Minutes:
(1) The Leader updated the Council on events since the previous meeting.
(2) Mr Gough referred to the Comprehensive Spending Review and Budget. The outcome of the spending review had been better than expected, however, this remained a challenging area with continued pressure within demand-led services particularly in adult social care and children’s services. In addition to this the Council Tax Referendum limit had been reduced, the result of this was that spending power shifted slightly from a reliance on council tax to reliance on government support, this was a marginal impact but nevertheless was welcomed.
(3) A series of announcements regarding grants had been received, many very positive and these included the ZEBRA grant for transport funding, and in relation to the Levelling Up Find and the Community Renewal Fund there had been significant awards in Ramsgate, Margate, and in relation to the New Town works in Ashford. These were welcomed.
(4) Mr Gough reflected on the changes within the government and considered that there was further opportunity for local government with Michael Gove at the newly named Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
(5) Mr Gough referred to asylum. The Council had resumed taking young people into its care with a further 193 unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) being taken into care since August 2021. The current number of looked-after children from a UASC background was 361.
(6) The Council had been very active in the run up to the end of the Brexit transition and it sought to continue to work with the government to ensure cross country provision in the event of a crisis or disruption.
(7) In relation to the Green Agenda and COP26 the Leader drew attention to the two detailed reports recently received by Cabinet in relation to the Council’s approach to Net Zero and to dealing with adaptation and other key elements in its response to the ecological and climate pressures.
(8) Lastly, the Leader commended the Council’s submission under the National Bus Strategy: The Bus Service and Improvement Plan which was now with the government.
(9) Dr Sullivan, the Leader of the Opposition, asked about additional funding for the reopening of children’s centres and expressed her wish for no more cuts to services.
(10) With regards to UASC Dr Sullivan stated that the Council must do everything possible to ensure that more lives are not lost. The new redistribution system was not mandatory and it was hoped that there was not a breakdown in the council’s statutory duties due to a failure of all authorities to deal with the related problems.
(11) Dr Sullivan referred to COP26 and the strides the council was taking to tackle the green agenda. There were many challenges and costs and there were questions over who would bear those costs.
(12) Mr Hook, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group referred to COVID and the situation which, he commented, had worsened since July. He thanked Mr Watts, Mr Cook and all the staff who had worked hard to ensure the meeting was as safe as possible. Mr Hook considered it outrageous that national government had not yet created the necessary legal framework for local government to have choice and to work more remotely that was possible at present.
(13) Mr Hook referred to Canterbury resident Abdulazak Gurnah, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature on 7 October. Professor Gurnah came to Kent as a refugee in 1968, he studied at Canterbury until his recent retirement as Professor of English at Kent University where he taught generations of students.
(14) Mr Hook considered it essential that the council looked after UASC and insisted that national authorities provided the resources to ensure this can be done.
(15) Mr Hook referred to concerns about the spending review which he considered would be largely wiped out by the inflation forecast.
(16) In relation to devolution Mr Hook considered that it was important to resist any suggestion that greater devolution should be attached to a requirement to have an elected mayor, it was his view that power was best shared between a group of people rather than invested in one individual.
(17) Mr Stepto, Leader of the Green and Independent Group, referred to the Comprehensive Spending Review and welcomed any additional money coming into local government and it was hoped that this would meet some of the extra costs, demands and pressures on KCC.
(18) In relation to devolution, it was hoped that measures would bring decision making closer to people, to improve services and connectivity, provide investment and create a better quality of life for Kent residents.
(19) Referring to the green agenda Mr Stepto praised the work of KCC on the climate emergency and the environment. He commented on flooding problems and considered that surface water flood mapping needed to be updated as a matter of urgency.
(20) He concurred with the Leader’s comment about the national bus strategy and was optimistic that services would improve.
(21) In replying to the other Leader’s comments, Mr Gough commented on preventative services which had worked well in KCC. This had been stable over many years and KCC was actually in the bottom quartile in relation to population in terms of number of children in care, however, there were pressures on children’s services.
(22) In relation to the point about Youth Hubs, Youth Centres, these were being gradually opened, delays had been caused by health and safety issues, and in some cases the impact of what happened during the period they were closed over the pandemic.
(23) Mr Gough commented on mandation in relation to UASC, this had been lobbied for and KCC continued to think that it was the right solution. Many councils had stepped up under the National Transfer scheme and although significant progress had been made the issue remained.
(24) Referring to COP26 and KCC’s initiatives in this area, KCC was in the running for an award, but this was one small aspect of the work that had been done to bring down by 73% our emissions from our own estate and operations. Detailed work was being done to assess progress towards the 2050 target for the County as a whole.
(25) Mr Gough concurred with Mr Hook in relation to elected Mayors, and this was also the view of district colleagues and Medway Council.
(26) RESOLVED that the Leaders update be noted.