Agenda item

Mr P B Carter, Leader of the Council; and Mr P Gilroy, Chief Executive, have been invited to attend the meeting at 10.00 am to update Members on the Kent Commitment.

(1)       Mr P B Carter, Leader of the Council, and Mr P Gilroy, Chief Executive, attended the meeting to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(2)       At the outset, Mr Carter explained that the signing of the Kent Commitment marked the start of a journey which would take between two and five years.  The purpose of this journey was clear – to use the good relations between the County Council and the Kent District Councils to build on the existing two-tier arrangements in order to give Kent the best local government in the UK.  This in turn would enable KCC and the Kent Districts to face the challenge of the difficult financial settlements from Government expected over the next few years.  However, the detailed arrangements were still to be worked out in discussions between KCC and the Kent Districts as the journey progressed.  Mr Carter said that he would publish a bi-monthly update for all Members on progress with the Kent Commitment.  Mr Gilroy agreed to provide details of the Kent Commitment work streams being worked on by the Kent Chief Executives.

Medway Council

(3)       In answer to a question from Mr Parker, Mr Carter said that he was keen to involve Medway Council but they had not felt able to sign up to The Kent Commitment at this stage.  Nevertheless, discussions would continue.

Devolution of Front-line Services

(4)       In answer to a question from Mr Parker, Mr Carter confirmed that there had been preliminary discussions with the Kent Districts about the potential for the devolution of services both from KCC to the Kent Districts and vice versa, but there were no immediate plans for this.  If and when any service – front-line or back-office – was considered for devolution, a detailed business plan would be required in order to demonstrate that devolution offered best value.

(5)       Mr Gilroy added that only 16% of KCC services were provided direct by KCC employees.  The bulk were provided by the private sector through procurement.

(6)       In answer to a question from Mr Law, Mr Gilroy agreed that, in talking about devolution, it was important to distinguish between political governance issues and service delivery issues.  When KCC services were delegated to another provider, or procured from a private contractor, it was important to appreciate that responsibility for those services remained with KCC.  This had implications for two-tier working in terms both of political governance and managerial monitoring. 

Provision of Services to other Councils

(7)       In answer to a question from Mr Christie, Mr Gilroy said that there was nothing new about KCC providing services to other councils.  He offered to circulate details of the services which KCC currently provided to other councils.

Public Impact of The Kent Commitment

(8)       In answer to a question from Mr Parker, Mr Carter said that a large part of the gain from closer working between KCC and the Kent Districts would be in terms of greater efficiency through the sharing of back-office functions.  This would allow the councils to maintain quality services at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case.  Greater co-operation between councils would also lead to improvements in the way in which societal problems, such as teenage pregnancy, were tackled.  While both of these types of improvement were measurable, Mr Carter accepted that neither was likely to be very noticeable to the public.

(9)       Mr Gilroy said that as a result of The Kent Commitment he expected that, by 2012, every major town would have a Gateway, providing public access to a wide range of public services (KCC, District Council, central Government and other public agencies).  The possibility of having a single phone – and possibly also web – portal to all public services in Kent was also being explored.

(10)     In answer to a question from Mr Fullarton, Mr Carter agreed that improved communications were required to engage the public and to improve their understanding of the way in which Council services were provided.  The KCC Cabinet had already decided to re-launch ‘Around Kent’ to help with this and the Kent TV initiative should also assist.

(11)     In answer to a suggestion from Mr Fullarton that public understanding would be improved if there was just one elected Councillor for each area, Mr Carter pointed out that there was a democratic deficit in England, where the public had fewer elected representatives than in other European states.  Mr Gilroy added that the current multi-tier local government system (county council, district council, parish/town council) provided checks and balances in its civic structure.

Recycling of Savings

(12)     In answer to a question from Mr Lake, Mr Carter said that he very much hoped that the cost savings arising from The Kent Commitment could be recycled within Kent local authorities because this was the only way in which quality services could be maintained.  The Kent Districts had estimated that savings of £25-30m could be made through sharing of back-office functions.  Mr Gilroy added that he had been invited by Government to take part in discussions on multi-area agreements.  Multi-area agreements offered opportunities for savings to be made in the way in which £8bn of public expenditure was spent.

(13)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)       Mr Carter and Mr Gilroy be thanked for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions;

(b)       the agreement by the Leader of the Council to publish a bi-monthly update on progress with the Kent Commitment to all Members, be welcomed;

(c)        the Chief Executive’s agreement to provide:-

(i)         details of the services which KCC currently provides to other Councils;

(ii)        details of the Kent Commitment work streams being worked on by Kent Chief Executives,

be welcomed.