Minutes:
(1) The Leader referred to the political changes and events that had occurred within central government since the last County Council meeting. Mr Gough said it was his policy, as he felt Members were aware, to address national issues insofar as they had an impact on the Council and its work. He explained there were some important areas he would not address in his report, for example cost-of-living pressures and the war in Ukraine, as they were later items on the agenda.
(2) The Leader said the Council’s financial position was a vital issue and one that would shape a lot of conversations at Council meetings and elsewhere over the coming weeks and months. He said it was reported at Cabinet on 29 September 2022 that for the period from April 2022 to June 2022 there was a projected overspend for the year of £50million and since then the projected overspend for the year had risen to £70million. Mr Gough explained that the underlying cause of the projected overspend, above all, was inflation and this was also the case for other local authorities. He said the estimated impact of inflation was around £45million resulting in constant pressures on services and challenges in delivering existing savings. Mr Gough highlighted this was just an estimate, and the Council had seen in the latter part of past years performance come in quite sharply, but he noted that the Council had never been looking at a projected set of pressures on this scale. Mr Gough said the Council had anticipated that, post pandemic, local government would not be a priority for public spending, and along with the Local Government Association, the Council would continue to push extremely hard for additional financial support, and for local authorities in general through the County Councils Network. He stressed that the gravity of the situation could not be doubted and the response, as discussed at the time of the February budget, of resisting pressures, taking difficult decisions and managing down the Council’s costs, had to remain the essence of what the Council sought to do across the full range of its work.
(3) Mr Gough turned to Investment Zones, announced in the government’s mini budget in September 2022, and said this was an important initiative of which many details were still unknown, and although the Council was not irrevocably committed to anything, and it recognised challenges around issues such as environmental standards, it would be a mistake not to be engaged in the debate. Mr Gough confirmed that judgment could be made when more detail was available and noted the excellent engagement between the Council, and districts and boroughs, in submitting a response by the deadline of 14 October 2022.
(4) Mr Gough said that he did not propose to address the KCC Supported Bus Funding Review in his report as it was an item later on the agenda. He did, however, refer to the underlying issues of the commercial network in the early part of the summer and, although they had not been resolved perfectly, commended the work of the Council’s Public Transport Team and its partnership with operators in achieving a different and better position by September. Mr Gough confirmed the outcome of the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) was still awaited.
(5) Mr Gough referred to the uncertain fate of the planning and infrastructure bill, and said it was an opportunity for the Council and the County Council’s Network to set out its views in particular the case for effective strategic planning. Mr Gough met the Levelling Up Minister at the recent opening of the new Miskin Creative and Performance Studios at North Kent College and noted this was an example of Kent bodies working together to secure funding from the Getting Building Fund.
(6) The Leader met with Kent MPs and the Transport Secretary on 19 October 2022 regarding border issues and the impact of Operation Brock. Mr Gough noted the longstanding nature of the issue and said the Council, along with MPs and officers, would be working on measures to respond to short, medium, and long term challenges, in particular the EU’s Entry/Exit System (EES) scheduled for May 2023.
(7) Mr Gough said 1,110 Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) had so far arrived in Kent in 2022 and explained that this volume brought about significant pressures, including hotel accommodation, and ensuring they were placed through the National Transfer System. Mr Gough said there was a significant number of children with an Albanian background who were not claiming asylum or entering the National Transfer System and were therefore becoming the Council’s Children in Care, and missing episodes amongst young people was a concerning issue in which the Council was engaging with the police and other partners. Mr Gough noted that the government was raising the requirement for the number of young people taken into care and the Council was working to develop further its successful Reception and Safe Care Service.
(8) Mr Gough confirmed that the development of the Integrated Care Partnership Strategy continued, and he noted the importance of the strategy in shaping the frameworks and policies pursued by partners. He said, above all, it was essential to ensure better integration and better spending of the Kent pound.
(9) Finally, the Leader was pleased to announce that the Kent Rural Board had been launched and had its first meeting, chaired by Mr Matthew Balfour, on 5 October 2022 which included representatives from several key rural sectors. Mr Gough said Board Members’ priorities would be sought over the coming months and the Council would support that in line with its Kent Rural Strategy.
(10) The Leader of the Labour Group, Dr Sullivan, responded to the Leader’s remarks and commented on the changes and events that had taken place within central government since the last County Council meeting.
(11) Dr Sullivan referred to the Council’s financial position, and the £70million predicted overspend, and said she hoped that central government would not find savings in local government and that she feared the beginning of austerity. Dr Sullivan questioned the message this would send to Kent residents and Council staff who were working tirelessly to deliver the Council’s services. She said she hoped the Leader had lobbied hard to the Local Government Minister for funding because local authorities were not a priority as she felt they should be.
(12) Dr Sullivan referred to the Council’s budget before the Covid-19 pandemic and condemned the government for causing the growth of mortgage rates, interest rates, inflation, energy bills, petrol costs and food bills and asked the Leader to call on government for additional funding for the Council. She said she hoped levelling up had filtered down with the introduction of Investment Zones and further details would be fully costed and would result in additional funding for infrastructure. Dr Sullivan questioned whether the Council looked at commissioning as its solution to the financial situation and whether that approach was the most cost-effective route for Kent taxpayers.
(13) Dr Sullivan turned to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Transport Review and said a lack of decisions and responsibilities had had a huge impact on Kent’s most vulnerable families. She said the internal report identified that a lack of formal and informal governance advice had led, in part, to the situation and noted that an external review may take place. Dr Sullivan said justice for those affected would be exacerbated by a delay in accountability and asked for action to be taken swiftly.
