Transcript

If you have a mobile phone or other device please turn it to silent and move it away from the microphone as it may affect the audio system and distract speakers. All around the room are exit signs, should the fire alarm sound during the meeting, please make your way to the nearest and safest exit. Before we go any further can I remind you that on the rising of this committee there is an information governance briefing for members which my Clark colleague tells me will take about an hour. So don't slip off here. Thank you. I do two apologies and substitutes. We have received formal apologies from Mr. Dender but he is here in his capacity as Deputy for Mr. Oakford. We have no substitutes present. Thank you. Item three declarations of interest by members in items on the agenda are there any. Thank you. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2024. These have to be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman. May I do that. Are there any matters arising? I'll take that as a set. Item five, the performance dashboard, the chief executive's department and deputy chief executive's department. Mr. Dender, Mr. Jeffrey, you have read, do you want to say anything before Mr. Wagner begins? Mr. Wagner, over to you. Thank you chair. This is the third and final performance dashboard for the 2023 24 financial year. And it's presenting the results up to the end of March 2024. So with regards to performance, as you'll see from the summary provided on page five of the online pack. The latest reg rating is green for 20 of the 27 KPI's. This is two more than the last report. Of the remaining seven indicators to our amber, which means they've got performance above the floor standard, but below the more challenging target required to achieve a green rating. And that leaves five indicators that are regulated red with the latest month's performance falling below the floor standard. And this is one fewer than in the last report. So those red indicators, one of them falls under the finance division. And this is the FNO7, the number of invoices received by accounts payable within 15 days of KTC receiving them. There are two under the governance and law section, which is the freedom of information requests completed within 20 days. And the subject access request, which is released within the statutory time scales. And there is finally one red under the marketing and resident experience, which is the complete response to within time scale. In summary, sorry, apologies for that. I think we've missed off one of the reds there. So the final red is the rent due to KTC outstanding over 60 days, apologies for that. So in summary, despite the focus of these five red rated KPI's, nearly 75% of the KPI's did meet the target, and a further two were rated amber. The paper also includes in Appendix 2, which is on page 25 of the online plaque, the proposed KPI's and performance targets and the activity indicators for the 2024/25 financial shield, which obviously we've already started. And that is following the review that happens on an annual basis by the services, the relevant cabinet members and the corporate director. No new KPI's have been added this year and none have been removed. There are some revisions to existing KPI's, however, and these are within finance, FNO6, which is looking at the Sanjay debt over six months. This KPI's effect has been flipped to look at Sanjay debt under six months. That's to provide consistency so that a higher percentage of that target reflects a high performance. And the target has effectively been kept the same, so rather than 30% over six months, it's now 70% under six months. We've also added a change in FNO7, and that is the time that it takes for services to send invoices through to accounts payable. Last year, the indicator was changed to make sure that it happened within 30 days. That was moved down to 15 days. The proposal was that indicator reverts back to the 30-day target, which will align it with the FNO8 indicator and also with the timescales with which we should be paying those invoices. It should provide a more realistic performance target in relation to that 30-day payment. And the targets have been set at a floor standard of 85% our performance in this financial year was 81%, so it should still remain as a challenging target. FN12 has also been adjusted, so this is looking at our Sanjay debt. The change to the KPI that's proposed is that it's rather than looking at zero bank balance, it will look at remaining within our authorized overdraft of £1,000,000. The reason for doing this is that it should provide a better financial outcome for KCC as the opportunity cost of holding sufficient funds not to go below zero. It would be greater than the costs of using that overdraft. Finally, within health and safety, the target for HR 25, which is health and safety orders sent within seven days, has been increased to 95% due to the sustained performance above the existing target of 90%. So the committee has asked to note the end of your performance report and comment on KPI's and targets for 2024/25. Thank you. Thank you very much. Over to you ladies and gentlemen. I saw Mr Coop at first. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. So I think overall it's a pretty good story, but if I may, I'd like to press on GL02 and GL03 because these are the areas where we do need to pull our socks up. So forgive me, I haven't got the page number, but there is a little bit of dialogue there about precisely why we're doing so badly here. And it does appear to be a trend where we are getting worse. So for GL03, we were at 8% in March 24. That's down from 50. It's slid down from 50% in December 23. The target is 90%. Last year we were at 64% overall year to date this year at 43%. So I understand that there's complexity in those requests and significant amount of time it takes to adapt to the records. And similarly for GL02, we're down marginally on last year, 76 down from 77%. But the target is 92, and we haven't met at a single month since December. So, and again, there is some dialogue about precisely why that is. What I would like to press upon, Mr Chairman, sorry, I've spent a lot of time explaining what's in the papers. What I would like to press upon is precisely what is going to be done to improve those. It's no good saying, I mean, identifying the problem is a good start, but I would like to see the solution. For these, thank you. Thank you. Mr Stepp, too. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've got two questions. Firstly on FN07. Can we have some explanation of the process of getting invoices to accounts payable and why it might take an extended time? Secondly on PI01, one about the percentage of rent. What's the oldest debt we have for that particular area? Thanks. Who would like to answer that? Mr Jeffery? Yeah, in relation to GL02, GL03. Firstly, I think we need to put things into context. So, in terms of the, whilst the figures are not as good as they should be, I think we need to look at it in the round. What I mean by that is, if you look a few years ago, we were getting around 1500 or so FOI requests. This year is up to around 2,100, 2,200. And it will increase, quite frankly. We are seeing more controversial matters that the Council will have to deal with. That obviously generates inquiries around that. As we've seen, as alluded to in the comments, the Hermbay active travel scheme, U.S. potholes, et cetera. So that will generate more inquiries. And in terms of the subject access requests, again, there has been a significant increase. We used to get around 200 to 250. That figure now is up way into the, you know, it's almost trebled in terms of numbers. And it is more complex because if we're looking at subject access requests, particularly in relation to children's and children's care, we have to go back into the archives. All of them are in hard copy. Nothing is in electronic format, which would be really easy. And then they have to be found in the records. They then have to be redacted. And there have been some staffing issues as well. I have to say recently with some staff absence, but now that the service is fully staffed and operational. And hopefully, you know, the figures will start to come back to where they need to be. But it's just the complexity, really, and the resource in, which is the main issue in this area. In terms of, certainly in terms of the information coming forward to the team as well, we're relying on the direct threats and the services to provide that information before we can respond. So, I think that there is a knock on effect where services are stretched for whatever reason and they're not supplying that information as fast as they should do. Thank you, Mr Jeffrey. And just in response that we're doing immediately after the committee meeting, there's a detail briefing that will go through in a little bit more granularity, some of the reasons and the rationale as to why we are where we are. Mr Jeffrey's touched on many of the points, but in simple terms that there is a question of resourcing, not just in terms of my service, but across the entire council, because an FOI request or a subject access request is a task that sits alongside the day job of a social worker or anybody else. I regularly say and have said over a number of years it is unacceptable for the council to not be meeting our statutory duties, as you would expect me to say in the circumstances. But also it is worth bearing in mind that many of those subject access requests are going to the very same parts of the organisation that currently struggling to deal with statutory compliance relation to the arrivals of unaccompanied asylum seeking children into the UK end. So, there are a range of reasons. We'll go through that in a lot of detail in the session afterwards. And without trying to oversimplify it, we were heading for, and I was feeling positive up until March, about the fact that we would have seen a slight incremental improvement on the previous years. We've had a gradual, notwithstanding as Mr Jeffrey says, the increased numbers, but the first three months of the year I'm afraid did for us in terms of the sheer number of queries that came in. That took us over the upper limit of expected queries. And it also, in terms of the total caseload that is currently live to us, it's higher than it has been at any point since the Freedom of Information Act was introduced. So, we're dealing with that as well. Those are all explanations that I'll talk a little bit in the presentation that we've got later about how we're looking to make, even notwithstanding that, what are the things that we can do because there are always things that we can do to improve the processes, sharpen things up and sharpen accountability, and we'll talk through that later. Thanks, Jim. May I take that as your proposed intervention? Thank you very much. In which case, Mr Dawkins. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, my question was on the same topic. So, just a little bit different, I guess. Just because we're seeing more savings/cuts coming along the line, I'm guessing that we're going to have more FOIs. So, are we looking at going to increase the capacity of the resource to deal with these cases? Because it looks like it's just going to keep going up rather than flatline again. And I guess we're going to talk about it more later as well. But, yeah, just that question from Alex. It seems you'd speak to us. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr Dawkins. I think in simple terms, the resource question isn't just about putting more people into my team. So, it is about recognising that those queries are going right the way across the entire organisation. So, we are looking at how we sharpen the processes that we've got. And, as you say, we'll touch on that in a little bit more detail. Undoubtedly, the more difficult it gets within local government, and this isn't just unique to Kent, but the more difficult decisions are taken, the more individuals who are unhappy about those difficult decisions seek to make requests to find out more about them. And we undoubtedly, and we'll talk you through a couple of examples of that as part of the training, where we've seen a significant increase in FOI requests. We are looking at what we can do to make sure that those, even notwithstanding that, the proactive publication, there's an awful lot of information that does go on to the Council's website. But, if freedom of information requests is a statutory right, so an individual can say, well, that's lovely that you've put that on your website. I'd still like to make my request anyway. So, we'll talk through that in a bit more detail later. There's a fair question. Yes, please do. Okay, thank you, and, yeah, to me, it seems that it's just, yeah, I understand that, it's spread across the whole organisation, it's not just a team. So, to me, it's sort of lending more time to those teams, so that that is, they've given 10% more time to deal with that within their working day, or their contracts, or whatever. It's the emphasis on that priority of how important this is, because it is the circular journey of being a resident, isn't it? You get your services, you're not happy, you go back and all feeds in, and that needs to be seen as a priority. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I think the difficulty with that is that those staff are already working beyond their contracting house, right, the way across the organisation in many cases. I'm not going to wander off my own area, my portfolio of responsibility, but I think that's something we can have a conversation about later, because there isn't an easy fix to that, unfortunately. Right. I think Mr Shipton is here to speak about the settlement of invoices. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, the other question about how invoices get to accounts payable in the first place. A large number of the invoices will come through different automated systems, whether that's the I procurement system, or whether that's through MOSA8 Fred or Social Care or Control for Children's Social Care. First thing we need to recognise, there's not millions of paper invoices flying around. There are automated processes, albeit they'll be slightly different for those different systems, but if members require it, we can produce a fairly simple flow chart of those different systems operate. The one thing that is in common is we have got a separate process for those invoices that are under dispute, because the chances, then, of meeting those deadlines, if there's a dispute on the invoice, there's no chance. So there is a separate process of dealing with those under dispute, and we are already reviewing that 15 days, because that was brought in as a way of helping us improve our performance against meeting the 30-day statutory target. But there are other ways that we can improve our performance on the 30-day statutory target, so we will need to look at that 15-day target anyway, whether that's just too hard to hit and it leads us too long with invoices sitting in AB before they need to get paid by the 30 days. The other point I was wanting to make, we are also signing up to a new system which will enable us to get early settlement discounts on invoices, so that's still a work in progress, but we will need to adjust these targets to meet that system when we require those early settlement discounts, because they are worth having those early settlement discounts and if you pay a bill earlier than the statutory 30 days, you get a discount from the supplier, so that will affect that target as well going forward, so we might want to look and say, well, what early settlement discounts are we getting, which is producing the cost of our invoices? But the main point, if I produce a flow chart for those main systems, you'll better see the differences how they operate. Thank you. I have two members waiting to speak, but I think in the interest of continuity, Mr. Jeffrey. Just to add some context to FOI, and that's around perceived satisfaction levels. Now, when someone makes an FOI request, we respond and obviously we're not responding too timely at the moment, but unless we respond. And then if a person is not happy with the information, they can request a review. Our figures consistently show over the years that less than 3% ask for a review, which is actually really low in the public sector. So that's in effect 97%, 98% people are actually happy with the response that they're getting. So in terms of going back to Ms. Dawkins, which was saying about working for our residents, I think the satisfaction that people are actually getting with the responses they do get eventually is extremely high. And more so as well in terms of last year, for example, we didn't have a single decision noticed issue by the ICO against the authority. Again, very unusual in the public sector for an organization of our size. So overall, I'd say, whilst we're not meeting things in a timely manner, we are meeting things in a comprehensive manner when the answer is given and the satisfaction is clearly there. Thank you. What's some of you? Lovely. Thank you, Ms. Chairman. I apologize for being slightly late to the start of this meeting. I think it's clear to see that there's just hard times across the public sector. We've covered the FOIs. My question is around the complaints side of things. And I believe that there was new methods being put in place to capture complaints, whether that be multiple queries or a single query that's gone to multiple touch points as it were into the organization. And just the kind of -- the assurance that I'm looking for is that it's not spiraling. And again, I think the monitoring officer said how often the complaints are responded to by the very teams that are trying to do the best that they can provide in the service. So, could we maybe ask for the kind of the head of personnel on this? I don't really matter. Are you aware of this? Have you got any concerns about in particular teams? And are you voice-string or adding support to those teams so that they can do the job well first time? Also, the question I have is about the use of phone calls. So, sometimes people are waiting for a long time to hear about a complaint resolved or -- but actually a phone call to -- can just be a feel that they've been heard and listened to. And the last question I have on this is about explaining the wider context. I think, you know, local governments in particular is in a third of its funding reduced from central government that is going to have an impact. And now we're explaining that so that it is sure that, you know, we all want to do the best we can in public service. And actually, we can't at the moment. And that's sad. But yeah, I'd be welcome for those responses. Thank you. Yeah, I'll take the last question and pass over to Amanda for the video. In terms of the overall picture, I think if you look at the narrative and compare it to the last time, there has been improvements within get -- there's been improvements within the Chief Executive Department as well. Within Senn, there has been a significant push to get cases closed. And from January to April, we closed 296 Stage 1 complaints and 47 Stage 2 complaints. And this is a huge volume. It's gone some way to improve the position within an area where we were having a huge number with a backlog. And the backlog team are working on closing cases and ensuring that we have robust investigations to resolve the issues. And avoid escalation where possible. There have been, as I identified within FOI, a number of staff absent recently. And that meant triage in and sending complaints out for investigation was slower than it should have been normally. However, that is now getting back up to normal business. It will take some time. It's hoped by the end of the calendar year, we will be back to business as usual within the Senn complaints, which is a large proportion of where the backlog is. It's important to note, many of the focuses in terms of service improvement regarding Senn has been on fixing the wider system around annual reviews and assessments, which will lead to a longer-term benefit around complaints. And this does take time to come through. In