Shepway Liberal Democrats

News from Kent County Council Liberal Democrats

• May 14, 2012:
  • Question to Kent County Council, 17 May 2012: Investment in Tobacco
    Question by Mrs Dean To The Cabinet Member for Finance & Procurement In view of the transfer to KCC employment of former Health Service employees whose pension schemes would not include investments in tobacco; will the Cabinet Member for Finance & Procurement reconsider KCC's previous stance on the withdrawal of Superannuation Fund investment in tobacco firms? Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council, 17 May 2012: Governance of Kent Council Trading
    Question by Mr T Prater to the Cabinet Member for Finance & Procurement In view of the damming KPMG report of governance of the Laser scheme and the lack of any committee scrutiny of the setting up of Kent Cultural Trading, will the Cabinet Member for Finance agree to a review of the Governance of all KCC Trading Companies & Business activities to ensure they all represent best value for Kent's residents? Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council, 17 May 2012: Bond Road and Osborne Road, Ashford
    Question by Mr G Koowaree to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste Will the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste inform this Council of the criteria for resurfacing deteriorated concrete roads, and provide me with copies of the analysis data reports for: Bond Road, Ashford & Osborne Road, Ashford ...as both these roads have the same degree of surface deterioration as far as the travelling public are concerned, yet only Bond Road is listed for resurfacing in June. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council, 17 May 2012: Home Based Care
    Question by Mr D S Daley to the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care & Public Health A recent Kent County Council (KCC) report states that vulnerable elderly people and disabled adults may have to stay home for longer instead of being moved into residential care. KCC will depend on voluntary and private sector providers, our 'Partners in the Community', to provide home based care for these vulnerable people whilst they await to move into residential care. Can the Cabinet Member tell us what safety nets will be in place to guarantee appropriate daily care for those whose transfer is delayed; and as the predictions are that many more people will reach one hundred and be living alone (possibly without nearby relatives) how does he propose to address issues such as increasing vulnerability or isolation in his plans for transformation of KCC's involvement or responsibilities? Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
• May 10, 2012:
  • The Use of Kent County Council Cars by Councillors
    Dear Darren, I'm writing to you regarding your decision on the objection to the Kent County Council accounts from Mrs Kathy Harrigan that you issued on 5th March. In that decision (which was reported to the Selection and Member Services Committee of 14 March https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=143&MId=4066&Ver=4), you state (page 5) that: "The current Council's policy on the use of the County Car Fleet only permits the use of the County Cars for official business of the Council. The Council has recently reached the conclusion it is unclear that journeys from the Deputy Leader's and Chairman's homes to County Hall represent official business and has ceased providing the County Cars for this purpose." Similar statements appears on your Audit Commission Report on Objection to 2010/11 Accounts presented to the Governance and Audit Committee (https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s31455/Item%2016%20Appendix.pdf) which you attended on 18th April: "16 The current Council's policy on the use of the County Cars only permits their use for official Council business. The County Cars have been used by two Members to provide transport from home to County Hall. When a car has not been available a taxi has been provided by the Council. "17 The Council has recently reviewed whether such journeys fall within its approved policy for the use of County Cars. It has concluded that it is not clear that journeys from Members' homes to County Hall represents official business and has therefore taken the precaution of suspending both the provision of the County Cars for this purpose and the consideration of whether to seek reimbursement of costs from the Members concerned for any of these journeys already made until (a) Members have considered whether or not to include provision for such journeys in the County Car policy and (b) the views of HMRC on the taxation status have been received. " "26 The Council has already taken action in relation to a number of the above issues. ... The Council has suspended the use of the County Cars for private purposes." I am concerned that this is not the case, and equally concerned that, as Auditor, you have made this statement without confirming the accuracy of the statement. Attached is a list of the use of County Cars for March 2012, supplied to me on request from Kent County Council. As you'll note, there are a series of references to the cars being used to transport members - most particularly the Chairman and Deputy Leader - from County Hall to home, and also from their home to County Hall. On my reading of the list, on both the 1st and 2nd of March, both Mrs Stockell and Mr King had journeys from home to County Hall, and return. From 6th - 31st March, on a generous interpretation of the list, I can see around 18 such journeys. This information was not difficult to find - I made a simple request, which allowed me to confirm whether the statement in your report was accurate. It seems it was not. It is clear that either the practice re-started after your report was written