospitality industry, and the disproportionate impact that the curfew had when that sector accounted for only 5% of transmission and called for the end of the curfew.
(18) Mr Farrell acknowledged that the end of furlough payments was decided when it was thought that social distancing would end in October, instead he stated that we were heading back to more restrictions with less financial support and we were about to lose entire sections of the economy. He referred to the governments preparations for the anticipated growth in unemployment by 2021, by the introduction of job coaches for up to 2 hours for jobs that either didn’t exist or the government wouldn’t support due to lack of work at the moment.
(19) Mr Farrell suggested that in addition to publishing daily infection and death rates we would also need to publish daily suicide and redundancy figures to reflect the impact that Covid-19 was having.
(20) Mr Farrell stated that SAGE had said that the Test and Trace system was only having a marginal impact on transition rates, he outlined the flaws in the contracting process and implementation processes for the governments Test and Trace system and ordering of PPE and the lack of accountability.
(21) In relation to criticism at national level of “playing party politics”, Mr Farrell stated that it was not playing party politics to stand up for those facing the biggest impact, in terms of economic and health outcomes, from Covid-19. In conclusion he stated that he would expect the leadership of the County Council to support the people of Kent and not to accept further restrictions without adequate economic support.
(22) Mr Whybrow, Leader of the Independents Group, congratulated the Chairman on completing his sponsored walk in aid of Porchlight. He thanked the Leader for his thoughtful and eloquent contribution to Folkestone and Hythe’s Black History Month which had been much appreciated. He stated that he believed that the County Council was compassionate and took its duty of care seriously and stated that Members should think carefully about how they communicated on sensitive issues especially in relation to asylum-seekers.
(23) Mr Whybrow referred to the award, in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List, of the British Empire Medal to Cleo Smith of Age UK Hythe and Lyminge in recognition of her work in setting up Kent’s first Covid-19 community support hub. He referred to the impact that the current situation was having on mental health, both for residents and also KCC staff. Also the impact on those entering the job market. He expressed the view that a reboot of the Countries priorities was necessary, putting people’s health and wellbeing at the centre. Local government should be at the centre of designing and delivering a fit for purpose fully funded public health strategy as part of a 3 year government financial settlement. He hoped that KCC’s Strategic Plan would reflect the change in priorities.
(24) In replying to the other Leaders’ comments, Mr Gough gave an assurance that if greater restrictions were imposed on Kent he would, as he had already done in relation to the UASC situation, stand up for Kent, “speak truth to power” and take actions in the best interests of Kent.
(25) Regarding the use of the “catch up fund” for education, Mr Gough stated that it was managed by central government and schools were not obliged to share information about it with KCC; however, amongst the primary sector, it appeared that many schools were complying with guidance from the Education Endowment Foundation.
(26) Mr Gough re-iterated the importance of the close working relationship with Medway Council, however, he also acknowledged that circumstances relating to the pandemic could be different in parts of Kent and parts of Medway. He was confidence that such differences could be managed effectively because of the strong working relationship.
(27) RESOLVED that the Leaders report be noted.