Agenda item

 This report sets out motions received for this meeting.

Motion A – As Councillor Etheridge had submitted apologies for the meeting, the motion was proposed by Councillor Lawrence and supported by Councillor Tejan:

“The Council notes that on the 30^th October 2024, Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, delivered the largest tax raising budget since the Second World War with the biggest burden falling on businesses. The £40bn tax raising measures included adding inheritance tax to farmers, as well as increases including inflation busting national minimum wage rises, national insurance increases and higher capital gains tax liabilities. The national insurance rises alone will cost business more than £24bn and will be devastating for the charity sector and vulnerable residents dependent on Council services provided by the private sector.

The Council further notes that each one of these measures affects families living in Medway who have worked hard to create businesses to pass on to their loved ones. The impact of the Budget has been a plunge in business confidence, economic output going into reverse, inflation increasing, and hiring rates down.

Medway’s economy is dependent on small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and it is important that this sector thrives for the future of our community and future economic wellbeing.

For farmers, this is especially galling as farming is capital-intensive with extremely low margins and will mean the end of family farming across the country. It will affect the country’s food security, biodiversity and employment opportunities as farmers reduce investment.

The Council believes that the Labour government have committed shameful betrayal of working people and let down farmers by breaking their promise not to raise taxes nor introduce a family farm tax.

The Council resolves to request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to outline the Council’s dismay at the recent Budget and call on the Government to stop the family farm tax.

The Council further resolves to request that the Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration and Inward Investment engages with local businesses and farmers to understand the impact of the budget and to better understand what the Council can do to support them.”

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Motion B –

A Member questioned whether the motion should be permitted to be considered by the Council on the basis that it was so far removed, it should be considered to be de minimis as the motion would, if passed, amount to a direct interference with a local business and it was not for Medway Council to interfere with any business in those circumstances.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the rules in relation to motions at Council meetings were contained within Rule 10 of the Council’s procedural rules within the Council’s Constitution. Paragraph 10.1b dealt with motions involving debate. A debate could take place in relation to a motion that related to the Council’s responsibilities or the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. The motion being proposed did consider the economic wellbeing of the area. The was no requirement for it to be wholly in relation to economic matters or only a de minimis level. Officers had little discretion when motions were received as to what was included in the meeting agenda.

Paragraph 10.2 of the Council’s procedure rules stated that motions that required notice must be signed by at least one Member of the Council and received at least seven working days before the meeting. The motion submitted had complied with these rules and related to the economic wellbeing of the area. Officers considered motions received with an enabling interpretation and did not seek to limit or excessively rule out matters. The Monitoring Officer and his colleagues were satisfied that the motion received fell within the scope of the rules set out at paragraph 10.1b and therefore the advice was that the motion was in accordance with the Council’s procedural rules.

The motion was Proposed by Councillor Shokar and supported by Councillor Spalding:

“The horrific attacks on 7^th October by Hamas in Israel have resulted in a war against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and on Lebanon. While the actions taken by Hamas cannot ever be justified, the current military campaign by Israel against the Palestinian and Lebanese people is unconscionable and cannot continue.

Over 46,000 people have been killed in Gaza, of whom around 60% are women and children, and over 3,000 people in Lebanon, also many of them civilians. The actual figures, however, are considered to be far higher. The capture and recapture analysis, presented in the Lancet Medical Journal suggests a 41% underreporting of traumatic injury mortality. A total death toll of over 180,000 could be expected when including indirect causes such as starvation, lack of medicines and disease.

The International Court of Justice has said there is a plausible case that Israel’s actions amount to genocide and the United Nations has recently stated that Israel’s blocking of aid in Gaza is genocide. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime, Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant for war crimes.

Many Medway residents are appalled and traumatised at what has been happening in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, and have supported repeated protests here in Medway as well as joining the many huge demonstrations that have taken place in London over the last 15 months.  

The UK is required by both international and domestic law not to supply weapons to States that are committing genocide and crimes against humanity, yet our Government has failed to stop all sales of weapons to Israel. BAE Systems, a major employer in Medway, is manufacturing some of those weapons. Though BAE Systems is an important asset in Medway, providing employment and much-needed technological apprenticeships, this doesn’t make them immune to upholding international humanitarian law. It’s also important to ensure Medway employees at BAE Systems are not involved in producing such weapons for such crimes.