and presented, or had never actually ceased, despite the assertion within your report. Given that your report was issued to a member of the public due to a complaint, and then discussed in public at the recent Governance and Audit Committee, I am most concerned that a misleading picture has been given to the public and Councillors of Kent County Council's actions on the use of County Cars. Please can you give this the most urgent attention, and perhaps request similar information for other months (such as February and April) to see if this practice was actually operating when you wrote your report, and that the assurances you received were false, or if it restarted after your report was issued but before it was presented. Perhaps you can discover under what terms County Cars are still being provided to provide Home to County Hall transport, and re-issue your report making it clear that County Cars are in fact still used for transport of some members from home to County Hall and vice versa, and under what terms. To say that they have "ceased providing cars for this purpose" is clearly not true. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Tim Prater Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Folkestone West Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
• Mar 26, 2012:
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 29 March 2012: Recycling Credits for Voluntary Organisations
    Question by Trudy Dean To Bryan Sweetland, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste Can the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste please say how many voluntary organisations / charities in Kent have: a) lost all of their 3rd party recycling credits b) retained fifty percent (50%) of their 3rd party recycling credits c) retained all (100%) of their 3rd party recycling credits and describe the basis or the criteria used to allocate those vol. orgs. into one of the categories detailed? Response Chairman, the answer to: a) is 49; b) is 5; and c) is 51 and 'the criteria or basis used to allocate those voluntary organisations into the categories detailed' is informed by: Section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 The Environmental Protection (Waste Recycling Payments) (England) Regulations 2006 The National DEFRA Guidance on the Third Party Recycling Credit Scheme 2006 And all these documents are published on the web and available in the public domain. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 29 March 2012: Failing Residential and Nursing Homes
    Question by Ian Chittenden to Graham Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health Given KCC should have regular care management reviews and contractual inspection visits to all residential and nursing homes with KCC funded residents; will the Cabinet Member inform the Council what went wrong to leave 24 KCC funded elderly residents at serious risk of harm in two Kent homes - The Oast in Maidstone* (with 11 KCC funded residents) and The Gables in Wrotham** (with 13 KCC funded residents) and what measure he has put in place to safeguard all KCC 's vulnerable adults in residential & nursing homes to ensure no one will be placed at such risk again? *The Oast - received four warning notices for urgent improvements following Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in January 2012 relating to breaches of: regulations relating to care and welfare of people - including unsupervised for long periods of time with no mental stimulation, a lack of activities meeting nutritional needs - including risk of inadequate nutrition and hydration safety and suitability of premises - including maintenance not up to date, and parts of the hoome in need of urgent improvements assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision - including care plans and risk assessments not up to date, and were sometimes found to be contradictory A report published in October 2011 found major concerns over the quantity and quality of food and drink being provided to residents, a lack of privacy, and out-of-date care plans. http://www.cqc.org.uk/media/cqc-warns-oast-maidstone-it-failing-protect-safety-and-welfare-people ** The Gables - shut on March 20 2012 following a string of alleged planning breaches and negative inspections. a number of reports by the CQC highlight health and safety concerns. the most damning, published in September 2011, found improvements were needed in every area. http://www.cqc.org.uk/directory/1-140937060 Response Members will know that I take KCC's safeguarding responsibilities very seriously. We work closely with the Police, Health and the Care Quality Commission, to ensure that the vulnerable and elderly are well cared for. We collate ongoing information on homes from multiple sources such as reviews, case manager and contractual monitoring visits as well as feedback from residents and their families to maintain an up to date picture on the care that homes are providing. Where concerns are raised we act immediately and risk asses the best way to safeguard residents. In doing this we take into account that for the residents of such units the placement is "their home" and that emergency closure and forced moves can be very traumatic. Consequently, where it is safe to do so, the preferred option may be to work with the home to raise standards while not making any new placements. With both the homes mentioned, it was KCC that first raised and acted on the safeguarding concerns. The subsequent CQC reports (mentioned in the written question) were part of the ongoing multi-agency process to monitor if sufficient progress was being made. In the case of The Oast, progress is being made and the situation remains closely monitored. In the case of The Gables, progress was not sufficient and the home was closed. This happened in a planned way with all residents moving to new homes of their choice, with the full involvement of their families. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 29 March 2012: KCC Funded Residents in Residential and Nursing Homes
