URL: https://democracy.medway.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2182

Decision Maker: Council

Outcome: Decision made

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Question A – Councillor Hamilton asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, the following:   “Have our HR policies ever allowed elected Members — under any administration — to unilaterally override staff contracts or working conditions outside proper processes?”   In response, Councillor Van Dyke said that the Medway Pay Policy Statement was reviewed annually by the Employment Matters Committee and Full Council, and any other policy changes that may impact working conditions would be subject to consultation with Trade Union colleagues and through the Employment Matters Committee.   It was not possible for Members to make changes to these matters outside of these processes.   As the General Secretary of Unison had said in standing up for the rights of working people, who had been unacceptably threatened, it was disappointing but not unexpected that Nigel Farage thought he could immediately threaten local government workers in the councils Reform UK now controlled. Councillor Van Dyke concluded that the UK had laws that protected workers and strong unions that would stand up for their Members.   Question B – Councillor Jackson asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “Can the Leader confirm whether it would be legal for this Council to pass a budget which would deny young people with support like driving lessons or education access based on their immigration status or background, as Reform UK have recently suggested, on the basis that Medway Council has a statutory duty of care to young people who are in our care until the age of 25?”   In response, Councillor Maple said that Medway Council, like all local authorities in England with care responsibilities, had clear and binding statutory responsibilities towards all children and young people in its care, including care leavers up to the age of 25. These responsibilities were underpinned by several key pieces of legislation and statutory guidance.   This duty was the foundation of the Council’s role as a corporate parent, which required the Council to act in the best interests of all Children in Care and Care leavers, as any good parent would. This included access to education, training, employment, and life skills such as driving lessons, where appropriate.   It would not be lawful for the Council to pass a budget that denied support to Children in Care or care leavers based on their immigration status or background. Such a policy would be incompatible the Council’s statutory duties, the legal framework governing care, and its role as a corporate parent.   Councillor Maple said that Zia Yusuf had demonstrated, when discussing this issue on BBC Radio Kent, that he and his party did not understand the statutory responsibilities that they had taken on.   Medway Council was committed to upholding the rights and welfare of all young people in its care and was pleased to pass a cross party motion in 2024 recognising that people with care experience had a protected characteristic. The Council would ensure that they were supported equally and fairly, and that all children continued to matter in Medway.   Question C – Councillor Myton asked the Chairperson of the Employment Matters Committee, Councillor Mark Prenter, the following:   “If Medway Council attempted to give different pay awards to staff based on whether they are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme — as Reform UK have suggested — would that be legal under UK employment law?”   In response, Councillor Prenter said that all roles went through a job evaluation process to ensure that employees were fairly paid for the work they undertook.   Differentiating pay awards for the same role on inappropriate grounds could potentially make the authority liable for equal pay claims.   Councillor Prenter said that this would be an awful thing to put on working people in Medway. Far from achieving government efficiency, it would cost the Council more and use officer time to resolve unnecessary disputes. Council staff had suffered more than a decade of real terms pay cuts. He said that the first thing Reform UK did when they achieved power was to attack the low paid workers that kept the country moving.   Question D – Councillor Nestorov asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, the following:   “If Medway followed Reform UK’s dogmatic position and ended all working from home — what would be the operational and legal consequences for our workforce?”   In response, Councillor Van Dyke said that this would put a strain on Medway’s estates and its current strategy of property rationalisation, which formed part of the wider financial sustainability ambition. It would also make recruitment and retention difficult as many people had changed their work patterns and lifestyles to adjust to a new way of working and many other organisations offered this flexible approach.   Ending working from home would also necessitate changing employment contracts for all effective staff, which would require consultation and could come at a significant cost.   Councillor Van Dyke considered that organisations worked best when they were agile and flexible and could respond to the needs of their staff, whether that was by agreeing a programme of work to modernise facilities, as Medway Council was doing at Gun Wharf, or allowing hybrid working, which enabled staff to be more productive. She suggested that Reform UK agreed with this approach as they had been advertising for numerous party roles that included working from home, instead of investing in facilities for staff.   Question E – Councillor Cook asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “If Medway Councillors promised residents that we would ban staff from working from home, would we be breaching employment law?”   