Urgent Motion added 3 April 2024.

The Mayor used her discretion and brought forward Item 15 on the Agenda. She explained that in accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.14 she had agreed an urgent motion of the Use of Ocean Heights to house unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The motion had been published on the Council’s website and circulated to Members electronically.

In proposing the urgent motion, Councillor Nundy proposed an amendment to the wording in the motion as he considered that the original wording in the motion may be perceived as divisive and cruel.  He said the motion was not about whether migrants should be allowed into the country or not but was about how Kent County Council (KCC) had dealt with the situation. Councillor Nundy said his amended motion now read:

“Swale Borough Council condemns the lack of transparency in the process taken by KCC and the Home Office to use Ocean Heights as a site to house unaccompanied asylum seeking children.  Swale Borough Council recognises that Sheppey is a deprived area that desperately needs funding infrastructure to support the vulnerable and elderly residents on the island and the Leader of the Council will write to KCC asking them to stop Ocean Heights being used to house unaccompanied asylum seeking children and to ask for Ocean Heights to be taken on as a KCC funded care home.”

Councillor Nundy apologised for the incorrect language used in his original motion and explained the reason for amending it was because it was not appropriate to condemn KCC and the Home Office to house unaccompanied asylum seeking children. He said the site was not an appropriate location and referred to the closure of Blackburn Lodge Care Home, Sheerness, stating that Ocean Heights should be used as a care home. Councillor Nundy explained that the decision to use Ocean Heights for unaccompanied asylum seeking children was announced by KCC immediately prior to the bank holiday weekend and he very quickly received feedback from residents who were concerned at the lack of facilities on the Isle of Sheppey to look after and support elderly residents and the lack of information, consultation or opportunity for residents to give their opinion. He said it was his duty to serve his residents by bringing forward the motion to say the site was not suitable and that the Isle of Sheppey lacked KCC-funded care homes.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Peter MacDonald said that nobody was consulted locally. He added that KCC had been letting down Isle of Sheppey residents for decades.

Members were invited to speak and made comments including:

·         It was crucial to acknowledge that shelter, support, protection and

assistance should be given to vulnerable individuals seeking asylum, including unaccompanied children;

·         there was a moral obligation to provide refuge and uphold human rights regardless of whether a location was perceived to be unsuitable;

·         the children proposed to be housed at the site were not illegal immigrants and would be following the protocols put in place;

·         SBC should use its influence to get more support for the needs of those on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         solutions should be found to address the needs of the local community;

·         the last minute proposal by KCC  and lack of engagement was guaranteed to cause concern, confusion and division in the local community;

·         KCC and the Government were failing in old peoples’ rights by closing care homes;

·         acknowledged the apology from Councillor Nundy;

·         gave an example of the experience of a refugee child and said refugee children deserved to be treated with dignity;

·         many refugee children were victims of crime, exploitation and human trafficking;

·         was horrified that the original motion sought Council’s support to say no to housing unaccompanied for refugee children;

·         the two arguments in the motion had become conflicted;

·         lack of infrastructure and support for the elderly and vulnerable on the Isle of Sheppey was a valid argument but should not be used as the reason to refuse housing for unaccompanied refugee children;

·         the motion flew in the face of the UK’s commitment to the 1951 Refugee convention and Swale history of supporting refugees;

·         should be making a case for the inclusion and community support for vulnerable children not neglecting responsibilities;

·         urged all Members to vote against the motion;

·         it was not a choice to either support refugee children or the elderly;

·         understood the frustration in the lack of communication from KCC;

·         the unaccompanied, vulnerable children were part of the national transfer scheme and would be kept at Ocean Heights on a short term basis being supported by Social Services;

·         should be supporting the refugees;

·         KCC and the Home Office were the issue;

·         disappointed that the urgent motion was accepted;

·         if Ocean Heights was good enough for the elderly, it was good enough for refugees and children;

·         gave examples of countries welcoming refugees;

·         the Council have delivered facilities as part of the local plan, based on need, and that included a care home;

·         spoke about the lack of NHS services and support for the elderly;

·         KCC was not planning for or delivering for residents;

·         a balanced approach was needed;

·         SBC were not in control of KCC and could not demand they stopped the proposal;

·         would prefer to see a motion that urged KCC to re-engage with its own community and take responsibility for the misinformation that has been created;

·         lack of information had caused fear;

·         every child deserved a champion and SBC members needed to be champions;

·         there was a lack of understanding in the process;

·         the whole care sector was falling apart;

·         urged everyone to get round the table to talk and share information with local representatives;

·         KCC Councillors needed to lead from the front; and

·         the High Court ruled that KCC were unlawful in capping the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and the decision could only be appealed by the appeal courts.

A Member said that more information was needed and suggested a deferral.  The Mayor advised that if the motion was deferred, the earliest it could come back for discussion at Full Council was late July 2024 which would likely to be too late. The meeting was adjourned from 9.29pm to 9.43pm whilst a discussion on how to progress took place.

When the meeting was reconvened, a Member, who was also a KCC Councillor, said that whilst he had not received an influx of emails on the topic as some others had, some emails received had been racist, threatening and aggressive.

Councillor Monique Bonney proposed the following amendment:

“We call on KCC to urgently engage with the local representatives and residents to provide information and reassurance and local liaison. The Leader of the Council will write to KCC asking them to stop Ocean Heights being used to house Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking children without the necessary local engagement and reassurance as to where elderly residents will be accommodated on the Isle of Sheppey”

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Ashley Shiel reserved his right to speak.

The proposer and seconder of the original motion agreed with the amendment.

In response to a Member who queried the change to the original motion, the Monitoring Officer clarified that ideally the amendment would be closer in words to the original but it was sufficiently close enough to be accepted as an amendment.

A discussion then took place on a potential further amendment. The Monitoring Officer explained that the new proposed amendment would not be acceptable as an amendment as it was not sufficiently close enough to the original motion.

Members continued to discuss a way forward and several suggestions were considered.

In accordance with procedure rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken on the amended motion and voting was as follows:

For: Baldock, Bonney, Chapman, MacDonald, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Shiel, P Stephen, Wooster and Wise. Total equals 11.

Against: Booth, Cheeseman, R Clark, C Gibson, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Last, Marchington, Miller, Noe, Perkin, Thompson, Tucker, Valls and Winckless. Total equals 17.

Abstain: Bowen, Brawn, Cavanagh, Hall, Hunt, Jackson, Lehmann, B J Martin, C Martin, Moore, S Stephen, Watson and Whiting. Total equals 13.

The Mayor announced that the amendment had fallen.

Members then voted on the substantive motion. In accordance with procedure rule 3.1.19 (2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Baldock, Bonney, Chapman, MacDonald, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer and P Stephen. Total equals 8.

Against: Booth, Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, R Clark, C Gibson, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Last, Lehmann, Marchington, B J Martin, C Martin, Miller, Noe, Perkin, Shiel, Thompson, Valls, Watson, Whiting, Winckless and Wise. Total equals 25.

Abstain: Bowen, Hall, Hunt, Jackson, Moore, S Stephen and Wooster. Total equals 7.

The Mayor announced the motion had fallen.