    Question by George Koowaree to Graham Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health For more than 2 months (since 23 January 2012) I have been asking a relatively simple request* - to be provided with details of the number of KCC funded clients in residential & nursing homes with details of those homes; will the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health give his personal assurance that KCC does know where all our clients are living even if KCC cannot provide me with the details and please inform me what the problems are preventing KCC from providing the information, when these will be sorted and when I will finally be provided with the details I have requested? (* No response had been received prior to this question being submitted on 23 March 2012). Response Thank you for your request for information, which I was first informed about last Friday. This information can be readily produced and I am of course happy to share it. In summary, as of the week 5th - 11th March, KCC funded placements for 3233 older people and people with physical disabilities in 312 residential and nursing homes in Kent. Additionally KCC funded a further 178 placements in 154 homes outside Kent, where Kent residents have chosen to be in a home that, typically, is closer to their children. I have arranged for officers to provide you with a full list, including details of all the homes, in writing today. I trust this will fulfil your request and I am happy to discuss it further if you would like. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 29 March 2012: Freedom of Information Requests
    Question by Tim Prater to Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Business Strategy, Performance & Health Reform Given the Information Commissioner's concerns about Kent County Council's awareness of its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act, the Regulations, and the undertaking with the Information Commissioner's Office recently signed by the Cabinet Member for Business Strategy, Performance & Health Reform; can the Cabinet Member please say what additional resources and training, at what additional cost, are to be provided to meet those undertakings with the ICO; and when will these resources be in place to ensure we meet our undertaking, avoid formal action by the ICO and clearly demonstrate to Kent's citizens this council has embraced the culture of openness and transparency the legislation seeks to promote? Response KCC has been making positive steps to embrace the culture of openness and transparency for some time by publishing a variety of information online, for example, expenditure over £500 (including costs, supplier and transaction information), senior management remuneration which includes CMT and Directors, the Kent Scheme salary structures and councillor allowances and expenses. However, the Information Commissioner has raised concerns about the issue of timeliness in handling requests under FOI. It must be emphasised that this arose from statistics published on our website; the ICO had not received any actual complaints about timeliness. The volume of FOIs we receive has grown steadily over the last few years; we dealt with 504 requests in 2005, but 1,539 requests in 2010. The figure for 2011 was 1,821. Meanwhile the cost of compliance has risen in step; the estimated total cost of dealing with requests, which includes staff time and on costs, has increased from £244,675 in 2005 to £444,675 in 2010. The average number of requests for a County Council was 696 in 2009 and 957 in 2010. For KCC the figures were 1,450 for 2009 and 1,539 for 2010. Even allowing for differences in population, this suggests that our volume of requests is high. When comparing this to other unitary/metropolitan/county councils and London boroughs, we do seem to get a much greater volume. For these authorities combined, the average number of requests received is almost half the number KCC receives (258 in 2005 and 858 in 2010). We are seeking to address the ICO's concerns, and indeed work in this area was already under way. This has focused on seven steps to boost compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (and other related legislation) while making that compliance easier and more cost efficient. These measures include ensuring senior management responsibility for Directorates' timely response to FOI requests and an increasingly proactive approach to the publication of information. In addition, Caroline Dodge (the Information Resilience & Transparency Team Leader) has been tasked to provide an additional report as a matter or urgency, identifying any weaknesses and failings in the current system for handling requests for information and whether or not the addition of extra staff in the IR&T Team will bring about the step change that is required, both in putting in place the "seven steps" and in improving FOI response times. The report will seek to address the following issues: what staff resources (skills, grades, costs, etc) would be appropriate what measurable and tangible difference such staff would make to KCC's compliance and resilience in this area how their performance would be measured and offset against their additional cost how work levels have increased since the current staff were first appointed under the old devolved arrangements. Once this work is concluded, it will be possible to establish what additional expenditure, if any, is needed. Cabinet and CMT take the issue of transparency extremely seriously. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
• Mar 16, 2012:
  • Losing our Heads: is Kent Education in Crisis?
