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

Apologies were received from Councillor Paterson.

It was noted that Councillor Warner was substituting for Councillor Paterson.

It was noted that Councillors FitzGerald, Joy and Williams were visiting Members with an interest in Agenda Item 9, “Discussion Item – Holiday Play Schemes”.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

Councillor Warner declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8, “NHS Consultation on Car Parking Charges”, due to his frequent use of the car park at Maidstone Hospital.

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

Resolved:  That Agenda Item 11, “Urgent Item: Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Scrutiny Protocols” be taken before Agenda Item 10, “Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions”.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman informed the Committee that he had spoken with an NHS officer earlier that day with regard to the car parking charges consultation; he had stated that the Committee’s letter outlining concerns with the consultation had not been received.  Responses to the consultation would be submitted to the Minister on 10 March, however the officer had agreed to receive a consultation submission by telephone from the Committee in the morning and that this would be included in the final submission.  The Chairman suggested that in the future, letters should be sent in both hard copy and by e-mail to ensure that they were received.

The Committee discussed a variety of issues around NHS car parking, including:

·  Outpatients required to make regular visits should receive free or reduced price parking;

·  Staff should receive free parking;

·  Although staff at Maidstone Hospital received discounted parking, free parking was available in nearby residential areas which caused problems for residents;

·  If parking was free, it could be used by people not visiting the hospital; it was therefore more appropriate to refund money or provide ‘season tickets’;

·  It was important to ensure that any system of parking charges was simple to manage to avoid high administrative costs;

·  If parking charges were reduced, it was important that car parking space was not sold off to pay for this; and

·  The consultation stated the need to gather the “views of everyone” however councils and the public were not listed in the target audience.

The Committee noted that the consultation document stated that “on balance, we believe that offering free parking to all inpatients and their visitors is the right approach” and endorsed this statement.

The Committee also agreed that regular patients and their visitors should be offered a ‘season ticket’ that allowed them free or reduced price parking.  Members noted that free parking could put considerable strain on hospital finances and therefore agreed that the choice between ‘free’ and ‘reduced price’ parking should be at the discretion of individual hospitals.

Finally, the Committee agreed that a copy of the letter originally sent in connection with the consultation should be sent again to the Department of Health.

Resolved:  That the following comments be submitted in response to the NHS Car Parking Charges consultation, along with a copy of the Committee’s original letter regarding the consultation:

a)  Free parking should be available for staff;

b)  The Committee endorses free parking for inpatients and their visitors;

c)  Regular patients and their visitors should be offered a ‘season ticket’ that allows them reduced price, or free, parking – the choice of reduced price or free should be at the discretion of the hospital; and

d)  Existing car parking space should not be sold off to pay for any reduction in car parking charges.

The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Louise Smith, informed the Committee that ward and parish councillors had been contacted regarding holiday play schemes in their areas and the information provided was included in the agenda papers.  Information on a range of private play schemes was also included. The Committee was asked to consider whether it wished to conduct a full review of holiday play schemes in the current municipal year, recommend it for review in 2010-11, or conduct no further investigation.  Miss Smith highlighted that if the Committee wished to carry out a review in the current municipal year, a working group or additional meetings would be required due to the short timescale, and these could not be fully supported by the Overview and Scrutiny Team until the new Overview and Scrutiny Officer was in post.

The Chairman then invited the visiting Members to address the Committee.

Councillor Mrs Joy referred to a suggestion made at an earlier meeting about Hotfoot being more educational than community play schemes and stated that this was not always the case.  She also stated that she knew of a 19-year-old resident who still received direct mail regarding Hotfoot; this was an inappropriate use of money and marketing needed to be targeted accurately.

Councillor FitzGerald read a statement to the Committee regarding the funding of Hotfoot and community play schemes.  A number of issues including historic funding of play schemes in the Borough, lack of clarity in the costs of Hotfoot and the need for full comparisons between Hotfoot and community play schemes were raised.  Councillor Fitzgerald believed that these were key issues that would need to be covered in a review.

Councillor Williams stated that she was concerned over the way in which the Council worked with Kent County Council Children’s Services.  She raised concerns over the content of the referral form required when referring children to Hotfoot as the completion of the form did not require parental consent.  It was suggested that a review of holiday play schemes should consider the purpose of the form and how the information was used, as well as considering whether the use of the form complied with the Children Act 2004.

The Committee then discussed whether to carry out a review of holiday play schemes.  A Councillor stated that Hotfoot fees had increased and take up had gone down, and suggested that a review should consider:

·  Whether Hotfoot offered value for money;

·  Who was using Hotfoot;

·  Whether the hours that Hotfoot was available suited parents;

·  Whether more focus should be on community play schemes;

·  Whether the advertising for Council-funded play schemes should include advertising for private play schemes, which could help to pay for marketing; and

·  Whether Kent County Council should be providing play schemes instead of the Borough Council.

The Committee agreed that the review was too large to be carried out in this municipal year, but felt that as strong a case as possible should be made for it to be reviewed in 2010-11.  Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Louise Smith, informed Members that at the meeting of Full Council, a Councillor had stated that the Safer Maidstone Partnership (SMP) had requested the removal of paragraph 7.3 from the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Scrutiny Protocols.  The Scrutiny Section had not been informed of this request, therefore the amendment had not been made when the Protocols had been presented to the Committee for approval.

Councillors agreed that the Committee should have been informed by the SMP of the requested change, however agreed that the paragraph should be removed and the Standards Committee informed of this.

Resolved:  That Paragraph 7.3 be removed from the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Scrutiny Protocols and Standards Committee be informed of this change.

The Senior Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Louise Smith, informed the Committee that the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Community Services would attend the April meeting to update Members on the progress made within their portfolios during 2010-11.  Miss Smith also advised that the only item on the Forward Plan of Key Decisions that fell within the Committee’s remit would be discussed at Cabinet on 10 March 2010, therefore any comments on this would need to be made at the Cabinet meeting.

Resolved:  That the Future Work Programme be noted.

6:30 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.