Amendment added 27.01.26.

In proposing the border emergency motion, as set out on the Agenda, Councillor Richard Palmer cited immigration pressures and the downstream impacts on the Council and residents of Swale. He emphasised the motion was not anti‑worker or anti‑agriculture, acknowledging the importance of seasonal farm workers to the local economy and the role that properly managed, lawful and time‑limited migration played in supporting food production and local businesses.

 

Councillor Palmer explained that the motion focused on the scale, control and consequences of current immigration levels. He highlighted the Council’s statutory responsibilities, including housing, homelessness prevention, temporary accommodation, planning control, environmental health and community cohesion, and noted that while immigration policy was set nationally, the impacts were felt locally through increased pressure on housing availability, GP provision, school places and council‑funded services.

 

Referring to briefing information, he stated that population growth of between 1,200 and 1,600 additional residents per year was placing further demand on local services. He linked this pressure to concerns raised by Members regarding large‑scale housing developments, including proposed garden village schemes, and argued that declining birth rates meant that natural population growth alone did not justify development at this scale. He suggested that mass immigration, combined with weak or unenforced national policies, was a significant driver of housing demand.

 

In concluding, Councillor Palmer stated that it was inconsistent to oppose overdevelopment locally without challenging the national policies that contributed to it. He said the motion sought to set out the reality of the situation and called on central government to take responsibility for the consequences of its decisions, or lack thereof, and commended the motion to the Council.

 

In seconding the motion, Councill Mishchuk reserved his right to speak.

 

The Mayor then advised an amendment to the motion had been received and circulated to all members.

 

Councillor Richard Palmer made a Point of Order relating to 3.1.16.4 of the constitution that amendments should not seek to negate the intent of the motion. Councillor Palmer argued that the proposed amendment was procedurally flawed, as it went beyond an amendment and effectively negated the original motion. He contended that the amendment substituted the policy narrative by removing reference to legal and illegal immigration pressures and replacing it with alternative explanations for population change, thereby fundamentally altering the intent of the motion. He further argued that elements of the amendment introduced assertions about the economic and social benefits of migration without supporting evidence and included statements on national immigration law that fell outside the Council’s remit, and were unnecessary for determining the motion. Councillor Palmer expressed concern that accepting the amendment would set a precedent allowing motions to be wholly rewritten through amendment, contrary to the Constitution, which he stated permitted the substitution of words but not the wholesale replacement of paragraphs or the reversal of a motion’s purpose.

 

The Mayor invited input from the Monitoring Officer.

 

In responding, the Monitoring Officer advised that the initial point raised constituted a valid point of order, as it related directly to the constitutional definition of an amendment to a motion. He explained that amendments were permitted to omit, insert or substitute wording, and that their purpose was inherently to change a motion. While acknowledging that an amendment should not negate a motion, he advised that determining whether an amendment amounted to negation was a matter of judgement, particularly where both the motion and the amendment were broad in scope. He stated that the remaining points raised were matters of debate rather than points of order.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Mayor had considered the amendment and determined that it did not negate the original motion, and he reminded Members that the Mayor’s ruling on the admissibility of amendments was final.

 

He advised that Members retained the opportunity to speak against the amendment during debate, and that it was ultimately for Council to determine, through a vote, whether the amendment was appropriate.

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Perkin as the proposer of the amendment to speak.

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Perkin highlighted the anxiety experienced by many residents regarding housing pressures, noting that behind statistical data were real human circumstances, including relationship breakdowns, the loss of private rented accommodation and people fleeing unsafe situations. She emphasised that these concerns were genuine and should be treated seriously. She stated that the amendment did not deny the pressures facing Swale, but sought to ensure that those pressures were explained accurately, proportionately and responsibly.

 

Referring to housing and homelessness data, she argued that evidence demonstrated that housing demand was not driven by any single group and highlighted the importance of acknowledging common causes of homelessness, including family exclusion, the end of private tenancies and domestic abuse. She stressed that Members had a responsibility to act in line with the Nolan Principles of Public Life by relying on evidence, correcting inaccuracies and using language that reassured communities.

 

Councillor Perkin acknowledged the scale of housing need in the borough, including the high number of households on the housing register and the continued use of temporary accommodation, and she welcomed the work of officers to reduce reliance on costly bed and breakfast provision.