    49 Kent schools are without a permanent Headteacher, and an additional 37 Kent schools may have Headteachers retiring in the next few year. Martin Vye, on Kent County Council, has expressed his shock and concern at the report that 49 schools in Kent are without a permanent Headteacher. At the Education, Learning & Skills Committee meeting yesterday (15 March) Martin said: "Governors cannot run schools and teachers will tell you they need good leadership. At a time when Kent is lagging behind other local authorities in educational attainment it is vital that we recruit good leaders for our schools. But, this is not the end of this sorry saga, it gets even worse!" "Out of 480 Headteachers, 148 are 55 years old or over. Even with the abolition of statutory retiring age it is a fair bet that about 25% of our Headteachers will be retiring over the next few years. Who will replace them?" Martin persisted: "There is an urgent need to identify and train up the next generation of Headteachers. It is all the more worrying when I read that one of the main reasons for teachers leaving schools is 'management not communicating with staff'. Our Education department has got to get a real hard grip on this situation." He concluded: "The report shows that the situation is especially serious in schools in the most challenging areas of the county. It is crucial, at a time when - thanks to the Liberal Democrats - the Government is putting a significant amount of money into these schools, to help raise the attainment of children from poorer backgrounds, that we have leaders in them to make sure the money is used to good effect." Loading... // Education, Learning and Skills Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee 15/03/2012 Headteacher Recruitment and Retention Webcast Index point http://www.kent.public.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/75440/start_time/5627000 Headteacher Recruitment and Retention Report and additional documents - agenda item B6 http://kent590w3:9070/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=667&MId=3934 Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
• Feb 13, 2012:
  • Kent had "Haringey" levels of vacancies in Childrens Social Services
    Trudy Dean: "The system that allowed this tragedy to happen still exists. We must change it." Liberal Democrats at County Hall have renewed their calls for an inquiry into the failure of services to children in care in Kent. Trudy Dean (Lib Dem Leader of the Opposition) revealed for the first time that data about vacancy levels in Kent were known to be at high risk well before an unannounced inspection by OFSTED resulted in a critical report. At the Full county Council meeting on 9th February, Trudy gave County Councillors statistics revealing social worker vacancies as early as 2008 were across the county awash with red - indicating a level of high risk. Throughout 2009 over half of the county social work teams had vacancy rates of over 25% - worse than in Haringey where Peter Connelly 'Baby P' died in 2007. Tables showing vacancy levels in Kent by District can be downloaded here. Trudy Dean said: "In Ashford, Swale, Dartford, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells rates were over 25% throughout the majority of the year. In Thanet rates were over 25% throughout the entire year. In Dartford vacancy rates were exceeding 40% over four consecutive months. "I cannot believe Members given these figures would have failed to take the necessary action to fill these vacancies in 2008 - as we did when OFSTED blew the lid off this two years later!" "This information was all available in KCC, but was never shared with councillors. I also understand it was never shared with the senior departmental management teams." "So who did see it? Why it was not revealed? Why was KCC told in April 2010 that Children Social Services was 'coping' and that there were no concerns about professional standards. When only four months later (August 2010) OFSTED disagreed. Since then, under new staff, we have spent £14M this year and will spend another £7M next year bringing our services up to standard. "But the system that allowed this tragedy to happen still exists. We must change it." Trudy called for an inquiry into how it happened and an external inquiry since many of the individuals involved have left KCC. "I want a clause in all officers' contracts to oblige them to reveal information which councillors need to do their job properly. If we take this simple step we will ensure these failures do not occur again - because the human cost of failure was borne by 2,600 of Kent's' children who were potentially at risk of serious harm" Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Chittenden: Future of Kent Youth Services "will be debated and agreed in secret"
    In response to a question raised by Lib Dem County Councillor Ian Chittenden, at the County Council meeting on Thursday 9th February, the Conservative Cabinet Member confirmed that the decision on the future of Youth Services will be decided by newly formed 'Locality Boards' (where they exist). Locality boards are informal bodies, with no requirement to allow the public to attend the meetings to listen to or join in the debates about changes to their local youth services. Maidstone County Councillor Ian Chittenden commented: "I support the principle of Locality Boards providing opportunities for important local issues to be decided in the affected neighbourhood but I am utterly disgusted that young people, families and other residents will not be able to listen to the debate about changes to their local services." "Conservatives wax lyrical about 'greater transparency and openness, making the decision process more inclusive, robust and accessible' but when it comes to the crunch, important decisions about key community services such as youth services and libraries will be made behind closed doors in secret." "Locality boards MUST be accountable to Kent residents. I challenge KCC Conservatives to stop talking about greater transparency and openness and just get on and do it by holding all Locality Boards in public, starting with the meetings about our youth services." Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Vye; Give residents a voice!