respect of adults, which has also decreased, it's worth noting that this is covered by separate legislation to the ones we normally use. And the focus there has been ensuring that they meet their statutory duties first and then we deal with the complaints alongside that. So we're working with adult social care to respond to complaints as quickly as possible. And sort of working on whether there are more complex issues to see what support can be given. At the moment, there are weaker reviews going on within the areas where there are significant backlogs and we're hoping to, as I say, towards the end of the year, we should get back to where we need to be, but it does take time to clear that backlog rather than we could focus on the quick low-hanging fruit and deal with those immediate complaints. But that would be unfair for those that are all in the system. So it will take time to clear on Fred. Oh, Mrs. Beat. Thank you, Chairman. Just to add to what Mr. Geoffrey said, I think I completely recognise the point about when the operational teams are under pressure. That inevitably means that there is more pressure on getting complaints answered in time. And in the same way, Mr. Watson, that's the concentration has to be on the statutory service delivery. I think I recognise as well the point made about one of the frustrations for people who are waiting for their complaint to be dealt with is the lack of communication. And one of the things that we've done, where there are significant issues like in the ACN service, is to ensure that there is contact with the complainants, even if it's only to say, we're sorry, we're late. We're working on your complaint as quickly as we can. And we will be in touch by X date. And that is welcomed by the people who are making the complaint. Although, of course, we can only do that once. So we can't keep ringing and saying, sorry, it's going to take a bit longer. So those measures are in place. And what has been seen very strongly is the improvement in the way the complaints teams and the services work together. And it is now very much a concerted effort to ensure that the people working in the complaints team outside the service are able to pick up as many of the queries as they possibly can to relieve the pressure on the staff. But everyone members, I'm sure, will appreciate that a lot of the complaints that relate to adult social care and ACM placements require that professional input. So it's not something we can take away completely. But where they are more routine queries, we will ensure that the people in the complaints teams are properly trained to answer as much of the queries they can. That's right, Mr Cooper. Thank you, Mr Jimmy. I think Mr Dawkins has pressed enough on that matter. So I was going to raise thank you. Right, thank you, Mr Hawke. Chairman, I just want to look at page 25 just to understand some of what there is better. The FN, I think I'll focus on two to save time. FN 13 is about our managed cash portfolio and refers to funds not having an average credit rating of less than AA. And our target here, the two, has been 100%. But it's proposed to have a floor of only 90. I just wonder if we can have some explanation about that. Obviously the lower the rating, the greater the risk is. And AAA is often considered where we should be aiming at. So I just wonder why are we planning for up to 10% of our funds to be less than AA. The other matter is FN 14, which is third-party insurance claims. And I imagine perhaps it can be explained. This means claims against the council not claims by the council, but that perhaps can be touched on. And it looks like the target is planned to reduce the target itself is dropping from 99% to 95% of the floor of only 85%, which is roughly five to six. Obviously a lot of these claims are by ordinary families by Ken residents who in some way have been, they feel have been caused damage. Pot holes are a very common one where someone's vehicle is damaged. And that can be really important to people to get that resolved quite quickly so they can repair their car or not be out of pockets, which we know is especially difficult during the cost of living crisis. So I just wondered if someone could say why we're proposing to drop that target. And also the term used is designated timescales. And I just wonder if someone could explain a bit more about what that means. Mr Wagner. I can probably answer partly the point around the target on FN 14. I think it might be, sorry if it's slightly unclear on the paper, that paper, but the 99% is actually the performance that we had in the 2023 24 year. The targets for 23 24 were still 95 and a floor of 85. So the targets haven't changed, but we've been performing significantly above the target in 23 24. Hopefully that provides some clarification on that one. In terms of the question around designated timescales, I think I might have to defer to someone else on that one. And who would do that? I don't think any of us I suspect it does mean timescales are different for different claims. I suspect if the best thing to know and he will have the answer, if we take that out the room and write through you chair to the committee afterwards to outline what designated timescales means for this indicator, if that's okay. Thank you very much. Mr Steppe here. Thank you, Mr Chairman. In all the excitement about FOI requests, you seem to have forgotten my question about outstanding rents. Yes, thank you. So in relation to the outstanding rent, the question I think was, what's the oldest debt that we have? And that's not an easy question to answer because we have lots of different types of debts that go back over a period of time. What I can do is separately kind of write to the committee to set out what those different types of debts are and what that looks like. But we do record and we monitor the debts that are over 60 days, which is what is concerned with this KPI. And there could be all sorts of reasons why they are continuing over a long period of time. It could be that it's enhanced by solicitors and that's a reason for a number of them. It could be that an organisation has gone insolvent and that we've got a claim in for an outstanding debt. So there could be all sorts of reasons where we might be receiving, for example, a very small amount of money, but over a very long period of time to wipe the debt out. So there's lots and lots of reasons why, but I will double check the statistics as to what is the oldest debt and come back to this committee. Thank you. Question for you, Mr Wagon, for me. I remember in an earlier part of my career that often, when pot hold claims were refused, the resident would not take no for answer. And the argument, arguments would rage for months. Would such claims