Councillor Hannah Perkin proposed the motion as set out on the Agenda and explained its purpose. She clarified that the motion was not related to national borders, changes in law, or Government plans, but focused on local action and how vulnerable people were treated within the borough.

Councillor Perkin stated that becoming a District of Sanctuary represented a commitment to how the Council interacted with some of the most vulnerable members of the community, ensuring they were welcomed into everyday life in Swale, including in schools, at GP surgeries, libraries, housing offices, and community centres. She emphasised that those seeking safety should be supported to belong.

The District of Sanctuary initiative was described as being built on the principle that every place should be a place of safety. Councillor Perkin outlined the various groups this could include and stressed that the motion sought Swale’s inclusion in humanity and support for those who often had no voice. She spoke of the fear, trauma, and loss experienced by vulnerable people leaving unsafe homes, and their hope that the UK would provide safety. Councillor Perkin referred to the wording of the motion, which stated that people should be met with dignity, kindness, and support, building on the work already undertaken by volunteers in the community.

Councillor Perkin concluded by stating that agreeing the motion would reassure families living in fear and support volunteers, sending a clear message that in Swale, people seeking sanctuary were welcome, valued, and not alone. She expressed criticism of those who sought to trade in fear and division or use political intimidation.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Alastair Gould reserved his right to speak.

Members were invited to make comments and these included:

·         The country was under significant pressure from those born in the UK and from those from the wider community who chose to come to the UK;

·         referred to people entering the country illegally and the process for those entering the country legally;

·         could not support the motion as it stood;

·         the intentions behind the motion were admirable as safety, dignity and inclusion should be the rights of all people;

·         the proposal created more problems than it solved;

·         the community was deeply divided on asylum and refugee issues;

·         appointing lead officers, reviewing policies, running awareness campaigns and coordinating with multiple agencies was resource intensive;

·         other agencies and partners may be pulled into the politically charged initiative and may be unable to take on more work;

·         the motion tied Swale to the national asylum policy;

·         whilst the values were positive, the practical, financial and political realities made the motion the wrong approach;

·         the Council should be supporting all vulnerable residents;

·         the motion was politically motivated and had already increased community tensions;

·         local Councils had no authority over border control or asylum quotas;

·         Swale faced a housing shortage, NHS pressures, lack of GP’s and social care, and becoming a District of Sanctuary signalled a willingness to absorb more asylum seekers;

·         the commitment to the motion required too much additional resource, particularly financial;

·         the motion encouraged chaos and division;

·         the motion did not balance compassion with control;

·         any funding for a District of Sanctuary was funding not spent on local priorities for residents;

·         spoke of the offensive comments directed at Members on social media in the lead up to the debate, particularly towards female Councillors;

·         gave examples of refugees who had contributed to society;

·         the motion did not explain the significant work required if it was passed;

·         the process to join the scheme typically took two years or more by which time the changes from the current Local Government Review (LGR) would have been implemented and SBC would not exist in its current form;

·         LGR was already challenging enough without adding new work streams, government structures and reporting obligations;

·         should not promise outcomes that sat out of the authority’s control;

·         gave an example of an authority that agreed the motion, then abandoned due to misunderstanding and politicisation;

·         the Council could support vulnerable people through practical targeted measures and through existing statutory duties;

·         the motion was divisive;

·         the UK had always been a home for genuine refugees and asylum seekers but that did not mean economic migrants should be fast-tracked and welcomed en masse;

·         people had different ideas about what a genuine refugee was and the motion did not define a refugee;

·         it was an insult to SBC’s staff who were already working with genuine refugees and asylum seekers;

·         referred to the impact on the current budget consultation and said that there would likely have been more public responses to it if it had included resources to fund this initiative;

·         the motion did not bring cohesion and understanding;

·         Swale included four of the most deprived areas in the country and SBC’s work should be supporting the residents that already lived here, who had high needs and contributed to the borough;

·         asylum seekers should be supported by the relevant organisation such as central government and KCC;

·         it was the Government’s responsibility to get the process right; and

·         the motion lacked information on outcomes and was confusing.

In accordance with Procedure rule 3.1.15 (18) it was proposed and seconded that the debate be moved to the vote. The mayor invited the seconder of the motion, who had reserved his right, to speak first, followed by the proposer.

The seconder of the motion, Councillor Alastair Gould, said it was not about the immigration system, it was about how the people in Swale who were refugees and asylum seekers, were supported. He said the District of Sanctuary was about promoting the values of a borough and welcoming those who found themselves here after experiencing a very traumatic and difficult time. Councillor Gould said it was not resource intensive or a quick fix, but the proposal was asking for it to be discussed at another Committee on how to proceed.

In summing up the debate, Councillor Perkin thanked Members for their comments and said it was helpful to hear different viewpoints. She was disappointed that Councillors had not spoken to her about their opinions prior to the meeting. Councillor Perkin acknowledged it was a divisive issue but said the attitude of some public towards vulnerable immigrants and refugees who lived in the UK needed addressing. She said that whilst different people had differing opinions, it was important to discuss the topic in a free and open debate. Councillor Perkin said it was unacceptable that Councillors had been intimidated, shouted at, or been threatened in order that only one side of the argument was put across. She said there had been much misinformation debated in the chamber that evening and whilst she accepted that many did not support the motion, she was glad that she had submitted it.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Cavanagh, Cheeseman, Thompson, Ben J Martin, Perkin, Gould, S Stephen and Brawn. Total equals 8.

Against: Councillors Harrison, C Palmer, T Gibson, Noe, Neal, Mishchuk, Chapman, Bowen, Pollard, Booth, Moore, Speed, MacDonald, Wooster, Wise, Watson, Marchington, P Stephen, Whiting, Baldock, R Palmer, Hunt and Winckless. Total equals 23.

Abstain: Councillor Last and Miller. Total equals 2.

The Mayor announced the motion had fallen.