    Martin Vye At the County Council meeting on Thursday 9th of February, Martin Vye, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Kent County Council, asked the Conservative administration to prepare plans for much greater involvement of local people in planning the services KCC provides for them. Canterbury County Councillor Martin Vye said: "Modern technology makes it possible for people to let their views be heard, via Twitter and Facebook, for example. Why not let their representatives in the council chamber and committee rooms know immediately what they think about what is being discussed and planned-so that councillors can bring those views into the debate? "Already other councils have made big strides in this direction. Cornwall County Council, for example, has made it possible for comments of interested residents to be posted on the live webcast of council proceedings." Martin added: "There is a lot of talk at Kent County Council about the need to make decision-making more transparent and accessible. We Lib Dems will try to ensure the Conservatives walk the talk." Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
• Feb 10, 2012:
  • OPEN DECISION MAKING = SECRET MEETINGS
    Future of Youth Services will be debated and agreed in secret says Conservative Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities In response to a question raised by Lib Dem Councillor Ian Chittenden, at the County Council meeting (09.02.12), the Conservative Cabinet Member confirmed that the decision on the future of Youth Services will be decided by newly formed 'Locality Boards' (where they exist). These are informal bodies, with no requirement to allow the public to attend the meetings to listen to or join in the debates about changes to their local youth services. "I support the principle of Locality Boards providing opportunities for important local issues to be decided in the affected neighbourhood", said Ian; "but I am utterly disgusted that young people, families and other residents will not be able to listen to the debate about changes to their local services". "Conservatives wax lyrical about 'greater transparency and openness, making the decision process more inclusive, robust and accessible' but when it comes to the crunch, important decisions about key community services such as youth services and libraries will be made behind closed doors in secret." "Locality boards MUST be accountable to Kent residents. I challenge KCC Conservatives to stop talking about greater transparency and openness and just get on and do it by holding all Locality Boards in public, starting with the meetings about our youth services. " For transcript of Ian's question and the answer click on http://kentlibdems.org.uk/en/page/county-council-questions Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • KENT HAD HARINGEY LEVELS OF VACANCIES IN CHILDRENS SOCIAL SERVICES
    Liberal Democrats at County Hall renewed their calls for an inquiry into the failure of services to children in care in Kent. Trudy Dean (Lib Dem Leader of the Opposition) revealed for the first time that data about vacancy levels in Kent were known to be at high risk well before an unannounced inspection by OFSTED resulted in a critical report. Trudy gave County Councillors statistics revealing social worker vacancies as early as 2008 were across the county awash with red - indicating a level of high risk. Throughout 2009 over half of the county social work teams had vacancy rates of over 25% - worse than in Haringey where Peter Connelly 'Baby P' died in 2007. "In Ashford, Swale, Dartford,Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells rates were over 25% throughout the majority of the year - in Thanet rates were over 25% throughout the entire year. In Dartford vacancy rates were exceeding 40% over four consecutive months". "I cannot believe Members given these figures would have failed to take the necessary action to fill these vacancies in 2008 - as we did when OFSTED blew the lid off this two years later!" "This information was all available in KCC, but was never shared with councillors. I also understand it was never shared with the senior departmental management teams." "So who did see it? Why it was not revealed? Why was KCC told in April 2010 that Children Social Services was 'coping' and that there were no concerns about professional standards. When only four months later (August 2010) OFSTED disagreed. Since then, under new staff, we have spent £14M this year and will spend another £7M next year bringing our services up to standard. But the system that allowed this tragedy to happen still exists. We must change it. Trudy called for an inquiry into how it happened and an external inquiry since many of the individuals involved have left KCC. "I want a clause in all officers' contracts to oblige them to reveal information which councillors need to do their job properly. If we take this simple step we will ensure these failures do not occur again - because the human cost of failure was borne by 2,600 of Kent's' children who were potentially at risk of serious harm". Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
• Feb 9, 2012:
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 9 February 2012: Consultation on Customer Service Strategy