be included in the total of unresolved claims? I think in terms of how the KPI is measured, it would only include those that have been resolved within the time period that we're looking at. So those that are still unresolved won't appear within the KPI until the point that they are resolved. And we know exactly how long that took in its total duration for the sake of the KPI. It would obviously be a different measure to look at still outstanding claims. That would be obviously within a separate report, but that's not what's within the definition of this KPI. That clarifies it. Sorry, just in relation to the question around FN13, just discussing with Mr Shipton, that is one we'll have to go back to insurance to clarify a few items on. So again, if with permission, chairman will write to the committee through you to give an answer to Mr Holst's question. Thank you very much. In which case, we have reached the end of the debate on this item. The recommendation is that the new form is positioned for the chief executive department and deputy chief executive's department and comment on the KPI is what we've done and targets prepared for 2010-14-25. I agree. Thank you very much. Item six, Kenta States and Kenta States. We won't say anything about this. Mr Dendor, or shall we go to Mrs Spore? Mrs Spore. Thank you. So I'm joined today by officers from the program team, so Mr Murphy and Mrs Johnson, who will be able to answer any detailed questions. This paper kind of sets out an update to the committee in relation to the Kenta States Partnership and the Kent-Kenex Partnership, which the program team support. And this report kind of sets out its activities since the last update that this committee received. So a very happy chairman to go straight into questions. Thank you. Does anyone wish to say anything? In which case, the recommendation on page 37 is that no progress to date on the development of the partnerships. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. Let us therefore go to item seven, implementation of an independent construction consultancy services framework. I think Mrs Spore again. Thank you. So this paper has been to committee a number of times in terms of the procurement of the construction consultancy framework, where we have in the past discussed all the different options, and we've progressed with the teams in infrastructure and procurement, the recommended preferred option by the committee, which was to establish a framework. So this paper updates the committee on the latest position and seeks any comments in relation to the decision that students be made to award the contracts in due course as following the procurement exercise. Again, we're very happy to answer any questions, and I'm joined by Mr. Maunter and Mrs. Harrington, who will be able to help. Thank you. Are there any questions? Dr Sullivan. Can I just question how it will work in practice? Is this for building a new school or repairing buildings or something along those lines? Yes. So when we run to taking a project, whether it's a major construction project or some minor projects, then we would look to support that project with a professional team that might include an element of design, et cetera, and that's what this framework is designed to enable to happen. So in that project, excuse me, through that project, we could have somebody from lot one, from the multi-disciplinary team, and possibly somebody represented from lot four from a technical project, those scenarios work, or would it be essentially, you think it's a lot three supervisor, could there be a scenario where on a new build or whatever build or project, you would have a representative from each of the different lots working together? Potentially, yes. So if I may take this, so a lot one is for generally minor work schemes, schemes which are typically under a million pounds, multi-disciplinary is the multi-disciplinary design team. The designers will design what is to be constructed. A technical advisor may be necessary if there are specific complexities around the design for which we would want to see further independent scrutiny of the design undertaken. So it's not typical that we would have lot four and lot one working in tandem because we don't think it would be necessary, specifically lot four would come into play on the schemes over a million pounds, which have much greater value and need for scrutiny over the design to ensure that the contractors are designing it in accordance with best practice, et cetera. Right, through you, Chair. So in a scenario when you've got these multiple lots, presumably, possibly, they are from different companies with different interests in seeing the projects succeed, and you come to a stumbling block which is not resolvable, who then, you know, looking at the governance of then how can the project proceed when maybe a subcontractor or a contractor disagrees with the assessment from the technical advice. So how would that work together in play when an architect has designed something that's designed and actually if there is some issues on the ground with putting it together, how does that then play out? Adversically. So the technical advisor is there for exactly that reason. If the, for example, the multi-disc team have designed something and the contractor is saying what you're doing, you can't build this, then that is the prime scenario where we would obviously challenge the design for the multi-disc team, but also seek the opportunity to bring the technical advisor and challenge that further and should the multi-disc design be not sufficient, then obviously we would challenge it and take the technical advisor's advice. It would be a collaborative effort. Wow. You're not satisfied. I'm not satisfied. Well, no. It is his good, and I'm very, very grateful for the answers. So it says in here that KCC, there will be little risk to KCC, and I just wonder about when a project has been given over, the money has been spent on designing a new school. I can think of one in my division which hasn't quite, we've got to redesign it. That's money that has been lost, and I suppose what I'm just trying to safeguard and check, and make sure that you, like you say, you've got those checks in place, is that we're not going backwards and forwards through the technical advice. We want to get it right first time. And where are the, will there be safe checks in place that money for different projects to do is either on delivery or it's time-based, it's not all up front, so we don't lose the money and the impact in the case of it going wrong or a disagreement. Yeah, I think ultimately the consultants will have their own professional indemnity insurance to deal with any matters that should arise in terms of claims and the like. The