In response, Councillor Maple said that employment contracts generally set out the work style and location that was applicable to a role. Whilst not all contracts in Medway would be the same, most would state that the work style is hybrid, in line with the Council’s Our Ways of Working policy.   Amending a contract term without formal consultation and other procedures being correctly followed would likely be overturned at an Employment Tribunal Hearing.   Councillor Maple said that Nigel Farage telling the BBC that there would be no more working from home was not something he could deliver and would not deliver the productivity he thought it would. There were people across all industries who did not have the opportunity to work from home due to the nature of their work but to block those that could was the ‘politics of envy’.   Question F – Councillor Howcroft-Scott asked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management, Councillor Van Dyke, the following:   “If a Medway “DOGE team” tried to demand HR files or attempted to discipline officers without following policy, would that be lawful?”   In response, Councillor Van Dyke said that access to Human Resources files could only be given in line with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements and regulations, as the files contained personal data about employees and in some cases, their families. Individuals could request access to their own files via a Subject Access Request but there were very limited circumstances where a Subject Access Request for an individual file could be accepted from someone other than the individual concerned.   Any disciplinary action could only be taken in line with the Council’s disciplinary policies and processes. These did not allow for actions to be taken by someone outside the authority, although an independent investigator could be appointed in limited circumstances.   Councillor Van Dyke said that the successful running of a Council was dependent on mutual respect between the Leader, Cabinet and senior management team. She considered that putting a letter into the public domain via social media, threatening staff to comply with party demands, before sharing it with the Executive, to be completely unacceptable.   Question G – Councillor Shokar asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “Would you ever co-sign a letter with the Leader and Chair of the Labour Party – threatening Medway Council staff if they didn’t hand over sensitive information to the Labour Party Chair and other prominent Labour Party donors, particularly, if these hypothetical Labour Party donors had already in the past been fined over £100k by the Information Commissioner’s Office for illegally sharing and using data for political campaigning?”   In response, Councillor Maple said that the answer was no.   Question H – Councillor Stamp asked the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, Councillor Browne, the following:   “Has Medway’s Audit Committee ever received advice or evidence suggesting that politicising audit, as Reform UK proposes, could improve governance or protect taxpayers?”   Responding on behalf of Councillor Browne, Councillor Maple said that the answer was no.   Question I – Councillor Campbell asked the Chairperson of the Health and Wellbeing Board, Councillor Murray, the following:   “Reform UK Councillor Linden Kemkaran recently said of the possibility of replacing classes in adult education centres up and down the county that are teaching English as a second language with the Duolingo app,?‘If I don’t think that’s value for money, it’s going. Simple as that.”   Can the Chairperson of the Health and Wellbeing Board confirm whether the health benefits of helping residents learn English, for example, improving health outcomes, as well as social and economic benefits such as getting into work and improving community cohesion represents good value for money?”   In response, Councillor Murray said that she had had the pleasure of attending one of Medway’s ESOL classes run by Medway Adult Education. The benefits and impact of learning English at centres and outreach community venues was well documented, valued and recognised nationally.     English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) – classes supported community cohesion, integration, and mental health alongside opportunities to improve life, work and education prospects.   Some learners had limited support networks, which increased the risk of social isolation. ESOL classes could be a way for people to develop new relationships and help signposting to other support agencies. Those at the class Councillor Murray observed had already started taking part in other activities at the Salvation Army Centre.   Councillor Murray considered ESOL to be about so much more than just learning a language. Learning via an app such as Duolingo did provide opportunities for learning basic vocabulary, but progress was often slow and attention to grammar not integral to the lessons and the methods of supporting pronunciation were imperfect.    ESOL classes embedded opportunities to gain recognised national accredited qualifications and the necessary grammar and pronunciation to aid communication and ensure progress. Practical life skills with topics including healthy eating, financial literacy and wellbeing were integrated into the curriculum to educate the learners holistically, as well as academically. Many learners reported increased confidence with their language skills and stated it had helped them to communicate and engage more effectively in their daily lives with their GP or with their child’s school.   