An end to the fighting and international leadership to work for peace in the region is needed urgently and it is extremely important that Medway sends a clear message to the Government and BAE Systems in support of this. Medway has a history of showing solidarity for international citizens in times of conflict, as seen by the tremendous support for Ukrainians. To abandon the Palestinians at their time of most need would be morally indefensible. It's our duty to apply scrutiny and pressure to the full extent on those involved in providing weapons that are being used to commit mass atrocities. Failure to do so could imply a degree of complicity by the Council.”

Therefore, the Council resolves:

1.       To call on the Prime Minster and the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs:

a)   to press all parties to agree:

i)    to an urgent permanent, bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, Israel, West Bank and Lebanon and to work tirelessly to resume a just and sustainable peace process.

ii)   to guarantee that international humanitarian law is upheld and that civilians are protected in accordance with those laws.

iii)   to allow the Red Cross immediate access to hostages and detainees in Gaza and Israel and to ensure that all aid is allowed into the region including unfettered access to medical supplies, food, electricity, other fuel and water.

b)  to suspend all arms exports to Israel given the plausible case for genocide and illegality of the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

c)   to implement sanctions including travel bans and asset freezes against those involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

d)   to exercise international advocacy for the right of return and compensation for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

2.       To write to BAE Systems and ask them to:

·        Adhere to the "UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” and the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty (ATTT)

·        Cease their business relationship with Israel and ensure that no products are used to violate civil liberties or human rights overseas.

·        Commission an immediate internal report on whether their continued business relationship with Israel is compatible with international law or BAE Systems Product Trading Policy, knowing that Israel is committing war crimes and breaching international law.”

There was a brief meeting adjournment during discussion of the motion due to a technical issue.

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Motion C – proposed by Councillor Mrs Turpin:

“Chatham Docks is under threat of development from landlords Peel Land and Property, who continue to claim that the site is no longer financially viable, despite having used their ownership of the land to demonstrate their commitment to employment when applying for residential planning permission on the adjacent Chatham Waters site.

 

The Docks has a 400-year history but in last year's Regulation 18 consultation the Chatham Docks site appeared in the Council’s preferred Spatial Growth Option - The Blended Strategy.

 

This Council notes that:

 

• Chatham Docks is a thriving commercial port which directly

provides 795 skilled local jobs.

• The Docks indirectly supports an additional 1,440 jobs through

the supply chain.

• The businesses located at Chatham Docks make a significant

positive contribution to Medway’s economy, with £89 million

of annual investment into Medway. The Docks use environmentally sustainable methods to transport goods, which would otherwise be exported by road.

• The closure of Chatham Docks would have a disastrous impact on the employees and their families because they would either lose their jobs or have to relocate; and some of the businesses at Chatham Docks are physically unable to relocate due to the nature of their operation.
• Medway’s Local Plan has not yet been approved, and previous iterations have been criticised for failing to designate sufficient levels of employment land.

 

This Council resolves to ask the relevant officers to consider to remove the Chatham Docks site from the Council’s preferred option in the forthcoming Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Draft Plan to safeguard employment, skills and the local economy and re-designate Chatham Docks as solely for employment use before the Local Plan is submitted for approval.”

 

The Monitoring Officer advised that the Council could consider two types of motion under its Council procedure rules, either procedural or those that required debate. Where a motion required debate, it must be in relation to the Council’s responsibilities or the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the area. Provided that a motion drafted met that requirement, was signed by at least one Member and delivered to the Chief Executive seven working days before the date of the meeting, that motion would be entered in a book open to the public for inspection and listed on the agenda. The motion submitted had satisfied those requirements and therefore was listed on the agenda.

 

On Tuesday 21 January 2025, the Monitoring Officer had received an e-mail from the Chief Planning Officer, advising extreme caution in progressing with the motion as the Council was part way through a consultation exercise in relation to the Local Plan and would not wish to jeopardise the progress of that due to legal challenges that might be faced as a result of Members that may be considered to be biased or pre-determined.

