Agenda and minutes

To approve the records of the meetings held on 24 April 2014 and 14 May 2014 (Annual Meeting).

The records of the meetings held on 24 April 2014 and 14 May 2014 (Annual Meeting) were agreed and signed by the Mayor as correct.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Colman, Filmer, Griffiths and Mackness.  

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.

The Mayor informed Members that they could rely on the dispensation granted by the Councillor Conduct Committee enabling Members to speak and vote on item 12 of the agenda (Members’ Allowances – Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel).

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Councillor Bowler declared an interest in agenda item 8 (Leader’s Report) in relation to any reference to Kings School because he worked there.

Councillor Cooper declared an interest in agenda item 16A (Motion) because some of her immediate family members worked at Medway Maritime Hospital.

Councillor Igwe declared an interest in agenda items 9 (Report on Overview and Scrutiny Activity) in relation to the acute mental health inpatient beds review update and 16A (Motion) in relation to Medway Maritime Hospital because he worked as a mental health nurse.

Councillor Mackinlay declared an interest in any reference to the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) because his firm undertook the non statutory audit for the South East LEP. 

The Mayor informed the meeting of the death of Michael Lewis in May. Mr Lewis was a long serving member of Gillingham Borough Council and served as Leader of the Council between 1968 and 1974 and again from 1976 to 1991. He was also Deputy Mayor of Gillingham Borough Council in 1963 and 1964 and Deputy Lieutenant of Kent in his later life. He placed on record, on behalf of the Council, condolences to Michael’s family and the acknowledgement of his long and distinguished public service.

Councillors Doe and Harriott both paid tribute to Michael Lewis.

The Mayor informed the meeting that Joy Russell had died two weeks ago. Joy was a former Member of Gilllingham Borough Council elected to serve as a ward Member for Brompton in 1992 and Rainham Mark in 1996. He placed on record, on behalf of the Council, condolences to Joy’s family.

The Mayor informed the meeting that Sue McLeod, Principal at Mid Kent College, had passed away. Sue was well loved and respected in her role and an effective and enthusiastic champion for education. He stated that she would be deeply missed by friends and colleagues. He placed on record, on behalf of the Council, condolences to Sue’s family.

Councillors Chitty, O’Brien, Wicks, Chishti and Murray all paid tribute to Sue. Councillor Murray thanked Members for their kind words and spoke of the enormous courage that Sue had displayed following her diagnosis.

The Mayor gave details of forthcoming events in aid of the Mayor of Medway’s Charity, which this year was supporting Kent and Sussex Air Ambulance, Headway, Oliver Fisher Special Care Baby Trust, Medway Young Carers and the Streetcops Trust. There was a Theatre Night coming up on 17 September, a Golf Day on 3 October and an Opera Night on 23 October. In addition, an Indian Night is planned for 18 November. He stated that full details were available from his office.

The Mayor also informed Members that a sponsorship form was circulating in the chamber for Geoff Waters who would be taking part in a sponsored one mile open water swim to raise funds for the Kent Autistic Trust.

There were none.  

Councillor Igwe submitted a petition containing 74 names asking the Council to adopt all the roads in Medway Gate.

Councillor Hewett submitted a petition containing 82 signatures regarding noise nuisance from Rainham Girls School to neighbouring properties. 

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

The Leader of the Labour Group, Councillor Maple, sought clarification from the Chief Executive as to whether any public questions had been rejected for this meeting.

The Chief Executive stated that two public questions had been rejected in line with the provisions of the Constitution. One question was substantially the same as a previous question asked within the last six months and the other question was about a matter for which the Council had no responsibility (party political material).

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the criteria set out in section 8.4 of the Council Rules (Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Constitution) permitted the Chief Executive to reject public questions.  

A.     James Peck of Chatham asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member), Councillor O’Brien, the following question:

With the new Paramount Park due to be built, and a large estimated number of the Chinese community due to visit the park, would the Portfolio Holder for Children's Services be willing to put mandarin in the foreign languages curriculum to give young people the advantage when applying for jobs at the park and any jobs in other sectors?

Councillor O’Brien responded by stating that he would like to see schools offer Mandarin in addition to other foreign languages. Mandarin was an important language globally and it would help young people meet the challenges of the future, in the light of the importance of China in the world economy, as well as the local opportunities that hopefully would be presenting themselves over the next few years.

