Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

Apologies were received from Councillors Marshall and Mrs Stockell.

It was noted that Councillor Paine was substituting for Councillor Mrs Stockell.

It was noted that Councillors Ash, Mrs Gooch and Horne were visiting Members with an interest in all items on the agenda.  Councillor Garland was in attendance to speak on Agenda Item 9, “The Council’s Response to the Recession”.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

All Members declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 10, “Devolved Budgets”.

Resolved:  That all items be taken in public as proposed.

Members requested an update on the recommendations made at the meeting held on 8 September 2009.  The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager explained that responses had been received for two of the three “benefits service” recommendations and these would be sent to Members when all responses had been received.  Information on the impact of the recession on local businesses had been requested but no response had been received to date.

With regard to Minute ? 52, recommendation (c), it was noted that the decision on the procurement of an external printing contract had been delayed.  Members were still keen to receive information on this decision prior to the report for decision being issued.

Resolved:  That

a)  The minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2009 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman; and

b)  Background documents for the key decision on the procurement of an external printing contract be requested from the Head of Business Improvement.

Interview with Paul Wickenden, Overview, Scrutiny and Localism Manager, Kent County Council.

The Chairman welcomed Paul Wickenden, Overview, Scrutiny and Localism Manager for Kent County Council (KCC), to the meeting and asked him to outline how Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) operated at KCC.

Mr Wickenden explained that KCC, like many other authorities, was in the process of reviewing its O&S function to ensure that it remained fit for purpose in view of changes to the legislative framework, for example powers to scrutinise crime and disorder reduction partnerships, health services and the Local Area Agreement.  A report would be presented to KCC next week, and the Committee requested a copy of this for information.  Currently there was a Cabinet Scrutiny Committee which scrutinised cabinet decisions and was predicated on call-in, plus eight Policy Overview Committees which mirrored cabinet portfolios and council directorates.  In addition, there was the statutory Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  All committees had been consulted as part of the KCC O&S function review.  There was a concern that the Policy Overview Committees were not as effective as they could be, leading to an increasing gap between executive and non-executive members.  A number of options were being considered including:

·  Forward Plan of Key Decisions – should this be extended to cover six months of decisions to give members the opportunity to identify issues of concern to residents?

·  Co-optees – should there be a formal scheme of co-option?  There was currently provision for task and finish groups to appoint co-optees, though there was little appetite amongst members to extend this provision.  Few authorities across the country had extensive co-optee schemes; the best example was Durham but this authority was only formed in April 2009 so it was too early to establish how effective it was.

·  Rapporteurs – there was a willingness to try a rapporteur scheme though more work had to be carried out to establish the details e.g. resources for rapporteurs.

Mr Wickenden explained that he also hoped to provide training for councillors and officers on the role of scrutiny to ensure that officers involved the full membership rather than just the cabinet, in their work, and to ensure that non-executive members were exploiting all of the powers available to them.  Currently, members were not always choosing work programme items where they could have the most influence and add the most value.  Training on questioning skills, chairmanship skills and new technology would also be valuable.

Mr Wickenden informed the Committee that he had recently discussed with the Kent and Medway Overview and Scrutiny Officers Network the possibility of closer working between officers in order to pool resources.  A Councillor queried whether this would include joint committees across authorities, and Mr Wickenden explained that officers would investigate the possibilities for partnership working.

In response to a question, Mr Wickenden stated that he believed that Maidstone was still considered a national lead on scrutiny, and that the Maidstone scrutiny function was particularly effective in terms of using the media, as well as developing the relationship  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Interview with Councillor Chris Garland, Leader of the Council.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Chris Garland, Leader of the Council, to the meeting and asked him to outline the ways in which the Council was responding to the recession.

Councillor Garland stated that the country had been in recession since November 2007 and whilst signs of improvement were visible, the consequences would be being dealt with for many years.  In Maidstone, the Council had put policies in place to ease the effects of this for residents and businesses and to ensure that the Borough came through the recession in a good position.