multi-dist design team are specifically there for those minor works projects, and it will be on their head that if things do go wrong, then obviously for any further claims we'll come back to them. Yeah, so I guess there's a number of different factors that come into play, aren't there? When you're thinking about a typical construction project or taking forward a minor works program. So from KCC's point of view we have very robust processes in place. So we have gateway checks that we undertake at every single kind of reaper stage of a project, so when it reaches a key milestone. So we will undertake those checks to make sure that we are confident from somebody separate to the individual team and project manager that's taking it forward, that we are comfortable and there's an opportunity for kind of challenge and for things to be picked up at that point, if they've not already been picked up as part of the project. So we have quite a robust process that we have in place. Separately we also have quite robust contracting processes in place. So there is different payment terms depending on what it is that we're talking about. So there's different payment terms for the contractor which is based upon milestones and then there'll be different payment terms which are based upon the professional team, which is what this is concerned about. What we would also do is as we go through that, if there is discrepancies that appear that haven't been picked up as part of the previous process, we would seek to validate those and pursue them through the dispute resolution processes that are set out in the various different contracts. And so we have quite a robust process. We have a number or some evidence in the past of where we have taken that legal action against contractors where we haven't been satisfied with their approaches and we haven't been satisfied with the end product. And this very much is designed to ensure that we aren't left in a position where we have no recourse should something go wrong later. Go ahead. Thank you. So that brings me on to if there's trouble later. So say then that actually the people working together to get this building through or whatever we would like to call it, we find out later that there is a fault that perhaps one of them should have picked up. Who has the liability? Will it come back to us that we have to then correct the issue? And just seeking of the capacity for legal action, I've got, you know, Northlete gym equipment which was not put right by a subcontractor which is still broken and not right. That has been left. So I'm thinking about the capacity for legal action. If somebody hasn't done the work so they should have been paid for it and it is broken, that then has a direct impact on the Kent taxpayer and users of that. So I'm just thinking about the trouble, the liability, will that fall back to us, KCC and the taxpayer that we have to fix and that capacity to take things to legal action and to chase down the liabilities on that. You said that you've done it before but where is the threshold in that case? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think we've had in the earlier reviews, we've spoke about the same way in terms of sort of liability issues. So one of the things we've done in the contract is that some of the consultants disciplines are slightly different but we've put the limitation liabilities about 12 years in the contract. So if we do need to call people back for review, we can call the whole of the design team back, the whole of the consultancy team to get evidence of minutes and things like that but I think it's something that we would probably engage support from legal on and take if you're on how we would move it forward because it would either be, it would depend on whether the contractor had contracted design or whether it was design a bill contract or a bill-only contract and we would have to go back and say, right, the consultant was responsible for the design. Was it a design issue or was it an installation issue? And they're not easy things, to be honest, they're not easy things to resolve but we would have to just work back through the contract and say who was liable, who was responsible for the design, who was responsible for the bill and work back through that manner. But we have put the limitation liabilities about 12 years, I think, across all of the disciplines so that we can call them all back if we need to and get evidence of documentation. I don't know if that helps. Yeah, okay, thank you. Mr. Walsh. It's just a touch on your point about some of the liabilities that can tax pay so there are occasions in the past. I can think of one very notable one where the Council has brought litigation against other parties and secured our costs in relation to doing that as well. So because of the nature and the scale of the litigation costs tend to follow the event. So, yeah, and just to confirm what Caroline said, that there is legal advice taken where it is needed. You're satisfied. There being no others. Mr Dawkins. Oh, Mr Dawkins, go ahead, please. Just to pick up on what Dr Sullivan has been saying and what you've responded with, it just does sound quite complicated and I just, I mean, ultimately it's just somebody left going, you know, and with a broken thing and never, and just sitting around not ever getting. Is there any way of streaming learning this process, making it easier so that things can go smoothly and not have this thing where you've got to find a piece of paper from a pile of paper somewhere, okay, thank you. I think if we could streamline it, I'd be very rich lady. I think as Rebecca says, it is very, very complicated and as you know with most things, there's always people, you know, not passing the back, but saying what they respond to before and what they're not responsible for. I think the thing that we can do is Rebecca says we have all of our gateway stages that David and the team check off all the way through. We think we've structured the contract very, very well in terms of responsibilities and liabilities and responsibilities and it's really important that when we appoint the consultants at the outset, those roles and responsibilities are very, very clear and all of the contracts really should sort of dovetail in so they know which liabilities and responsibilities they've got. I don't know whether there's an easy way to stream like if I was honest. I think as Rebecca says, we would always try to sort things out amicably before with the design team because it costs everybody, so we would always try and sort things out amicably before, but it isn't an easy process and I'd be dishonest if I said I thought we could streamline it and make it simple. Yeah, sorry. I really think we have taken this run