Schools themselves decided the curriculum which they offered, not the Local Authority.  This had been the case for many years. Schools which were not academies had to follow the national curriculum, which included a modern foreign language. This meant that Academies did not have to follow the national curriculum and meant that the Local Authority could only seek to ensure that schools and young people had access to information about the job opportunities.

He referred to a recent event he attended at the Delce Academy where year six pupils were singing songs fluently in French.

He stated that the Council would be doing everything it could to promote Mandarin to schools and indeed through Medway’s adult and community learning provision with the co-operation of his colleague, Councillor Doe. 

Also, by working with all of the Council’s partners in Medway, the Council would seek to highlight the skills required to access jobs, including language skills, and encourage schools to take account of these wherever possible in planning their curriculum.

Mr Peck asked for the Portfolio Holder to explain how he would implement Mandarin into the curriculum for those schools which were not Academies.

Councillor O’Brien stated that following this question he would ensure that schools were presented with the question and answer that he had given and he was sure that his colleague, Councillor Tolhurst (Portfolio Holder for Educational Improvement), would also play her part when she met with schools in the future. He stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

Discussion:

Members received and debated the Leader’s Report, which included the following:

·        Sporting Legacy including Kings Rochester Sports Centre

·        Summer Events including Castle Concerts/Under Siege and Armed Forces Day

·        Rochester Riverside

·        Local Enterprise Partnership

·        Developer Contributions Guide (affordable homes target) – The Leader informed the meeting that with regard to the Cabinet decision 120/2014 on page 72 he proposed to take a further report to Cabinet on 5 August on the new affordable homes target in the draft Developer Contribution Guide. The target as amended by Cabinet would represent a change to the draft guide such that he believed, and officer advice supported his view, that the Cabinet ought to weigh up in more detail the wider implications.

·        Gateway 3 Contract Award: Local and Yellow Bus Contracts Retendering

·        Planning Policy Update

·        Medway Obesity Summit

·        Medway TryAngle Awards (Medway Youth Parliament)

·        Primary schools admissions

·        Roads network

·        Rochester Airport.

Discussion:

Members received and debated a report on overview and scrutiny activities, which included the following:

• Hot Food Takeaways in Medway: A Guidance Note
• Update on Medway Norse
• Procurement Strategy Review
• Welfare Reform Task Group
• Update on discussions with the Gambling Commission
• Safeguarding Peer Review
• Sure Start Children’s Centres and Early Childhood Outcomes 2013/2014
• Support for Care Leavers Task Group
• Annual Scrutiny of the Community Safety Partnership
• Flood and Water Management Act 2010 – Roles and Responsibilities and the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
• Rochester Riverside Masterplan
• Decluttering Strood High Street – Update
• Acute Mental Health Inpatient Beds Review Update
• Support for Carers
• Update on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry – Implications for Medway Council
• Developer Contributions Guide – Councillor Cooper gave notice that she intended to submit a motion to Full Council on 16 October 2014 requesting that the Medway Queen be included in the Developer’s Contribution Guide as a heritage site.

Many summer born children, particularly boys, are at present not mature enough to make a strong and confident start at school when they are little over 4 years old. Through falling behind they may then suffer lasting consequences to their entire education. The coalition government have taken the brave and equitable step of allowing parents to defer entry for one year for children born from April to August with, as a crucial difference from present policy, the right to then enter reception year rather than year 1.

Can Councillor O'Brien confirm that Medway Council will implement this policy change in its schools as soon as possible and give a timetable for this implementation?

Many summer born children, particularly boys, are at present not mature enough to make a strong and confident start at school when they are little over 4 years old. Through falling behind they may then suffer lasting consequences to their entire education. The coalition government have taken the brave and equitable step of allowing parents to defer entry for one year for children born from April to August with, as a crucial difference from present policy, the right to then enter reception year rather than year 1.

Can Councillor O'Brien confirm that Medway Council will implement this policy change in its schools as soon as possible and give a timetable for this implementation?

Councillor O’Brien responded by stating Medway Council’s school admission policies already allowed deferred entry to school and for parents to ask for their child to be admitted outside of their normal year group. The Council’s policies were compliant with the requirements of the School Admissions Code and the recently published guidance.