The Council’s response to the recession was considered in relation to a number of areas:

Maidstone Borough Council

Councillor Garland believed that a consequence of Central Government pumping money into the banking system to tackle the recession meant that its borrowing had become excessive, therefore it was looking to make significant cuts and this was likely to lead to at least a 1.8% spending cut for local government.  Recently, government grants had increased in line with, or just below, inflation, but in the future there would be cash cuts rather than inflation related cuts.  The Council was already dealing with significant strain on the revenue budget and had to take unpopular decisions to deal with this.  Savings of £1.9 million had been made in 2008-09, and a further £1.3-1.9 million savings would need to be made in 2009-10. 

The Leader noted that Maidstone Borough Council provided more discretionary services than many other boroughs in Kent, however this had led to higher council tax and it needed to be established whether the public wanted the Council to continue to provide all of the discretionary services that it currently did.

The Cabinet would soon be considering plans to employ a regeneration delivery company as a medium to long-term initiative.  This would bring together a series of developers and housing trusts, with the Council as the lead, to deliver housing and commercial development to ensure the Borough was fully prepared for the end of the recession.

Maidstone Businesses

Councillor Garland considered that businesses were vital for Maidstone and underpinned all of the Council’s objectives for the Borough.  To assist businesses through the recession, the Council had taken a number of actions:

·  Free one to one business advice and business start-up advice had been facilitated in the Gateway;

·  Businesses renting units from the Council were being offered monthly rental payments rather than quarterly to help with cash flow;

·  Small business units would soon be introduced on the Parkwood Industrial Estate.  These would be offered below market rates and on an ‘easy-in, easy-out’ basis, which meant a monthly contract rather than a 12-month lease;

·  Media Tree and Maidstone Town Centre Management continued to be supported;

·  “Make It Maidstone” was being published by the Council in the DownsMail to ensure that residents and businesses knew what the Council was doing to help them through the recession and had access to the phone numbers and advice services that they needed;

·  Invoices from small to medium-sized  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Councillor Richard Ash, apologised for the incorrect figures for devolved budgets that had been published on the original Committee agenda. He explained that the figures that had been provided originally had only shown spend to December 2008. 

Councillor Horne addressed the Committee and stated that he believed devolved budgets to be very positive.  He noted that Kent County Council Members had devolved budgets of £10,000 and would now be receiving additional devolved money for highways issues, demonstrating the expansion of the concept of devolved budgets at KCC.  With regard to participatory budgeting, Councillor Horne suggested that this was a good idea for large budgets but was resource intensive for small amounts of money like devolved budgets. 

A Councillor explained that the key issue of concern was with regard to internal processes, as they knew of two occasions on which the audit trail for devolved budget money had not been effective.  It was suggested that the process for checking that devolved budgets awarded to projects were actually spent on those specific projects was insufficient.  Members discussed this and proposed that Councillors should be required to report on the use of devolved budgets to confirm that the money had been spent appropriately, and also that Internal Audit should check a small percentage of the larger spends as an additional check.  The Committee agreed that this should be referred to the Audit Committee for consideration.

A Member highlighted that new Members were not informed how much devolved budget they received or given sufficient guidance on what to do with this, therefore more information was required for newly elected Councillors.

Members considered issues around equality and noted that the line between ‘faith’ and ‘culture’ was often unclear, so requested that the requirement that “any application that is linked to religious activities [cannot be funded]” should be made clearer.

Resolved:  That

a)  The Audit Committee be recommended to consider the audit trail for devolved budgets;

b)  More detailed information be provided to new Members with regard to devolved budgets; and

c)  The guidance around spending devolved budget money on “religious activities” be clarified to ensure a clear distinction between “faith” and “culture”.

The Acting Overview and Scrutiny Manager informed the Committee that its November meeting would be a workshop to look at possible structures for Overview and Scrutiny as part of the Overview and Scrutiny Function Review.  In December, the clerk to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee would attend the Committee’s meeting to discuss how the House of Commons Select Committees operated.

Resolved:  That the Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions be noted.

6:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.