 

She concluded that the amendment sought a balanced and evidence‑led approach to discussing migration, recognised the contribution of migrant residents to the local economy, and called on government to provide the support needed to address housing supply, funding for temporary accommodation, workforce stability and improved data, in order to strengthen public confidence and enable effective long‑term planning.

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Charles Gibson reserved his right to speak.

 

Councillor Richard Palmer was then given the opportunity, as proposer of the motion, to reply to the debate on the amendment. 

 

In responding, Councillor Palmer reiterated that the motion sought to highlight what he described as a failure of national government to secure the UK’s borders and the resulting pressures on residents and services in Swale. He referred to pressures on GP provision in the borough and wider strain on local infrastructure and facilities, which he considered to be impacting residents. He expressed concern that such pressures were being downplayed and stated that residents’ anxieties should be taken seriously.

 

Councillor Palmer criticised the amendment, arguing that it fundamentally altered and undermined the purpose of the original motion. He warned that accepting the amendment would, in his view, be contrary to the Council’s Constitution and risked setting a precedent whereby motions could be substantially rewritten, and he urged Members to consider the implications of supporting it.

 

The Mayor then opened the floor to debate on the amendment from members.

 

Points raised included:

• concerned that immigration control was a national responsibility and that local authorities had no direct powers over border policy or asylum arrangements;
• the amendment did not negate the motion, instead it changed the explanatory text that was primarily being amended;
• debating the motion risked creating a misleading impression that the Council could influence national migration policy;
• the Council’s role was to focus on delivering outcomes within its remit, rather than debating politically motivated motions;
• referenced significant local priorities already within the Council’s control, including budget setting and the allocation of government funding for high streets, assets and open spaces;
• supported the amendment on the basis that it clarified the motion and provided a more accurate, evidence‑led account of the impacts of migration;
• concerned that the original motion conflated different forms of migration, including legal migration, internal migration and irregular routes, and that the amendment addressed this confusion;
• referenced  data indicating that housing demand and service pressures were not disproportionately attributable to any single group;
• acknowledged the contribution of migrant workers to local services, including healthcare and the wider economy;
• concerned that language used in the debate could contribute to fear or division if not handled carefully; and
• the view that residents’ genuine concerns should be addressed through balanced, factual and responsible discussion.

 

It was then requested that the amendment be moved to a vote, before doing so the Mayor invited Councillor Mishchuk as the seconder to the motion and Councillor Gibson as seconder of the amendment to speak.

 

Councillor Mishchuk responded to the amendment by stating that young people, including himself were struggling to access housing and employment. He commented that some residents felt new businesses were not locally run and believed that local people were not always being employed.

 

He said that many residents were concerned about migration and felt unable to openly debate the issue without it becoming controversial. Councillor Mishchuk added that, in his view, these concerns were widely shared across the borough and the country.

 

He continued by arguing that the amendment did not reflect or respond to the concerns raised by residents. They expressed views about population change, national identity, and prioritising local people for opportunities. They also referred to concerns raised with them by residents regarding the perceived impact of demographic changes.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Charles Gibson to speak.

 

Councillor Gibson stated that he had listened carefully to the debate and, while agreeing with colleagues that the motion in its current form was unacceptable, he felt it was important to engage with it in good faith. He explained that the purpose of the amendment was to refocus the motion on addressing the declared housing emergency, to which the Council remains committed. Councillor Gibson emphasised the importance of basing decisions on factual evidence rather than assumptions or bias. He noted that approximately 8% of Swale residents were not born in the UK, and that fewer than 4% of those on the housing register fell into this category. He argued that these residents did not represent the cause of the housing crisis and that attributing blame to them was both inaccurate and harmful.

 

Councillor Gibson concluded that the amendment sought to return the motion to a balanced, housing‑focused position.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was not carried.