Medway provided for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. However, a child was not required to start school until they had reached compulsory school age following their fifth birthday. For summer born children this was almost a full school year after the point at which they could first be admitted.

In addition parents had the right to ask for their child to be admitted outside of their normal year group. For summer born children, this allowed parents to defer entry for one year and to request entry to the reception year.

Councillor O’Brien stated that the government guidance was very clear in that decisions about entry outside of the normal year group must be decided on a case-by-case basis by the Admission Authority.

Medway Council was the Admission Authority for community and voluntary controlled schools, and the Council’s admissions policies allowed for any requests to be considered on a case-by-case basis by professional specialists, taking into account the needs of the child, which of course were paramount.

Councillor Turpin stated that this had not been his experience when he went through this process a few years ago. He asked whether this was publicised at all to prospective parents that this was a possibility and whether this was encouraged. He provided details of his own experience where he had been informed that his own child would have to start in year one, having missed out on reception year a few years ago, so he hoped that there was a more enlightened policy and that it would be publicised and that parents would be made aware of this.

Councillor O’Brien thanked Councillor Turpin for his comments and stated that he was sorry for what Councillor Turpin had experienced. Councillor O’Brien stated that he hoped that this would be picked up by the press and that it was something that could be raised with the editor of Medway Matters for publication in a future issue. He hoped that Councillor Turpin had been reassured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191A)

The residents of Medway Gate have continued to pay council tax plus a maintenance fee to a private company for the provision of essential services such as street cleaning since the first occupants moved in (2007/2008).

Given that the area has reached 99% completion and is fully occupied seven years later, is it not about time Medway Council adopts the roads and alleviates the financial burden placed on residents of this double council tax payment?

The residents of Medway Gate have continued to pay Council Tax plus a maintenance fee to a private company for the provision of essential services such as street cleaning since the first occupants moved in (2007/2008).

Given that the area has reached 99% completion and is fully occupied seven years later, is it not about time Medway Council adopts the roads and alleviates the financial burden placed on residents of this double Council Tax payment?

Councillor Jarrett, on behalf of Councillor Filmer, responded by stating that Council Tax paid for a range of services within the Authority's area, not just a particular estate or a particular service and was payable upon occupation of a property.

Many of the current developments used a Management Company to deal with the communal areas, both internally – for example, stairwells, lighting and so on – and externally, such as open spaces, private parking areas and indeed the road network. If this was the case, it was a matter between the residents and the developer.

Highway adoption related to the future maintenance responsibilities of highways. The construction of new estate roads was covered by a Section 38 Agreement of the Highways Act 1980 which, in the case of Medway Gate had four phases. None of the roads had yet been adopted but even when this would happen there would still be some roads which would remain private.

The only item the Council was responsible for at present was the energy cost for the adoptable street lighting. However the developer was expected to keep the whole estate in a good state of repair which would include sweeping.

He stated that the Management Company fees may or may not continue after the roads are adopted, as again that was a matter for the developer and residents to agree. There was no requirement for a developer to offer up assets such as the highway for adoption and they were quite in their right to keep the roads private.

Councillor Igwe asked for guidance in terms of a timeline as to when this adoption process would happen because it appeared that there was no plan in place.

Councillor Jarrett stated that he understood that this was a matter for the developer and not the Council. He suggested that the residents would need to take this matter up with the developer to see what their plans were and if the developer wished to approach the Council to discuss adoption.

Between January 1st and the end of March this year, the Government reports that 27,310 applications were made to Councils to help with homelessness.

What does it say about Medway Council that it was the only Kent Council that refused to respond to a BBC survey on homelessness?

Between January 1st and the end of March this year, the Government reports that 27,310 applications were made to Councils to help with homelessness.

What does it say about Medway Council that it was the only Kent Council that refused to respond to a BBC survey on homelessness?

Councillor Doe responded by stating that he wanted to correct the question because Ashford Council had failed to respond and both Gravesham and Maidstone Councils had not responded to the questions relating to those that were still in bed and breakfast after six weeks.

