Agenda item

(Members are requested to bring their copy of the draft Budget and Medium Term Plan circulated on 7 January 2009).

The Chairman opened this item by explaining that the budget had been scrutinised on an individual portfolio basis by the Policy Overview Committees (POCs), it was the intention of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to look at the budget as it related to the whole Council. 

Mr Smyth began by commenting on the revision to the Council tax increase and the additional money from rescheduling investments.  There were enormous pressures facing the authority and government settlements for the future were assumed to be tight.  Bearing in mind the pressure on the Council Mr Smyth asked why a reduction in Council tax was proposed as a short term measure rather than investing some of the money to relieve future pressures? 

Mr Chard responded by saying that each year for the past 6 or 7 years, those tax payers on a fixed income had found it progressively harder to pay Council Tax.  In the current economic circumstances it was felt that the Council should support those who were finding it more difficult to afford the Council Tax.  It was right for the Council to pass on the savings to Council Tax payers in Kent.  It was a judgement call for the Council to make when the report was debated on the 19 February.  Mr Smyth explained that he was commenting on using the money to ease the strain on budgets in the future.  Mr Chard confirmed that it was right for the Council to allocate sufficient resources to its services; having made this ‘extra money’ for the Council it should be passed on to the Council Tax payers. 

Mr Truelove commented on the regeneration strategy and stated that because of the economic downturn it was a critical agenda, he asked Mr Chard what he saw as the critical challenges for the budget in delivery of the strategy.  Mr Chard responded by commenting on the increase in the budget for regeneration.  Regeneration involved partners and was not just about throwing money, it was important to have resources but also the political will of the Council and partners to ensure that regeneration happened.

Mr Northey commented on the further £100m of LAGBI funding and whether there was any further information on what Kent’s share was, and what the Council could do with the money.

Ms McMullan confirmed that figures had been received from the Government and that Kent County Council would have around an additional £750k.  Discussions were underway to determine how that money would be targeted in relation to the regeneration strategy.  This was a one off sum of money budgeted for in the current year, there had been an expectation that it wouldn’t be received and it would increase the current years’ underspend.

The Chairman asked about the £95k spent on ‘international development’ in the Children, Families and Education (CFE) department.  Mr Chard confirmed that it was shown in CFE Policy and Performance.  The Chairman commented that under Corporate Support and External Affairs there was an International Affairs Group which provided strategic direction for international activities as well as maximising E.U funding.  The Chairman also referred to a previous discussion about the meaning of ‘strategic management’, and what difference there was in the definition of strategic management in the budget document.  Mr Wood explained that in using a common definition for strategic management meant that the remaining costs were dispersed elsewhere.  Ms McMullan asked whether it was expected that all directorates had that standardisation for all areas.  In response to a question on standardisation from the Chairman Ms McMullan confirmed that it would be looked at and would be brought back to the Budget IMG for discussion.

Referring to the Local Children’s Services Partnerships (LCSPs) the Chairman asked about the savings that could be made by moving from 23 LCSPs to 12 – to reflect the districts. Ms McMullan agreed to do some further research and come back to the Committee.  The Chairman referred to the synergy that could be found between LCSPs, District Councils and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs). 

Mr Chard expressed his view that it was necessary to look at the clusters as communities. Mrs Law explained the situation in Canterbury and that there would be cost savings if the clusters could be streamlined with the District’s boundaries.   Mr Hart described instances where partners had to go to multiple meetings to meet the cluster arrangements.  Mr Chard stated that it was a debate to have with the new managing director and the schools. 

Mr Smyth asked a question about the dedicated schools grant, were KCC in a position to say how much of the grant could be retained centrally?  Ms McMullan agreed to come back to the Committee with the answer. 

The Cabinet Scrutiny Committee thanked Mr Chard, Ms McMullan and Mr Wood for their attendance at the meeting and for answering Members’ questions.