    Question by Malcolm Robertson to Mike Hill "Delivering the Customer Service Strategy will only be successful if we build trust and credibility for it among KCC staff, our customers and our partners ….. The success of the Customer Service Strategy depends on it being communicated to ensure that staff, customers and partners know about it, feel consulted about it and support it" (Customer Service Strategy, p.23) . Will the Cabinet Member for Customer & Communities inform this council how customers, Members, staff and our partners were consulted and fully participated in the drafting of the Customer Service Strategy and specifically their consideration of: a) the principles* listed on page 2. of the strategy, and b) the five themes: Understanding our customers, p.7-8 Connecting with our customers - effectively and efficiently, p. 9-13 Empowering our staff to meet customer expectations, p. 14-16 Providing excellent quality and value to customers through better designed service delivery, p. 17-20 Improving customer experience working with our public service partners, p. 21-22 *The Principles: We will treat all our customers: with dignity and respect, keeping our promises, exceeding expectations wherever possible in a way that empowers them to take control and make informed choices fairly, offering transparent and easy to understand processes equally, providing a consistent customer experience regardless of how they choose to contact us We will continuously improve our services by: understanding who uses our services using customer insight, consultation and customer experience surveys understanding the customer journey providing easy access to a wide range of services working with partners to join up services in a way that makes sense to our customers providing greater efficiency by sharing accommodation with our partners We will behave as one council by: managing information and knowledge to remove duplication matching customer need with the appropriate response delivering value to the customer training our staff to a consistently high standard of customer service resolving customer queries at the first point of contact promoting channel migration to the most effective channel (Customer Service Strategy, p2.) Response The Customer Service Strategy has been developed in conjunction with customers, Members, staff and our partners and this is what we have done so far: We have used the work we have already done in the Gateways, Contact Centre and Libraries as the main building blocks for the Customer Service Strategy. This will be an ongoing process as we build on information received through customer insight and customer journeys - this is information direct from our customers which will be used to continuously improve services for people in Kent. We have established a Customer Relationship Team and they have already consulted with a wide range of people, including voluntary organisations and those representing minority groups. Members have been involved with the Strategy and in January agreed it was ready to be shared more widely. As part of the ongoing process we will be taking the emerging strategy to the new Cabinet Committees during the next few months. We have involved the full senior management team in KCC. The principles and themes of the new Customer Service Strategy came from the Challenger Group when we looked at their own experience of customer service and how it could be improved. Consultation with staff is ongoing but we have already taken into account comments made by front line Library, Gateway and Contact Centre staff. The Customer Relationship Team is talking to our partners and has already taken on board comments from the Police, Probation Service, District Councils and Public Health. As part of normal KCC process an equality impact assessment has been carried out and is being used to inform current thinking behind the strategy. The Strategy was launched to staff and members on 12 January 2012 using KNet and a series of road shows (28) will be taking place throughout the county during the next few months. The workshops will be based on a 'market place' concept to make sure we engage with and involve front line people. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 9 February 2012: Social Worker Allocation and Assessment
    Question by Dan Daley to Cabinet Member for Specialist Childrens Services Following the inspections by OFSTED during 2010, 2,600 children were identified as being without an allocated social worker. Will the Cabinet Member for Specialist Childrens Services please say: a) how many days or weeks since referral each of these children had to wait for a social worker to be allocated, and b) how many days or weeks since referral each child waited for an initial assessment to be made by the allocated worker? Answer I would like to thank Mr Daley for his question and I'm sure he shares my commitment to improving Children's Services. Many Members have increased their knowledge of Children's Services through membership of the Children's Services Improvement Panel, the Corporate Parenting Panel, the Shadow a Social Worker Scheme, corporate parenting training and Council meetings and briefings. It is vital that we all take our role as corporate parents seriously to ensure thatKentnever again receives a poor OFSTED judgement for safeguarding the most vulnerable children in the county. To provide the level of detail requested by Mr Daley about allocation timescales would necessitate extensive analysis and this has not been possible within the timescales set by democratic services. However, I can provide assurances that the concerns regarding unallocated cases is something that I have taken very seriously, having had this issue brought to my attention as a result of the review undertaken by Malcolm Newsam who was appointed at the Leader's direction as the Interim Corporate Director for Specialist Children's Services. By February 2011, Mr Newsam had identified significant concerns about unallocated and un-assessed cases and about the backlog of work in the system and that some of these had been unallocated or un-assessed for many months. Action was taken immediately to address these concerns including ensuring that all looked after children and all those with a child protection plan were immediately allocated. Managers