He explained that it was important to understand the context in which this Freedom of Information request was made. He stated that had the BBC asked how many people were in bed and breakfast at a particular time, this could have been answered. For information, there were 148 households in temporary accommodation in Medway at the end of 2013/2014 which, for example, compared with Maidstone (212) and Shepway (245). Therefore, he stated that whilst he regretted anybody having to be in temporary accommodation, he did not believe that Medway was doing that badly.

He stated that in relation to the question how many families had been in bed and breakfast for more than six weeks, he provided information on Canterbury (75), Dover (66), Shepway (60) and Swale (80) Councils, whereas Medway had none. As such, he stated that Medway Council was getting on and doing the job and not spending a lot of time dealing with FOI questions which were badly phrased.

In relation to this request for information, he stated that about four years’ worth of statistics on different aspects of homelessness had been requested and this would have meant that the Council would have had to interrogate its computer systems and paper records. As such, he believed that the fault lay in the way in which the questions in the request were asked.

Councillor Maple stated that it was not a surprise that the Conservative Cabinet were putting the blame anywhere else but themselves. He stated that in the Leader’s report, the Leader spoke about increased transparency, therefore, how did Councillor Doe feel about having a department which was refusing to respond, specifically not failing to answer, but refusing to respond whilst at the same time the Leader wanted greater transparency?

Councillor Doe stated that he could answer this question quite simply by saying that the Council would respond to information which had use, but staff should not be allowed to be diverted into what he referred to as pointless statistical matters which had very little value.

He stated that he stood by the Council’s performance as a matter of public record and that Medway Council, and nobody else, was responsible to the people who were on the waiting list seeking housing and in his view, Medway Council discharged this responsibility better than most Councils in Kent.

With Labour controlled Bury Council planning on introducing bin collections on a three weekly cycle compared to Medway's popular weekly refuse and recycling collection, can the Portfolio Holder assure us that in Medway a Conservative controlled Council would not seek to slash services to the same level as that of Labour-run Bury?

With Labour controlled Bury Council planning on introducing bin collections on a three weekly cycle compared to Medway's popular weekly refuse and recycling collection, can the Portfolio Holder assure us that in Medway a Conservative controlled Council would not seek to slash services to the same level as that of Labour-run Bury?

Councillor Jarrett, on behalf of Councillor Filmer, responded by stating that he was sure that residents would enjoy having refuse standing around for three weeks in temperatures of 30C. He stated that there were no plans to change recycling or the collection of other materials in Medway at all. The last change was to improve the collection rates and that was why Medway had such a high satisfaction rate amongst residents. This was because Medway now collected all recycling and all residual waste every week, which was something to be proud of. 

Councillor Jarrett stated that the expansion of the service was because of a successful bid to Government for £14m which had enabled the Council to enhance and improve the service and that this had been very well received. He believed that this had largely been brought about because of the Government’s ability to astutely handle the economy.  This was in stark contrast to the Labour years of Government when there had been a proliferation of alternate weekly collections across the country. He stated that Labour, at that time, continued with the punitive land fill tax escalator which was still in place today and that he looked forward to the day when the economy had recovered sufficiently from the Labour mismanagement for that escalator to cease.

He stated that the other issue to consider in general was Labour’s approach to environmental services and that the last time Labour formed the administration in Medway there was one key area of service delivery, street cleaning, which at that time, Councillor Griffiths’ response to budget difficulties of his own making, was to cut  £400,000 from the street cleaning budget.

He stated that, fortunately, the incoming Conservative administration managed to recover the situation, as with the collection of waste and recycling satisfaction in Medway on street cleaning, was also running at a high level.

Medway celebrated its first registered equal marriage in the last couple of weeks. Will the Leader welcome the first of many such marriages for LGBT Medway residents?

Medway celebrated its first registered equal marriage in the last couple of weeks. Will the Leader welcome the first of many such marriages for LGBT Medway residents?

Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, responded by stating that he welcomed the extra revenue that the Council was likely to receive through the introduction of Equal Marriage Act.

Councillor Osborne stated that given many LGBT staff members were employed by the Council and many were residents, would the Leader welcome the first of many such marriages for LGBT Medway residents?

Councillor Rodney Chambers, OBE, repeated that he welcomed the extra revenue, because by receiving that extra revenue, the Council was able to still provide free swimming for the under 16s and the over 65s, the weekly refuse collection, continuing to help, provide and support the vulnerable, keeping libraries open amongst many other services. This was why that revenue was very welcome.