 

The Mayor then invited debate on the substantive motion. Member comments included:

 

•      acknowledged that housing pressures, rising temporary accommodation costs and increasing strain on council services were real and ongoing issues locally and nationally;

•      concerns about migration were shared by many residents, but that debate should be based on facts, evidence and accurate distinctions rather than generalisation or assumption;

•      the motion attributed housing and service pressures to legal and illegal migration without sufficient Swale‑specific evidence;

•      referenced briefing information provided to Members which indicated that non‑UK nationals on the housing register, in homelessness applications and in temporary accommodation were broadly proportionate to the borough’s population profile;

•      dominant causes of housing pressure were a shortage of genuinely affordable housing, rising private sector rents, historic loss of social housing, welfare constraints and long‑term underfunding;

•      council housing allocation policies, including historic residency requirements, had contributed to local pressures and should be reviewed as part of addressing housing need;

•      the motion conflated legal migration, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal migration without recognising important legal and policy distinctions;

•      asylum seekers were generally not eligible for mainstream housing or benefits and that local authority discretion over asylum dispersal was limited;

•      referenced previous council decisions on Houses in Multiple Occupation, which were based on housing quality, landlord behaviour, planning control and environmental health considerations rather than migration;

•      examples from other parts of the country demonstrated that sudden or poorly funded migration pressures could affect housing and services, but that no evidence had been presented to show Swale was experiencing such impacts to a materially different extent;

•      the wording of the motion risked undermining community cohesion and could negatively affect council staff and residents with migrant backgrounds;

•      spoke of the contribution made by migrant residents and staff to council services, the local economy and the wider community;

•      referenced the Holocaust Memorial Day and the importance of challenging intolerance and ensuring public debate was responsible and evidence‑based;

•      writing to central government should be based on clear, evidenced local impacts and that doing so without such evidence risked undermining public confidence;

•      suggested that the issues raised would be more appropriately considered by the relevant committee, supported by detailed officer reports and robust data; and

•      the motion, as drafted, did not propose practical measures to increase housing supply, regulate the private rented sector or secure additional funding, and therefore could not be supported.

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Mishchuk to speak.

 

Councillor Mishchuk stated that the motion was concerned not only with current conditions in the borough but with the potential long‑term impact of migration in future years. He expressed the view that central government had a responsibility to prioritise the needs of the existing population and ensure that the country’s borders were secure.

 

Councillor Mishchuk commented that, while statistics and data were often referenced, many residents were influenced by what they observed and experienced locally. He emphasised that the motion was not intended to be personal or to propose deportations, but to seek recognition that future migration could place additional pressures on the borough over time.

 

He concluded by urging Members to consider how decisions taken now would be viewed in the future.

 

Councillor Palmer, with support from four other Members then requested a recorded vote. 

 

Councillor Bowen requested a point of clarification regarding harassment and vilification following a recent motion on a similar matter and concern a recorded vote could potentially put members at further risk.

 

The Monitoring Officer advised that the Constitution provided that, where five Members requested it, a recorded vote must be taken and that this provision was explicit. He further explained that individual Members were also entitled to have their vote recorded after a vote had been taken, and that this rule could not be suspended.

 

It was noted that, while some constitutional rules were capable of being suspended by a vote of the Council, others were not, and that Members who were dissatisfied with the wording of the Constitution should consider proposing a formal change to it.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that a proposal could be made for the Council to vote on whether the requirement for a recorded vote should be suspended, and that such a proposal could be seconded and put to the Council, with the Mayor then taking the view of the Council before making a final decision.

 

Councillor Bowen moved to suspend standing orders for the remainder of this motion. Councillor Harrison seconded this motion and on being put to the vote, Members agreed.

 

The Mayor then advised that a recorded vote would not be held. .

 

In summing up, Councillor Richard Palmer stated that the motion did not suggest that all housing and service pressures were caused solely by legal or illegal migration, but that migration was identified as one contributing factor. He acknowledged that migration could make positive contributions, but argued that concerns related to overall numbers, scale, and the consequences of insufficient control.

 

Councillor Palmer expressed the view that current and previous governments had failed to manage migration effectively and that public confidence was being lost as a result. He commented that, while there were genuine cases of people in need of protection, he believed a significant number of migrants were economic migrants and that this raised concerns about long‑term impacts.

 

He also raised concerns about the tone of the debate, stating that, in his opinion,  constitutional processes had not been properly followed.

 

A Member raised a point of order relating to pausing the live streaming to protect the identity of those voting, which was challenged by Councillor Richard Palmer and declined by the Mayor.

 

Members of the Reform UK group requested their votes be recorded.

 

Votes for: Councillors Richard Palmer, Kieran Mischuk, Chris Palmer, Peter MacDonald, Lloyd Chapman.

 

On being put to the vote, the Mayor announced the motion had fallen.