 

Having considered this e-mail, the Monitoring Officer sent the following e-mail on Wednesday 22 January 2025 to Councillor Mrs Turpin, the Chief Executive, Richard Hicks and the Chief Operating Officer, Phil Watts. The e-mail was also copied to the Deputy Monitoring Officer, Vicky Nutley and the Head of Democratic Services, Wayne Hemingway.

 

“Good evening Councillor Turpin

 

My attention has been drawn to the motion that you have submitted to be debated at the council meeting tomorrow night.  I apologise for the lateness of the email and the advice contained herein. I also apologise to both Richard and Phil as I have not had chance to consult with them as my two statutory officer colleagues.

 

The motion requests the council to make a determination on the Chatham docks site contained within the draft local plan which is currently in the process of a statutory consultation and responses are being evaluated. Under the councils rules for the conduct of council meetings there is nothing improper about the motion. However, there are serious legal implications which need to be considered and explained to all members if the motion is moved and seconded, to be debated.

 

If the motioned is moved and seconded I shall have no alternative but to provide advice to all members that

 

1. Participation in the debate and or voting may, subject to the contribution by each individual member, exhibit predetermination and bias on their part whilst, the consultation exercise is still live / responses are being considered and evaluated.

 

2. Formulating a view on an aspect of the local plan at the meeting on Thursday night would be premature, not based on the consideration of the full facts and would probably be determined by the High Court as the Council acting irrationally and unreasonably (i.e.  the legal grounds to succeed in a claim for Judicial review.)

 

3. There is a significant and substantial risk that the statutory consultation may be subjected to legal challenge and a significant risk that we would not be able to successfully defend such a challenge. Further, in the event of such a challenge and our likely inability to defend the council an award for costs against the council is likely to be made.

 

4. I would need to seriously consider if my statutory duty as Monitoring Officer is invoked, i.e. the council seeking to make decision that is unlawful. If that is invoked, I am under a statutory duty to produce a report and present it to full council at meeting held for that single item.  

 

5. Any member who debates and votes on the motion, would need to recuse themselves when the plan comes back to council to move to the next stage (reg 19) to seek to safe guard the legal procedure the council is obligated to follow. However I suspect it will nor get to this stage as the reg 18 consultation would have been challenged and held to be unlawful.

 

None of the above options is without risk, reputational damage and satisfactory. To avoid personal and corporate embarrassment I would suggest that the motion is withdrawn. Whilst there is no formal process to do so, it can be achieved by not moving the motion. Any consideration of the site, its uses and revision to the reg 18 plan, can properly be made when the results of the consultation on the local plan return to full council.  

 

Unfortunately I am out of the office all day at a hearing and have limited opportunity to step out of that engagement but Vicky has been copied into this email if you wish to have a discussion. Alternatively, I could try to ring you when we have comfort breaks but these are very short and will not facilitate a full conversation.

 

Could you please let me know by return how you wish to proceed?”

 

The following response had been received from Councillor Mrs Turpin on the morning of 23 January 2025. This had also been copied to Councillors Crozer, Sands, Pearce and Williams:

 

“Dear Bhupinder,

 

To say I am disappointed by your email is an understatement. 

To send me this at 11pm the night before council is unacceptable when the Agenda has been published for over a week. 

I am in work all day and also have very little time to discuss this with anyone. 

I will however attempt to call Wayne and or Vicky in my lunch break. 

 

Elizabeth”

 

The Monitoring Officer had since spoken to the Deputy Monitoring Officer, Vicky Nutley. She had a conversation with Councillor Mrs Turpin earlier in the day and proposed an alteration the motion which could be discussed at the Council meeting. That had been shared with Councillor Mrs Turpin but the suggested alteration had not been moved at the meeting, the original motion had been moved.

 

The Monitoring Officer had also had a discussion with a Councillor, whom he understood may second the motion. Should they second the motion there would be a risk that they too could be determined to have pre-determined the issue and to have bias on this matter. The Monitoring Officer had left it to the Member to consider whether they wished to second the motion or not.