Can the Portfolio Holder confirm whether the Council Auditors were fully aware of the alternative £13.5m costing for the Rochester Airport proposal by the private-consortium TPS, as revealed in Freedom of Information requests?

Can the Portfolio Holder confirm whether the Council Auditors were fully aware of the alternative £13.5m costing for the Rochester Airport proposal by the private-consortium TPS, as revealed in Freedom of Information requests?

He stated that TPS was not a private consortium which put a proposal forward for Rochester Airport. TPS was the Council’s consultant appointed by the Council to provide advice in relation to the reconfiguration of Rochester airport and the likely costs involved. TPS estimated in its final report that the costs of the works to improve the airport would be in the region of £11.8 - £11.9M.

Currently, the Council’s Auditors had not been asked to review the work undertaken by TPS.

TPS was a consultancy that was more experienced in advising on works at major commercial airports like Heathrow. As a result, their estimated costings for the work which included paving the runway and building new facilities including hangars were high, not least as the aircraft which used Rochester were much smaller and lighter than those that used major commercial airports. The hangars at major commercial airports had to be much larger and taller than they would at Rochester Airport and the loadings for hangar floors, runways and aprons were much lower at Rochester as the aircraft using them were much lighter than those at for instance Heathrow.

RA Ltd considered that the works could be done for £4.4M based on other projects which it had been involved in and experience from other small airports.

Councillor Osborne asked whether Councillor Jarrett was aware that the RAL estimate was based on Sheffield City Airport from the mid 1990s which was now closed and could he confirm why the TPS estimates were hidden and had to be challenged and chased in Freedom of Information requests through the Information Commissioners Office. Why had these figures not been revealed to the public or the auditors?

He stated that if Councillor Osborne wanted definitive advice on how Rochester Airport Ltd arrived at its figure he would need to ask them. He stated that RAL would have to live with the figures they had brought forward, and that they were confident and that they would submit the planning application based on those figures.

This report seeks authority for additions to the Council’s Capital Programme in respect of the relocation of Riverside One and the redevelopment of Strood Sports Centre. 

Discussion:

This report provided details of proposals to add two schemes to the Capital Programme, namely the relocation of Riverside One and Strood Sports Centre, following consideration and recommendation by Cabinet on 15 July 2014.

The Porfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, proposed the recommendations as set out in the report.

Decisions:

(a)   The Council agreed the addition of £800,000 to the capital programme to fund the adaptation and fit-out of new premises, associated relocation costs and the demolition of the Riverside One building.

(b)   The Council agreed the additional works to Strood Sports Centre redevelopment to be added to the capital programme, with funding of £1.4m to be funded by Prudential Borrowing.

This report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel are submitted for Members’ consideration.

Discussion:

This report provided details of the report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel regarding a review of special responsibility allowance for the Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the consideration of whether to introduce a special responsibility allowance for the Vice-Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations as set out in the report.

Decisions: 

(a)   The Council agreed that the role of Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board continues to be awarded a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) and that it should be at 40% of the benchmark, currently £7326.68.

(b)   The Council agreed that payment of this SRA is index-linked to officer pay awards for the same period, as are the other SRAs in the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

This report sets out a proposed change to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference.

Discussion:

This report provided details of a proposed change to the Audit Committee’s terms of reference, with regard to adding a reference to monitor the effectiveness of internal audit. The Audit Committee considered this report on 17 July 2014 and recommended to Full Council to agree the revised terms of reference as set out in the report.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee, Councillor Mackinlay, supported by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, proposed the recommendation as set out in the report.  

Decision:

The Council agreed the revised terms of reference for the Audit Committee, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

This report sets out a proposal moved by Councillor Shaw as an amendment to a report on the Establishment Committees at the Council meeting on 24 April 2014, consideration of which was deferred to this meeting in line with the provisions of the Constitution.

Discussion:

This report provided details of a proposal originally moved at Full Council on 24 April 2014 regarding the introduction of substitute Members on Scrutiny Task Groups.