Meeting and learning together could provide support networks that were unparalled. In classes, students learned to keep themselves and their families safe from digital harm and exploitation. This preventative action reduced the risk of harm and further cost to society and they also became familiar with the diverse culture of the UK and British values.   Students learned how to apply for work and develop interview skills to prepare them for life in modern Britain. This in turn supported increased productivity, benefitting the local economy. Some learners went to class straight from shifts in their work clothing, often juggling the challenges of learning and working with family commitments. Others were not ready to enter the job market, but got involved with volunteering and community engagement. Others worked to use and transfer existing skills and expertise to develop their own businesses that could support themselves and contribute to the economy.     These protective and empowering factors were hard to quantify but ESOL classes were about more than just learning a language. They provided a foundation for creating valued, stronger and more connected communities.   Question J – Councillor Jones asked Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “If Medway Council followed Reform UK’s advice and tried to opt out of the Local Government Pension Scheme – what would happen legally and what bill might we face?”   In response, Councillor Maple said that one of the benefits which was particularly important to the Council’s staff and a key offer which improved recruitment and retention was membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme.   Withdrawal from that scheme would have a negative effect on both recruitment and retention, which would increase the reliance on temporary and agency staff, which would come at an increased cost.   The Council was legally obliged to provide a pension scheme for its employees so withdrawal from the Local Government Scheme would necessitate providing an alternative pension scheme, which would also come at a significant cost.   Rather than increasing efficiency, withdrawal from the Local Government Pension Scheme would make matters far worse, while punishing hard working local people.   Question K – Councillor Peake asked the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, Councillor Browne, the following:   “If Medway attempted to side line our external auditors and replace them with Reform UK’s version of DOGE, what risks would we be exposed to?”   Responding on behalf of Councillor Browne, Councillor Maple said that any version of DOGE was designed to identify inefficiencies in delivery of Council services, while the role of external audit was to provide an opinion on the accuracy of the Council’s statutory statement of accounts, and in so doing provide an opinion on the Council’s value for money.   Local councils were legally required to comply with external audit obligations under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015. Statutory audits ensured compliance with financial regulations, provided assurance to taxpayers and central government, and were conducted by qualified, regulated professionals.   DOGE functions were not statutory bodies and had no legal mandate under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. They were often politically affiliated, compromising their independence, which was a core component of statutory audits. They could not replace the Council’s external auditors, and the Council would still be legally required to appoint independent external auditors through Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) or other approved routes.   While there were no direct financial implications for failing to have external audit, failure to do so would leave the Council exposed to reputational and procedural consequences for non-compliance with its legal obligations.   Question L – Councillor Finch asked the Leader of Council, Councillor Maple, the following:   “Given that the Leader of the Council attended a meeting with Peel L&P and ArcelorMittal Kent Wire in January 2024, where Peel L&P reportedly stated they were not minded to sell Chatham Docks, why does the Leader continue to imply that ArcelorMittal could resolve the issue simply by acquiring the site risking misleading the public and stakeholders about the realistic prospects for securing the future of the working docks?”   In response, Councillor Maple said that he was very pleased to have convened a meeting on 23 January 2024 when the suggestion of the sale had been put forward. Peel L&P had reiterated that they were happy to receive any such proposals. A letter, dated 25 November 2022, to the Council’s previous administration had stated that ArcelorMittal Kent Wire were prepared to purchase the docks from Peel L&P and was assembling a bid to do so. That bid had never come forward. In 2022, there had been correspondence between ArcelorMittal and Peel L&P on the issue of the freehold and it was asked whether Peel would sell the freehold. Peel said they had not considered selling the site but Arcelor Mittal were welcome to put forward a proposal at any time.   Councillor Maple stated that for a number of years Arcelor Mittal had the opportunity to put forward a bid to the land owner. They had failed to do so and it was bizarre for anyone else to be blamed for this.   Question M – Councillor Vye submitted the following to Chairperson of the Health and Wellbeing Board, Councillor Murray:   “Can the Chairperson of the Health and Wellbeing Board confirm the full financial cost, including any committed or anticipated expenditure, associated with Medway’s participation in the Marmot Place initiative to date, specifying what concrete, measurable health outcomes or cost-benefit assessments have been recorded to demonstrate value for money for residents?”   Note: The Mayor stated that since the time allocation for Member questions had been exhausted, a written response would be provided to question 10M.

Date of Decision: July 17, 2025