Issue - meetings

 This report sets out the Members’ questions received for this meeting.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158