Councillor Shaw, supported by Councillor Murrary, moved the proposal set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report:

“To agree there should be provision for named substitutes for Members of all Scrutiny Task Groups and;

That Council Rule 18 should be changed to include an additional clause as follows:

18.10 – In the case of Scrutiny Task Groups (which are not formal Committees or Sub Committees of the Council), substitutes are permitted to the extent there may be one named substitute for each Task Group Member who must be appointed when the Task Group is established.”

In accordance with rule 11.4 of the Council Rules at the request of six Members, a recorded vote on the proposal was requested:

For: Councillors Bowler, Cooper, Craven, Gilry, Christine Godwin, Paul Godwin, Paul Godwin, Harriott, Hubbard, Igwe, Juby, Kearney, Maple, Murray, Osborne, Price, Shaw, Smith and Stamp (19)

Against: Councillors Avey, Baker, Brake, Bright, Carr, Mrs Diane Chambers, Rodney Chambers, Chishti, Chitty, Clarke, Doe, Etheridge, Griffin, Adrian Gulvin, Pat Gulvin, Hicks, Iles, Irvine, Jarrett, The Worshipful The Mayor of Medway, Councillor Kemp, Mackinlay, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Maisey, Mason, O’Brien, Purdy, Rodberg, Royle, Tolhurst, Turpin, Watson, Wicks and Wildey (31).

On being put to the vote, the proposal was lost.

This report details decisions taken by the Cabinet and senior officers under the urgency provisions contained within the Constitution. 

Discussion:

This report provided details of the recent use of urgency powers by Cabinet and the Chief Executive/Directors.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, supported by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, proposed the recommendations as set out in the report.

Councillor Maple, supported by Councillor Paul Godwin, proposed the following amendment:

“Add new recommendation 7.2

Council instructs officers to produce a report to the Employment Matters Committee detailing Medway Council settlements of employment tribunals for the past ten years to examine any trends and potential improvement in practices.”

It was confirmed that this would relate to both any cases which were settled before the tribunal was heard as well as the outcome of tribunals.

Under Council Rule 11.4.2 and with the consent of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE and the seconder of the substantive motion agreed to alter the substantive motion to include the proposed amendment.

Decisions:

(a)   The Council noted the report.

(b)   The Council instructed officers to produce a report to the Employment Matters Committee detailing Medway Council settlements of employment tribunals for the past ten years to examine any trends and potential improvement in practices.

Medway Council notes the stated position regarding paying no public servant more than the Prime Minister. This council also notes the more than 300% pay increase for the role of Chairman of Medway Foundation Trust.

This Council asks the Chief Executive to write to Jeremy Hunt to ask the following questions:

• Did monitorconsult with him?
• Did he approveincreased costs?
• Has he ensured that payment of the chair of MFT's salary depends on the achievement of performance criteria/measures?
• What is his assessment of MFT’s financial position?
• Does he think taxpayers of Medway are getting good value for their £200,000?

Medway Council notes the stated position regarding paying no public servant more than the Prime Minister. This council also notes the more than 300% pay increase for the role of Chairman of Medway Foundation Trust (MFT).

This Council asks the Chief Executive to write to Jeremy Hunt to ask the following questions:

• Did monitor consult with him?
• Did he approve increased costs?
• Has he ensured that payment of the chair of MFT's salary depends on the achievement of performance criteria/measures?
• What is his assessment of MFT’s financial position?
• Does he think taxpayers of Medway are getting good value for their £200,000?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE, indicated his willingness to support the motion subject to amendment to the first sentence to clarify whose “stated position” regarding paying no public servant more than the Prime Minister related to. Councillor Murray confirmed that this was the current Prime Minister’s stated position and she agreed to amend the motion accordingly.

Therefore, under Council Rule 11.4.1 and with the consent of the Council, Councillor Murray and the seconder of the substantive motion agreed to alter the substantive motion to provide clarification to the first sentence.

Decision:

Medway Council notes the Prime Minister’s stated position regarding paying no public servant more than the Prime Minister. This Council also notes the more than 300% pay increase for the role of Chairman of Medway Foundation Trust (MFT).

This Council asks the Chief Executive to write to Jeremy Hunt to ask the following questions:

• Did monitor consult with him?
• Did he approve increased costs?
• Has he ensured that payment of the chair of MFT's salary depends on the achievement of performance criteria/measures?
• What is his assessment of MFT’s financial position?
• Does he think taxpayers of Medway are getting good value for their £200,000?