February 2: The Kent TV cliffhanger...
AFTER one or two delays and behind the
scenes discussions, a decision on the future of KCC’s controversial
TV channel Kent TV is imminent.
Its fate will be determined in
the next week or two – several weeks later than
anticipated.
One of the consequences of
various delays – including the postponement of a meeting because of
the weather where would-be bidders were due to present to a panel –
is that the decision on what to do will fall to Cllr Roger
Gough, the Conservative cabinet member for corporate
services.
The Conservative cabinet, which
met on Monday (Feb 1) to consider these arrangements, has delegated
the final decision to Cllr Gough to make.
There are a couple of points
worth making here. The first is that the decision probably
qualifies as an executive key decision under the Local Government
Act 2000.
Under the Act, there are no
problems with individual cabinet members taking such decisions but
there are certain requirements relating to the publication of
reports and associated papers that are designed to ensure that
important decisions are taken in public.
Of course, as the decision
involves a contract and potentially commercially sensitive
information, the authority may well invoke other legislation that
permits it to treat such information as exempt. It could therefore
become a decision that is taken behind closed doors.
So, I have no idea whether the
decision over the future of Kent TV will be accompanied by publicly
available reports citing the reasons why and the
background.
It may become immaterial however
if the decision is made before next Wednesday. Even though it has
yet to be made, the opposition parties have called in the matter to
a meeting of the council’s all-party cabinet scrutiny
committee.
Liberal Democrat opposition
group leader Cllr Trudy Dean says that she is
unhappy with the arrangements, saying the Conservatives are
"running scared" of having a public debate.
Meanwhile, I gather further soundings are being taken
among Conservative backbenchers with reports that opinion remains
broadly divided about whether the council should continue with its
venture.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
REMEMBER the Dangerous
Dogs Act? It was passed 18 years ago by John
Major’s government as emergency legislation after a rash
of attacks by dogs on young people.
It has been described as one of
the worst laws ever to be put on the statute books because it was
rushed and was a knee-jerk reaction to a flurry of outraged tabloid
newspaper headlines.
Now the Government’s
Personal Care At Home Bill is being subjected to
the same criticism. It follows a pledge by the Labour government to
provide "free" care to the elderly and vulnerable who need help in
their own homes.
Councils like KCC say that it
has been poorly thought through and is being rushed so that the
Government can exploit the commitment in the run-up to the general
election.
Desirable as it may sound, KCC
and other councils look like facing a serious cash shortage if the
Government doesn’t address the problems of under-funding that are
giving cause for concern.
How KCC
fears huge cash shortfall over free care
pledge>>
I suspect the Government will
plough on regardless. A few months before the election is rarely a
time when politicians engage in sober discussions about the
unintended consequences of their proposals.
Not while there are voters to be
wooed.
Tuesday, February 02 2010