Agenda item

1. The item was introduced by Linden Kemkaran, Leader of the Council, who presented a report outlining the challenges and progress made during the administration's first year in office. The report covered the Council's financial position, Adult Social Care, SEND, water resilience and highways, together with preparations for LGR.

2. In response to questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    The Leader advised that a key priority for the remainder of the administration was to ensure that the authority was handed over in the strongest possible position ahead of LGR, whilst continuing to maintain service delivery and financial stability.

b)    The Leader explained that she had prioritised work on the Council's finances and operations since taking office, rather than attending Scrutiny Committee meetings, and stated that this reflected a different leadership approach from previous administrations rather than an evasion of scrutiny. She added that she had confidence in her Cabinet Member to attend and respond on portfolio matters, citing regular communication across the administration.

c)    The Chair encouraged Members to maintain a balanced and constructive debate and reminded them to keep their questions relevant to the report and directed to those present and able to respond.

d)    The Leader expressed the view that the Council had inherited significant financial and service pressures from the previous administration, including high levels of debt and pressures with ASC, and outlined actions taken by the current administration to address these issues and improve performance.

e)    Christopher Hespe, Cabinet Member for Local Government Efficiency and Local Government Reorganisation, reiterated that the Council had inherited significant financial challenges, including high levels of debt, budget overspends, savings targets and contractual issues. He also stated that the DOLGE programme had helped to mitigate financial pressures, deliver savings and support a culture of value for money and organisational improvement across the Council.

f)     Mr Hespe clarified that the £14 million figure referenced in the report represented one element of a wider programme of savings achieved during the year and indicated that a breakdown of the figure could be provided separately if required. Mr Collins added that the figure represented the reduction between the Q3 forecast overspend and the year- end return.

g)    The Leader confirmed that the administration intended to submit an Expression of Interest to become a Foundational Strategic Authority, following central Government’s confirmation of its preferred devolution option for Kent.

h)    Mr Collins provided context regarding the reported overspend figures, indicating that comparisons should be considered in light of the previous administration’s forecast position and the year-end outturn reported.

i)     Helen Gillivan, Director of Adults and Integrated Commissioning, advised that risk matrixes were now in place for individual contracts and that lessons learned from a national provider failure and the subsequent audit had informed improvements to the Council’s approach to assessing and managing provider risk.

j)     Mr Watts acknowledged that performance against certain audit metrics had declined over the period referenced, recognising that performance could vary over time and should be considered within the context of the Council’s wider operating environment.

k)    The Leader confirmed that she was satisfied that sufficient contingency was in place to support delivery of future savings.

l)     In response to a question regarding IVF services, the Leader stated that the matter required further consideration and that a response would be provided outside the meeting.

m)  Mr Collins stated that, whilst the administration recognised the value of capital projects funded through borrowing, its concerns related to the overall level of debt inherited and the absence of a long-term strategy for its repayment.

n)    The Leader stated that addressing the Council’s financial position had been her initial priority since taking office and advised that, although water supply was not a County Council function, she had established the Kent Water Resilience Partnership to bring relevant organisations together and address water resilience issues in Kent.

o)    Mrs Fordham advised that work was underway to streamline Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) assessment processes and improve timelines and confirmed that reducing waiting times for assessments formed part of the Council’s Key Performance Indications (KPIs).

p)    The Leader stated that the administration took motions agreed by the Council seriously and acknowledged that, although Entry/Exit System (EES) was not a function of the County Council, the Council recognised its implications for Kent residents and was committed to responding to those impacts as appropriate. Peter Osborne, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, further advised that a meeting with partner organisations regarding the EES was scheduled for the following day and highlighted the recent announcement of £20 million in Levelling Up Fund funding to support further improvements in Dover.

q)    The Leader expressed concern about public awareness of LGR, encouraged residents to engage with available information and consultation processes, and highlighted concerns regarding the pace of implementation and the model selected by central Government for Kent.

r)     The Leader advised that the impact of LGR made it difficult to assess longer-term objectives, including whether the Council would achieve its stated objective of limiting organisational growth under the DOLGE programme.

s)    The Leader emphasised the potential financial risks associated with implementing LGR, stating that Government announced to support the transition was significantly below estimated costs. She explained that there remained uncertainty regarding how those costs would be met and the financial sustainability for the proposed unitary authorities.

3. Following the questions, the Chair welcomed comments and views from the Committee about the report. These included:

a)    A Member commented that the report and responses had focused primarily on activity rather than outcomes and emphasised the importance of demonstrating improvements in outcomes for residents, particularly in relation to SEND assessment times.

b)    A Member also expressed disappointment that a previous question regarding the publication of an action plan in relation to EES had not been directly addressed and sought clarification on the timescale for its publication.

c)    A Member relayed criticisms regarding LGR and the introduction of elected mayors, particularly in relation to planning powers and the potential impacts on local communities in Kent.

d)    A Member raised concerns that certain statements contained within the report had not been sufficiently substantiated, including figures surrounding DOLGE savings and water resilience.

e)    A Member expressed the view that future reports would benefit from a greater focus on factual information and measurable outcomes, supported by relevant performance data and audit findings, to assist Members in undertaking effective scrutiny.

f)     A Member thanked the Leader for the report and comments that future outcomes could not always be predicted with certainty and should be considered accordingly.

g)    A Member questioned whether, if LGR was considered likely to have significant negative consequences, the Council should take a similar position to that adopted by some other authorities and challenge its implementation.

h)    A Member commented that the discussion had provided clarification that the Council’s borrowing was linked the capital investment projects and highlighted that the repayment of certain loans had been undertaken through officer decisions and in accordance with the Council’s Treasury Management policies. In response, Mr Collins clarified that he had been consulted on loan repayment decisions and that they had not been made solely by officers.

i)     A Member argued that the report did not provide a comprehensive overview of Council activity, citing the omission of matters relating to Public Health, public transport, schools and aspects of Adult Social Care. It was clarified that the scope of the report had been agreed in advance to focus on a number of key strategic areas.

4. The Chair welcomed the Leader to provide clarification on comments made during the debate. This included the following:

a)    The Leader thanked the Committee for the opportunity to attend and outlined that matters relating to LGR and Devolution, SEND delays and EES were more appropriately considered by the relevant Cabinet Committees.

b)    The Leader stated that she considered the report to be an accurate reflection of the key areas requested by the Committee and advised that the content of future reports could be shaped by Members’ requirements.

5. The Chair summarised the debate, thanked the Leader for her attendance and stated the importance of balancing strategic oversight with detailed scrutiny. He highlighted the significant challenges facing the Council, including LGR, Adult Social Care and SEND, and encouraged continued cross- party collaboration on matters of long- term significance to Kent. The Chair proposed to note the report and this was agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report.