far enough. I was just said, appreciate that, thank you. Dr Sullivan, bearing in mind what I said, let's go ahead. Yep, no, sure, I mean we can always bring this in to scrutiny if there's lack of time, no, it's not a problem at all. In terms of the lots and SMEs based in Kent, it's quite encouraging to see that there are many coming forward. Is there going to be weighted in the appointment process of selecting lots, or how is that putting interaction to support Kent local businesses? Is there what in the process did you say sorry? So in the appointment or selection of the various lots from SMEs based in Kent, will that be given any weighting up? Okay, yeah, we're not able to do that under PCRs, we're not able to do that, but what we did do when we looked at the tender, that's one of the reasons why we structured the lots, and with the procurement act coming forward in October, we have to mandate you to consider lotting purely for SMEs. So if we'd have lotted these, and we had lots of conversations about the lotting, if we'd have lotted them bigger, we would have just had the multi-discipline consultants. So we structured the lots in a smaller manner to enable them to do that. The other thing that we did, we gave longer during the tender periods, because SMEs don't have bid writers, so we gave them a lot longer during the tender period. We have to give everybody the same time, but we lay out a longer period during the tender period so that they could structure their bids, and also some of those that were applying for multi-lots and things. But we can't, we're not able to physically do anything else with SMEs, but I think we have tried all that we can. It's really pleasing to see, I'd like to have seen a higher percentage than 64%. I think we've done pretty well, and I think once we've awarded the contracts, because there could be some supplies that have gone from multiple lots, that could be slightly different, so yeah, but we can't actually do anything specific other than what we've done there. Thank you. Thank you. Right. The recommendation, policy and resources cabinet committee is asked to consider and also make recommendations to the deputy leader and cabinet member for finance on the proposed decision, and I think we have done that. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. Can I record it's abstained, please? I have, of course, read the wrong recommendation, but let us go now to item eight. Consistency contract to provide emergency response capabilities in the event of an early-inclusion incident. That is dear to my heart. This is Paul. Thank you, Chairman. Did Mr. Mead want to say anything before? No, you're happy. Good. So this paper kind of sets out the proposals in relation to the replacement contract in relation to the marine pollution responsibilities that we have across the county. The report sets out our responsibilities as category one responder and that we are responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient plans in place, and we have historically held this particular contract on a retainer basis. The report sets out the new arrangements going forward of how we propose for the contract to operate between us and the coastal districts, but essentially it ensures that we have plans and an provider in place should we need it in a very extreme circumstance. So it's really important for Ken as a whole that we have that ability in place to be able to call upon that if it's needed. The contract, the paper sets that out in a bit more detail, and I'm joined by Mr. Jeffrey and we're happy to take any questions that you may have. Thank you. I have a question. I read this paper with great interest because I had a career in marine casualties reserved and not created them. And I was interested in that we have no statutory responsibility for responding to tier two events. There have been any in recent years and were there, was there a full recovery of our costs from other parties? Thank you, Chair. We've never had a tier two response in Kent, so there's never been a need to call upon the contract previously. Thank you. Ms. Dawkins. I just wanted to ask if we could explain the difference between tier one and tier two. Instances, please. Thank you. Sorry, let me just get the correct wording for you. Apologies. There being no others. I can't find a talent. I'm sorry. Sorry, essentially, as a brief overview, the tier one are the smallest type of instance. They're generally within the capability of a single borough or district council to manage the impact within both the staff resources and any contracts they may hold with appropriate contractors. Tier two is where that then exceeds the capability of a single, in our case, borough districts in Kent covering multiple areas, and that's where we're with these call on additional assistance through the contract we currently hold with Halderin Allen. Yes, of course. Thank you very much. Yeah. Where is the point? What is the statutory body or the point where you decide that district hasn't got the capability or the capacity and, yeah, any more, you get what I mean? There is no fixed kind of threshold. All authorities differ in their capabilities. Some, depending on the threats that they may have within their areas, or, for instance, support, may have an enhanced capability because they, there is that kind of higher level of risk. So they mitigate that appropriately. Other authorities may not have those sort of establishments within their area, so don't have that enhanced capability. So there's no fixed threshold given in National Guidance. It's a discussion with that authority during that incident. Dr. Solligan. Thank you, Jim. It says on 1.2 about marine pollution includes things such as land, wastewater and sewage, algal blooms, and where we've seen an increase of discharge into our rivers and seas. Will this be likely to be, have to be enforced or used if the water companies are not treating the waste effectively? Will the taxpayer have to be picking up this as well if those algal blooms from sewage is not dealt with? Thank you. So for all pollution incidents, be they from wastewater or sewage discharges or from kind of marine-based oil pollution events, the principle is that the polluter pays. So that can be quite difficult with marine pollution. Depends on identifying the ship that may have caused that particular amount of pollution. Obviously with wastewater discharges, it's quite clear the polluter in that case. So should we have to activate the contract to respond to any of those incidents, we would look to ensure that the water company that had caused that kind of covered the costs of activating that contract? It seems to be, it seems to be. Thank you very much, Mr. Gertrich. Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee has asked to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet member community and regulatory services on the proposed decision. And I believe we have done that. I'll agree. Thank you very much. Let's go on to item 9, we have two property papers. This is for. Thank you. So in relation to this item, it's regarding the granting of a lease to the 20-year period to UK Power Networks for a new substation which is located in a school ground. The paper sets out the background, the options that were considered and makes the recommendation that the decision is forthcoming in due course from Mr Oakford that we award a lease to UK Power Networks over 20 years to facilitate the changes. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Dr. Sullivan. Thank you. Just on this, will the school that's hosting this Power, will they receive any benefit, direct benefit to their bills at all? Thank you. Yes, the school will receive a direct benefit because the substation needs to be relocated to a position that will allow an existing building to either be extended or demolished and a new building erected in its place. So there'll be a direct education benefit arising from this. There'll also be a health and safety benefit because at the moment, these steps to the building adjoining the substation are mounted at a level with some rails that become a ladder which children could be perhaps encouraged to jump over and enter the substation site. The substation location that we've noticed is in a far safer location to an area that's out of bounds to the children. So there is a health and safety benefit to the school as well as a development opportunity for the school for education benefit. I'm afraid not. Oh, there'd be any more. Let's do it. Thank you. So you're saying that the benefit is that they can build another building, so will there be any funding involved in that? And also, I'm kind of looking forward – looking – that is the funding from that to go to the school to build the building, that's what I mean. And also looking at the next paper, which is a renewal of a lease for a school, I'm just sort of seeing that one – the lease is one pound, and the other one's market rate, and it seems a little – so we're giving the power network, which is a massive company that makes those appropriate in the corporate way, but the school, that is kind of a public thing that is stretched for money, we're asking them to pay market rent. Why is that? I'm sure there's a reason, but it's just kind of – the rent that is payable for the substation is in accordance with prevailing rates that we grant leases for two substations, not just in Kent, but across the country. And this is the typical fee that a substation provider would pay for, because they do bear tremendous costs in providing a substation, and having been involved in a few with counter-council development, so I'm aware that substantial costs will be incurred by the substation operator, in actually relocating the substation to its fresh location, turning to the paper that's coming up with regards to the preschool site, the rent that I'd be looking to achieve. There would be a ground rent only, not a rent for buildings, because the Academy Trust will be incurring the cost of actually building that building, assuming my paper is approved. Thank you. That seems to be acceptable. So, the recommendation is that the Cabinet Committee is asked to consider, and also make recommendations to the Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for finance. I think we're agreed. Is that so? Thank you very much. Now, we can go to the final paper today. I can tell it, shell rich, fine-risk school, grant a long lease to Academy Trust for Development for New Education Building. This is for. Thank you, Chairman. Again, the paper kind of sets out what is being proposed in relation to the detail of the lease, but effectively this is seeking agreement comments on a proposed decision, which is to enter into a lease of over 20 years with the primary school for use of the land in respect of a preschool. And again, we're happy to answer any questions that you have. Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Human. Not a question exactly. I just wanted to speak in support of this and declare an interest, if it needs to be declared, that I'm the local member. I've been involved with this for the past year. It's been ongoing for the best part of two years, and I'm glad to see that it's reached this stage. Shelled, which Academy Trust are an excellent Academy Trust. As far as I can tell, the primary school there is outstanding. They've invested 85,000 pounds in the preschool site, which has been there, which now needs to be replaced. And I'm glad to see that we're moving forward with this. Thank you. So you're in the state of the place. Excellent. Mr. Vock. Chairman, I also support, there's a lot of children in my division, go to Shelled, which primary school and the creation of new early years places is really welcome and be a very positive step. Thank you. There have been no others. Recommendation is the cabinet committee considers and endorses will make recommendations to the deputy leader and cabinet that the finance on the proposed decision. And I think we have done that. Are we agreed? Thank you very much. It brings us to item 11, the work program. The talk has nothing to add. Are there items that members would like added to the work program? Please don't follow yourselves. Dr. Sullivan. Thank you. This may be very controversial. So this is the policy and resource committee policy. I think I brought up a few years ago about the number of policies we have and whether they are in date, out to date, and where they are on. I just wondered if a kind of global look at, right, of the policies and just an organization of frame against future, frame against future, and then where these policies sit just to make sure that whatever piece of work that needs to be done, there is a strategy that links to it or it is encompassed just so that we are aware of any policies that may be coming out of date that need to be reviewed. Hi. I wonder if it was an ongoing process anyway. Perhaps Mr. Watts would like to go in. I can have a conversation. Mr. Whittle is probably the best thing in relation to what sort of paper or how we might be able to take that forward. You've got a presentation after the meeting now. There may be some different ways to achieve the outcome that you're looking for, but I'll take that away. With Katie, we'll find a way to raise it and get you the answers you're after. Thanks. There being no other. Thank you very much. We have considered a note of the plan work program of 2024, which brings us to the end of the meeting. Thank you very much everybody.