(14) Mr Hook, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group, noted it had been over three months since the Council had last met in full. He referred to events of the last three months including the women’s England football team winning the World Cup, the re-introduction of wild bison to Kent’s countryside, an unprecedented heatwave and a new Head of State, King Charles III. He said the summer had seen delays at Kent ports, driven by the new requirement for passport stamps, and questioned the opinions of some political leaders. Mr Hook said a report of the inquiry into East Kent Maternity Services had been published and for which, he said, there must be a reckoning. He commented that Kent must not be a place where it was unusually dangerous to have a baby. He referred to the changes in government since the last County Council meeting and the economic crisis, and said it was right for the Council to meet again to discuss important issues.
(15) Mr Hook referred to the financial situation of the Council and said the overspend was largely due to the increased cost of materials and labour needed to deliver services, and the war in Ukraine was not the sole cause. He noted the pound’s value was down 25 cents compared to a year ago and 19 cents on five years ago, and said until there was a stronger national policy the Council would continue to pay the cost. He said five of the last seven years had seen slow growth in the economy, but every year the Council had had to find cuts in its expenditure due to insufficient government funding, and the people of Kent should know the services of their Council had declined year on year because of that.
(16) Mr Hook turned to border controls and agreed with the Leader that the forthcoming EU biometric checks at the port of Dover posed a real problem for which the government had not yet found a solution for. In his view, the Entry/Exit Scheme (EES) was a bad policy at odds with fundamental European values and he hoped that the introduction of the EES would be prevented.
(17) Regarding Investment Zones, Mr Hook said he was concerned about taking on a scheme with short notice and little information, and that his Group would oppose any plans to make development within the county easier.
(18) Mr Hook was pleased to hear there was a meeting with the Transport Secretary and wondered whether the issue of Faversham Creek Bridge was mentioned, as information had not been forthcoming since March 2022.
(19) Mr Hook said the Council had the Group’s full support in addressing the issue of missing children and was pleased to hear the Kent Rural Board had been reinstituted.
(20) Mr Stepto, Leader of the Green and Independent Group, said his Group had strong concerns about Investment Zones and their potential to bypass environmental protections and further remove local decision making from the planning process. He questioned the success of Enterprise Zones introduced in 2011, and noted that at the time of their introduction, treasury estimates suggested they would help create 54,000 jobs across five years but by 2017 they had only created 17,000, a third of which were jobs moved from elsewhere, and the majority of which were low skilled, so unable to provide boosts for local economies.
(21) Mr Stepto looked forward to the agenda item on the KCC Supported Bus Funding Review and hoped ways could be found to offer more support for bus transport. He said a reliable, efficient, and reasonably priced bus service brought many benefits to the county such as cleaner air, less congestion, and an improved quality of life, particularly for people on lower incomes, people in villages, and those without access to a car.
(22) Mr Stepto said the new Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) team looked to have a variety of experience in central and local government, and he questioned when the local government finance settlement would happen, what would be its duration, and how much help would local authorities receive to address inflation.
(23) Mr Stepto referred to the EES and the possibility this would result in serious border delays.
(24) Mr Stepto noted the Leader’s comments on UASC and commended officers and Members who were involved in this work. He said he hoped the nation would continue to offer a safe haven to people in need of shelter.
(25) Mr Stepto commented on government decisions that had led to the country’s financial situation and the consequences for the Council in terms of funding cuts instead of growth.
(26) The Leader responded to a few key points and said he felt the Opposition Leaders reflected his view on the pressures that the Council faced.
(27) The Leader responded to Dr Sullivan’s comments about commissioning and explained that the emphasis had never been on outsourcing, rather it was about identifying the best way to deliver services, and continued reviews would ensure a clear sighted and pragmatic approach.
(28) The Leader agreed with Opposition Leaders that local authorities should be a higher priority for government funding and he confirmed the Council continued to make that case. He acknowledged that the support from government during the pandemic had been good and financial settlements in recent years, compared with some, had not been bad. Mr Gough said his concern had always been that post pandemic, public spending would remain restrained, and other pressures, such as funding for defence and the NHS would most likely take priority. Mr Gough acknowledged the case for local government would need to be fought hard, not only by the Council, but all colleagues in local government.
(29) The Leader responded to points made about the port of Dover and the EES and confirmed, although it would be good if the introduction of the EES could be avoided, the Council should prepare accordingly. He said the EES had been part of the Council’s representations to government and the point had been raised at the Transport Select Committee. Mr Gough said there was recognition of how difficult and intractable the issue had been over the years, and the Council would seek to take it forward.
(30) Mr Gough reiterated his point made earlier about Investment Zones and said it would be assessed on an evidence-based approach. Mr Gough reassured Members that the Council would navigate the process carefully, it would take advantage of any opportunities that arose, and he recognised the importance of a sensible and balanced approach.
(31) Mr Gough responded to Dr Sullivan’s comments on the SEND Transport Review and said there had rightly been a lot of focus on the findings of the internal audit report which had been commissioned by statutory officers. Mr Gough explained that work would continue over the coming weeks to address the outcomes of the report, and, in terms of practice, lessons had already been learnt, and there was a need to learn and apply concrete lessons.
(32) Mr Gough returned to the border issue at the port of Dover and said more resilience was needed to deal with the several different problems that were causing vulnerability. He noted there had been some success but there was further work to be done.
(33) Finally, the Leader agreed with Opposition Leaders on the need for engagement with DLUHC and on comments made about the provision of support for Ukrainian refugees, the way forward for which would be discussed later in the meeting.
(34) RESOLVED that the Leader’s update be noted.