were also required to take action to ensure cases were assessed and allocated and to support this, additional resource was recruited by commissioning a peripatetic team to come intoKentto clear the backlog of un-assessed and unallocated work. This work was effective in achieving the allocation and assessment of children's cases. By 8 May 2011, there were a total of 338 unallocated cases, 71 of which had been unallocated for over 28 days. The backlog of the 2668 un-allocated cases had therefore been allocated by this time. Members will also recall that since July 2011 the number of unallocated cases has consistently been fewer than 200, showing that in addition to having successfully addressed the concerns regarding unallocated case work, Children's Services are now allocating all new cases in a timely manner. The most recent unallocated case reporting supports this, with 61 cases unallocated as at the 29 January 2012, of which only 6 were unallocated for over 28 days. In respect of timescales for carrying out initial assessments on unallocated cases, of the 2668 cases reviewed, 2021 cases had previously had an initial assessment, 1252 of these within 7 days of referral and 771 in more than 7 days. Subsequently, these cases had been held in a Team Leaders name pending allocation. A further 357 cases were referrals which had required the provision of information and advice only and therefore did not require allocation. The final 259 unallocated cases in the cohort were more recent referrals that had not been assessed at the time the review was carried out and were waiting for the assessment to progress. Of these, 50 subsequently had an initial assessment within 7 days of the referral, 179 had an initial assessment more than 7 days after the referral and, for a variety of reasons such as subsequently being found to be requests for information or advice, 30 did not require an assessment to take place and led to no further action. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 9 February 2012: Lorry Permits and Operation Stack
    Question by Tim Prater to The Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways & Waste Given the Government announcement of charging foreign lorry drivers to drive on Our roads, and the long term stated aim by this Council of seeing such a scheme pay for a long term solution to Operation Stack, what reassurance has been received that Kent will see additional funding from this scheme to resolve Operation Stack and remove this long term burden on businesses, hauliers and residents? Response We greatly welcome the Government's recent announcement that they are to consult over the proposal to charge foreign heavy goods vehicles using UK roads, (in fact they are planning to charge all lorries but UK lorries will be able to claim a refund through reduced road tax). This is something which KCC has called for over many years. And as we made clear in our Growth without Gridlock transport strategy, we will seek a proportion of the revenue generated from this proposal to fund improvements and ensure greater resilience in Kent's strategic road infrastructure, including a long-term solution to Operation Stack, which as local Members will know, causes massive economic disruption to the county every time it is brought into use. The Government forecast that from 2015/16, the scheme will generate net revenue of around £23M. A significant percentage of the cost of the KCC solution to the problems caused by Operation Stack could be achieved from the revenue expected from the first year's charging of foreign lorries. I have heard the Road's Minister recently assert that none of this money will be going to KCC. But the fact remains that 87% of all international road haulage that arrives in the UK, arrives via the Dover Strait and with the planned port development at both Dover and Calais and this figure will increase further. Foreign lorries do not contribute a penny to the Treasury coffers, leaving the taxpayer (in particular Kent's council tax payers) to foot the bill for the external costs they cause. To compound the situation, foreign trucks fill up with diesel bought outside the UK, where fuel duty is far lower, so not only do they avoid contributing to the UK economy at the pumps, they also put UK hauliers at a massive commercial disadvantage. Clearly, ensuring that foreign lorries pay to use our roads is the right thing to do, after all many UK hauliers spend thousands every year on using roads in Europe via different road user charging schemes. Therefore at our next meeting with Mike Penning the Road's Minister, which is scheduled in three weeks time, we will be submitting a robust case calling for Kent's share of these new revenues to mitigate the adverse impact that foreign lorries have on Kent's roads, Kent's residents and Kent's businesses. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 9 February 2012: Blue Badge fee payment methods