 

A Member said that the motion asked officers to consider to remove the Chatham Dock site from the preferred options rather than to actually remove it. Therefore, the Monitoring Officer was asked to consider altering his advice.

 

The Monitoring Officer said that the motion did ask officers to consider to remove Chatham Dock site from preferred options and redesignate as solely for employment use before the Local Plan was submitted for approval. There was a substantial and significant risk. While there might not be a challenge and it might not be successful, the advice was provided based upon what Members had said in the Chamber historically. The Council was well progressed along the legal route to adopting a Local Plan. The Monitoring Officer was seeking to manage the risks that might be presented by having a debate and asking officers to limit the options in appraisals that went forward. Whether officers followed that request or not, the request was clear, it was asking officers not to present the totality of options available and therefore the Monitoring Officer’s advice was as he had given previously.

 

In response to a Member question about what the impact would be of Members abstaining in a recorded vote on the motion, the Monitoring Officer suggested that would be the safest course of action as voting for or against suggested that a Member had come to a particular conclusion.

 

Concern was raised that a significant number of abstentions in any recorded vote could lead to the motion being inadvertently agreed. The Monitoring Officer said that should the motion be agreed by the Council, he would need to consider whether it was unlawful and if so to bring a report to a future Council meeting setting out his conclusions and requesting the Council to consider alternative options.

 

The meeting was adjourned for further consideration of the issue.

 

Following resumption of the meeting, the Chief Executive advised that he had spoken to the Leaders of the three political groups and in view of the concerns and questions raised, it was proposed that consideration of the motion be adjourned to allow external legal advice to be sought. Should the advice confirm that the motion could be considered, it would be brought to the April 2025 meeting of Full Council. The brief for this advice would be shared with Members and should the motion be discussed at the April Council meeting, the Independent Group would be entitled to submit a further motion to that meeting.

 

Decision:

 

Consideration of the motion was adjourned to the Council meeting due to take place on 24 April 2025 to enable external legal advice to be sought.

 

Motion D – proposed by Councillor Spalding and supported by Councillor Pearce:

 

“In addition to its rich military, industrial and power generation heritage, Medway has a long history of farming.

 

These are farms whichprovide award winning produce not just locally, but to major supermarkets too.

 

This excellence is not just restricted to Medway. Throughout Kent our farmers grow the necessities and the pleasurable.

 

A few miles down the road a family run farming business provides over thirty four tonnes of strawberries to the Wimbledon Championships.

 

Farming has been under threat from central government house building targets as landowners such as the Church Commissioners seek to sell off farmland to developers in the name of short term profit.

 

Now family farms face threat from the current government’s changes to agricultural property relief.

 

This Council believes that farmland and family farms should be protected so they can continue to provide first rate produce to feed the nation and to provide a continuing green lung that is so vital in maintaining good air quality.

 

This Council calls on the Government to protect farmland and family farms by:

 

a)    Ensuring building and construction on Farmland only occurs in the most exceptional circumstances.

 

b)    Reverse the changes to Agricultural Property Relief.

 

This Council requeststhe Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to jointly write to:

 

a)    The respective Secretaries of State stating this Council’s wishes.

 

b)    The three Medway MPs asking them to lobby ministers to ensure the above.”

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Motion E – proposed by Councillor Field and supported by Councillor Van Dyke:

 

“On the 23^rd of December, a burst water main in Strood led to the loss of running water supply to over 1,000 households. The majority of homes had their supply reinstated on Christmas Eve, but come Christmas Day, 50 properties were still without a running water supply.

 

Many of Medway Council’s staff will have been looking forward to their own Christmas break, but in the face of the crises affecting the people they serve every single day, mobilised to support to make sure people had the information they needed, worked with Southern Water to ensure people had access to bottled water, and even took the extraordinary step of opening up Strood Leisure centre on Christmas Day and Boxing Day to allow those still without running water the ability to take a hot shower.

 

This Council recognises the extraordinary efforts of all staff involved in providing this support and requests that the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council write to those involved to pass on its thanks and gratitude.”

 

Decision:

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.