    Question by George Koowaree to the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health Along with increasing the Blue Badge issue fee from £2.00 to £10.00 KCC has restricted payment to 'payable by cheque only'* - there is no longer provision for applicants to pay by any other payment methods (i.e. postal order, debit card etc.); will the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health inform this council: a) if he was aware that KCC had imposed this restrictive payment practice on some of our most vulnerable residents and is not enabling access to a range of cost effective payment methods for all and b) how disadvantaged individuals who qualify for a badge but do not have a cheque book (i.e. those with a basic bank account*) are meant to pay for their blue badge? * Extract from blue badge application form http://bit.ly/zKaD1V * With a basic bank account you do not get a cheque book, source: The Money Advice Service - Basic Bank Accounts Guide http://bit.ly/AE93Fo Response The National Blue Badge permit scheme has been subject to a wide range of reforms within the last year in order to increase scrutiny of application, security of badges, reduce fraud and help Local Authority schemes become self funding. The most recent changes occurred on 1 January 2012 seeing an increase in badge costs from £2 to £10. With such a successful scheme, subject to strict assessment criteria, it will be inevitable that some applications will not be successful. The reason we withdrew accepting Postal Orders was due to the change in policy which came in from 1 January 2012 which means payment is only taken if an application is accepted. Returning a cheque is straightforward, as the applicant can destroy the cheque and no funds will be taken from their account. With Postal orders, fees are not refunded and the Post Office requires the original receipt to obtain a refund. As a result of feedback from several applicants, and discussions with the Blue Badge Team, the process was amended on 31 January 2012 so that Postal Orders can be accepted. All of the team that handle Blue Badge enquiries were made aware of this change late on the 31st. Our application form and frequently asked questions are currently being updated on kent.gov. We are asking anyone that chooses to pay by Postal Order, to ask the Post Office when they are purchasing their postal order, how to get a refund if necessary. If their application is declined, their postal order will be returned to them. We are currently looking into card payments options through the national online blue badge system. Once this has been developed and the Blue Badge Team has agreed a way forward, our website and application form will be updated as appropriate. We are currently working with the Customer Relationship Team to plot The Customers Journey on Blue Badge Applications and will ensure we follow national guidelines in this regard. We will of course continue to ensure cost effective and efficient payment methods are explored and offer choice to Service Users. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY
  • Question to Kent County Council [with answer], 9 February 2012: Gateway Costs and Benefits
    Question by Trudy Dean to Mike Hill, Cabinet Member for Customer & Communities Will the portfolio holder for Customer & Communities please state: a) how much the County Council has spent in both capital and revenue on the creation and the ongoing running costs to the 31 March 2012 for the Gateway centres; b) what evidence exists that the Gateway programme has reduced the costs of the County Council either by closing other outlets, or reducing transactional costs; and c) if there is any evidence that the number of people accessing our services (via the Gateways) has increased and if so by how many numerically and in percentage terms? Answer In the 5 years since this programme began, Gateway has achieved national recognition and is regarded as an exemplar of public sector customer service. a) Capital, Revenue and ongoing costs i) The total capital spend between April 2008 to March 2012 on the Gateway programme is £4.6m. This figure is net of capital contributions made by external partners. ii) The total Gateway revenue expenditure between April 2008 and March 2012 is £5.8m which covers the costs of the small strategic management team, 9 live projects (front-line staff and shared premises), two Gateway mobiles and the Customer Insight programme. iii) The ongoing running costs of the current network - £2.2million pa (as above). b) In relation to reduced costs by closing outlets or reducing transactional costs …. i) To date service consolidation with the Gateway programme has led to the closure of the Park Mall Gateway; of Associate House; and of the Day Opportunity Centre in Ashford. These have capital receipts and reduced lease costs attached to them. In Sheerness with the opening of the Sheerness Gateway the Skills Plus Centre and the Library are now surplus to requirements. It is worth noting too that the Gateway network is central to the FSC personalisation agenda providing Health and Occupational Therapy assessments at reduced transactional costs. Transactional costs and all costs are being examined closely in the context of the new Customer Service Strategy and the Make Buy Sell review of the Gateway operation. The Gateway Programme, along with Contact Centre are the first services to be the subject of formal 'Make Buy Sell Reviews'. The review will consider all options for the Gateway Programme including medium and long term improvements and will focus on value for money in conjunction with the scope of service and its partnership arrangements. It will clarify income and expenditure for the Gateway Programme and will consider the evidence on overall and transaction costs. The review on the Gateways Programme will be reporting early in the new financial year. c) The Gateway programme has grown incrementally and is now nearing completion. The following figures set out the comparative activity data for all customers served. It relates to the opening of new Gateway's and reflects the impact of the recession and breadth and relevance of accessible services. Year Number of Gateway locations Number of Customer Transactions Growth as a percentage on previous year 2009 7 183,527 2010 8 409,356 123.0% 2011 9 687,840 68.0% 2012 10 Estimate 1,200,000 74.5% The number of customer transactions had grown from 183,000 in 2009 to 687,000 last year an increase of 504,000 or 375%. Published and promoted by Kent Liberal Democrats, Kent County Council, Sessions House, Maidstone Kent ME14 1XQ Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY