Agenda item

This report sets out the motions received for this meeting. 

Motion A – proposed by Councillor Maple and supported by Councillor Perfect:

‘This Council condemns the violence, intimidation, and serious disruption that occurred at a recent meeting of Swale Borough Council, including the throwing of objects, intimidation of Councillors, and criminal damage to Council premises which prevented the orderly conduct of democratic business and caused distress to Councillors, officers, and members of the public.

This Council believes that:

• To “disagree agreeably” is a core democratic principle, requiring that even the strongest differences of opinion are expressed peacefully, respectfully, and within the law.
• Elected Members and Council officers must be able to conduct democratic processes in public, openly and transparently, without fear of intimidation, harassment, or violence.
• Violence or the threat of violence, regardless of motivation or cause, has no place in democracy and undermines public confidence in democratic institutions.
• The right to protest does not extend to actions that seek to silence debate, disrupt lawful meetings, or intimidate those participating in democratic decision-making.

This Council resolves to:

• Write to Swale Borough Council to express this Council’s full support and solidarity with all Councillors and officers, affected by the incident.
• Write to the Chief Constable of Kent Police to seek assurance that all elected Members and officers can carry out their duties without fear, and to ask what additional steps can be taken to ensure the safety and integrity of council meetings.
• Write to the Secretary of State at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise concerns about the safety of elected members and officers in local government, and to request consideration of what further national measures or guidance may be required to protect democratic participation at a local level.’

Councillor Lammas, supported by Councillor Finch, proposed the following amendment:

‘This Council condemns the violence, intimidation, and serious disruption that occurred at a recent meeting of Swale Borough Council, including the throwing of objects, intimidation of Councillors, and criminal damage to Council premises which prevented the orderly conduct of democratic business and caused distress to Councillors, officers, and members of the public.

This Council believes that:

• To “disagree agreeably” is a core democratic principle, requiring that even the strongest differences of opinion are expressed peacefully, respectfully, and within the law.
• Elected Members and Council officers must be able to conduct democratic processes in public, openly and transparently, without fear of intimidation, harassment, verbal abuse or violence.
• Violence or the threat of violence, regardless of motivation or cause, has no place in democracy and undermines public confidence in democratic institutions.
• The right to protest does not extend to actions that seek to silence debate, disrupt lawful meetings, or intimidate those participating in democratic decision-making.

This Council resolves to:

• Write to Swale Borough Council to express this Council’s full support and solidarity with all Councillors and officers, affected by the incident.
• Write to the Chief Constable of Kent Police to seek assurance that all elected Members and officers can carry out their duties without fear, and to ask what additional steps can be taken to ensure the safety and integrity of council meetings.
• Write to the Secretary of State at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise concerns about the safety of elected members and officers in local government, and to request consideration of what further national measures or guidance may be required to protect democratic participation at a local level, whilst protecting freedom of expression.

Amended motion reads:

‘This Council condemns the violence, intimidation, and serious disruption that occurred at a recent meeting of Swale Borough Council, including the throwing of objects, intimidation of Councillors, and criminal damage to Council premises which prevented the orderly conduct of democratic business and caused distress to Councillors, officers, and members of the public.

This Council believes that:

• To “disagree agreeably” is a core democratic principle, requiring that even the strongest differences of opinion are expressed peacefully, respectfully, and within the law.
• Elected Members and Council officers must be able to conduct democratic processes in public, openly and transparently, without fear of intimidation, harassment, verbal abuse or violence.
• Violence or the threat of violence, regardless of motivation or cause, has no place in democracy and undermines public confidence in democratic institutions.
• The right to protest does not extend to actions that seek to silence debate, disrupt lawful meetings, or intimidate those participating in democratic decision-making.

This Council resolves to:

• Write to Swale Borough Council to express this Council’s full support and solidarity with all Councillors and officers, affected by the incident.
• Write to the Chief Constable of Kent Police to seek assurance that all elected Members and officers can carry out their duties without fear, and to ask what additional steps can be taken to ensure the safety and integrity of council meetings.
• Write to the Secretary of State at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise concerns about the safety of elected members and officers in local government, and to request consideration of what further national measures or guidance may be required to protect democratic participation at a local level, whilst protecting freedom of expression.’

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the amended motion was taken:

For: Councillors Finch, Lammas, Pearce, Spalding, Mrs Turpin, Vye and Williams. (7)

Against: Councillors Anang, Animashaun, Bowen, Browne, Campbell, Clarke, Cook, Coombs, Curry, Doe, Fearn, Field, Filmer, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Gurung, Hackwell, Hamandishe, Hamilton, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Hyne, Jackson, Jones, Joy, Kemp, Lawrence, Mahil, Mandaracas, Maple, McDonald, Murray, Nestorov, Nestorova, Paterson, Peake, Perfect, Louwella Prenter, Mark Prenter, Price, Shokar, Spring, Stamp, Tejan, Van Dyke and Wildey. (46)

Abstain: Councillor Crozer (1)

The amendment was lost.

Note: In addition to the Councillors named under apologies for absence, Councillor Brake was not present for the recorded vote.

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the substantive motion was taken:

For: Councillors Anang, Animashaun, Bowen, Browne, Campbell, Clarke, Cook, Coombs, Crozer, Curry, Doe, Fearn, Field, Filmer, Finch, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Gurung, Hackwell, Hamandishe, Hamilton, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Hyne, Jackson, Jones, Joy, Kemp, Lammas, Lawrence, Mahil, Mandaracas, Maple, McDonald, Murray, Nestorov, Nestorova, Paterson, Peake, Pearce, Perfect, Louwella Prenter, Mark Prenter, Price, Shokar, Spalding, Spring, Stamp, Tejan, Mrs Turpin, Van Dyke, Vye, Wildey and Williams. (54)

Against: None.

Abstain: None.

Note: In addition to the Councillors named under apologies for absence, Councillor Brake was not present for the recorded vote.

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote, the substantive motion was carried:

This Council condemns the violence, intimidation, and serious disruption that occurred at a recent meeting of Swale Borough Council, including the throwing of objects, intimidation of Councillors, and criminal damage to Council premises which prevented the orderly conduct of democratic business and caused distress to Councillors, officers, and members of the public.

This Council believes that:

• To “disagree agreeably” is a core democratic principle, requiring that even the strongest differences of opinion are expressed peacefully, respectfully, and within the law.
• Elected Members and Council officers must be able to conduct democratic processes in public, openly and transparently, without fear of intimidation, harassment, or violence.
• Violence or the threat of violence, regardless of motivation or cause, has no place in democracy and undermines public confidence in democratic institutions.
• The right to protest does not extend to actions that seek to silence debate, disrupt lawful meetings, or intimidate those participating in democratic decision-making.

This Council resolves to:

• Write to Swale Borough Council to express this Council’s full support and solidarity with all Councillors and officers, affected by the incident.
• Write to the Chief Constable of Kent Police to seek assurance that all elected Members and officers can carry out their duties without fear, and to ask what additional steps can be taken to ensure the safety and integrity of council meetings.

Write to the Secretary of State at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise concerns about the safety of elected members and officers in local government, and to request consideration of what further national measures or guidance may be required to protect democratic participation at a local level.

Motion B – proposed by Councillor Lawrence and supported by Councillor Tejan:

‘The Council notes that many Councillors are receiving correspondence about the poor implementation of the Medway School Street Scheme and the impact on the lives of those who live in the controlled areas.

The Council will be aware of the recent decision by the independent traffic penalty tribunal after an adjudicator found that signage at Burnt Oak Primary School (Richmond Road in Gillingham) was inadequate.

The Council further notes that the areas of concern are:

1. The lack of evidence on air quality and accidents involving school children during term time that justifies the imposition of a scheme.
2. There is a feeling that residents’ views have been ignored through the statutory consultation, and equipment installed before consultation processes completed.
3. The poor signage means many drivers are only aware of restrictions once they had turned into a restricted zone.
4. Vulnerable residents are finding themselves locked into an inflexible scheme that stops their ability to freely leave their homes during the operation of the controlled zone.
5. Parents are forced to park in other areas that cause traffic issues and increases danger to children.
6. Collection rates on penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued. 

The Council recommends to the Cabinet that it undertakes a full independent review, which is subsequently reported to the Regeneration, Culture, and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, no later than May 2026.’

Decision:

Upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Motion C – proposed by Councillor Mrs Turpin and supported by Councillor Pearce:

‘Title:

Reverse the constitutional change to motion rules, specifically the rule restricting the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting. 

Background: 

At a meeting of the Council on Thursday 13^th November 2025, the Labour Administration and the Conservative Group voted through a constitutional change to motion rules.  This change restricts the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting.

This Council recognises:

1. Motions are a key part of the democratic process, used by all Groups and Independent Members since the founding of Medway Council, to focus attention on a specific action, opinion or subject of their own choosing at every Council meeting.
2. Restricting the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent members to table motions was not part of the original Work Plan of the Cross-Party Working Group.  It was instead unexpectedly proposed by the Labour Administration. 
3. The Council's own reports concerning the constitutional change to motion rules confirms the Cross-Party Working Group was not in full agreement.
4. All Members have a duty to taxpayers in recognising the considerable cost the Council may occur in defending any legal challenge to a constitutional change. 

This Council resolves to:

1. Reverse the constitutional change to motion rules* and reinstate the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting,
2. Avoid the considerable cost to taxpayers of the Council potentially needing to defend a legal challenge to the constitutional change to motion rules*. 

* voted through at a meeting of the Council on Thursday 13^th November 2025’

Councillor Lammas, supported by Councillor Finch, proposed the following amendment:

‘Title:

Reverse the constitutional change to motion rules, specifically the rule restricting the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting. 

Background: 

At a meeting of the Council on Thursday 13^th November 2025, the Labour Administration and the Conservative Group voted through a constitutional change to motion rules. This change restricts the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting.

Independent Legal Opinion:

The Medway Council Reform UK Group first expressed legal concerns to the Council on 14 October regarding the proposed changes. Reform requested that the Council seek an external legal opinion. They did not.

The Reform UK Group therefore obtained a legal opinion independent of the Council, prepared by Gavin Persaud, a solicitor, dated 22 October 2025.

The independent legal opinion of is clear that the proposed changes are ‘improper’, ‘disproportionate’, ‘risk democratic disenfranchisement’, ‘go beyond legal powers’ and ‘vulnerable to likely successful legal challenge’.

Given the serious concerns outlined within the independent legal opinion, Reform requested that the Council not consider and vote on the proposals and implement the recommended procedural safeguards before any decision was put to Members.

Council Response:

The Council decided to proceed with the vote on changes on 13 November 2025 on the basis that:

·       The opinion was provided by a solicitor that ‘does not specialise in local government law’.

·       The Council already has changed rules and procedures to structure debates at Council meetings.

·       The changes to restrict the ability of smaller groups to table motions stem from a cross-party working group.

Expert Legal Opinion on Legality and Risk of High Court Challenge:

Since, Cllr Lammas on behalf of the Reform UK Group, instructed a specialist barrister to advise as to the legality of Medway Council’s recent adoption of amended standing orders that restrict the ability of Councillors to propose motions at full council meetings.

The second legal opinion independent of the Council, prepared by Rupert Beloff, a barrister specialising in local government, dated 21 January 2026 concluded:

“There are strong and properly arguable grounds for contending that the amended standing orders adopted by the Council are unlawful. In particular, there is a substantial basis for arguing that allocating opportunities to introduce motions by reference to political group size is liable in practice to restrict materially the ability of some councillors to participate meaningfully in the deliberative functions of Full Council. The analysis raises serious issues as to whether the amendments fall within the scope of the procedural power conferred by Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972, whether that power has been exercised for a proper purpose, and whether the Council has given proper and conscientious consideration to the democratic implications of the measures adopted.

“In my opinion, those issues place a judicial review challenge on a firm footing. While the court will ordinarily afford a measure of latitude to a local authority in regulating its internal proceedings, that latitude is constrained where procedural arrangements have a direct and material impact on democratic participation and access to the Council’s agenda. Subject to any further evidence as to the practical operation of the scheme, I consider that a judicial review challenge would have good prospects of success, particularly on grounds of procedural unfairness and improper purpose, with the rationality and proportionality arguments providing additional support.”

This Council recognises:

1.      Motions are a key part of the democratic process, used by all Groups and Independent Members since the founding of Medway Council, to focus attention on a specific action, opinion or subject of their own choosing at every Council meeting.

 

2.      Restricting the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent members to table motions was not part of the original Work Plan of the Cross-Party Working Group. It was instead unexpectedly proposed by the Labour Administration.

 

3.      The Council's own reports concerning the constitutional change to motion rules confirms the Cross-Party Working Group was not in full agreement.

 

4.   All Members have received copies of the independent expert legal opinion advising the changes are “unlawful”.

 

4.   5.  All Members have a duty to taxpayers in recognising the considerable cost the Council may occur in defending any legal challenge to a constitutional change.

This Council resolves to:

1. Reverse the constitutional change to motion rules* and reinstate the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting,
2. Avoid the considerable cost to taxpayers of the Council potentially needing to defend a legal challenge to the constitutional change to motion rules*. 

* voted through at a meeting of the Council on Thursday 13^th November 2025’

Amended motion reads:

‘Title:

Reverse the constitutional change to motion rules, specifically the rule restricting the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting. 

Background: 

At a meeting of the Council on Thursday 13^th November 2025, the Labour Administration and the Conservative Group voted through a constitutional change to motion rules. This change restricts the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting.

Independent Legal Opinion:

The Medway Council Reform UK Group first expressed legal concerns to the Council on 14 October regarding the proposed changes. Reform requested that the Council seek an external legal opinion. They did not.

The Reform UK Group therefore obtained a legal opinion independent of the Council, prepared by Gavin Persaud, a solicitor, dated 22 October 2025.

The independent legal opinion of is clear that the proposed changes are ‘improper’, ‘disproportionate’, ‘risk democratic disenfranchisement’, ‘go beyond legal powers’ and ‘vulnerable to likely successful legal challenge’.

Given the serious concerns outlined within the independent legal opinion, Reform requested that the Council not consider and vote on the proposals and implement the recommended procedural safeguards before any decision was put to Members.

Council Response:

The Council decided to proceed with the vote on changes on 13 November 2025 on the basis that:

·       The opinion was provided by a solicitor that ‘does not specialise in local government law’.

·       The Council already has changed rules and procedures to structure debates at Council meetings.

·       The changes to restrict the ability of smaller groups to table motions stem from a cross-party working group.

 

Expert Legal Opinion on Legality and Risk of High Court Challenge:

Since, Cllr Lammas on behalf of the Reform UK Group, instructed a specialist barrister to advise as to the legality of Medway Council’s recent adoption of amended standing orders that restrict the ability of Councillors to propose motions at full council meetings.

The second legal opinion independent of the Council, prepared by Rupert Beloff, a barrister specialising in local government, dated 21 January 2026 concluded:

“There are strong and properly arguable grounds for contending that the amended standing orders adopted by the Council are unlawful. In particular, there is a substantial basis for arguing that allocating opportunities to introduce motions by reference to political group size is liable in practice to restrict materially the ability of some councillors to participate meaningfully in the deliberative functions of Full Council. The analysis raises serious issues as to whether the amendments fall within the scope of the procedural power conferred by Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972, whether that power has been exercised for a proper purpose, and whether the Council has given proper and conscientious consideration to the democratic implications of the measures adopted.

“In my opinion, those issues place a judicial review challenge on a firm footing. While the court will ordinarily afford a measure of latitude to a local authority in regulating its internal proceedings, that latitude is constrained where procedural arrangements have a direct and material impact on democratic participation and access to the Council’s agenda. Subject to any further evidence as to the practical operation of the scheme, I consider that a judicial review challenge would have good prospects of success, particularly on grounds of procedural unfairness and improper purpose, with the rationality and proportionality arguments providing additional support.”

This Council recognises:

1. Motions are a key part of the democratic process, used by all Groups and Independent Members since the founding of Medway Council, to focus attention on a specific action, opinion or subject of their own choosing at every Council meeting.
2. Restricting the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent members to table motions was not part of the original Work Plan of the Cross-Party Working Group. It was instead unexpectedly proposed by the Labour Administration. 
3. The Council's own reports concerning the constitutional change to motion rules confirms the Cross-Party Working Group was not in full agreement.

 

4.   All Members have received copies of the independent expert legal opinion advising the changes are “unlawful”.

5.    All Members have a duty to taxpayers in recognising the considerable cost the Council may occur in defending any legal challenge to a constitutional change.

This Council resolves to:

1. Reverse the constitutional change to motion rules* and reinstate the ability of the smaller Groups and Independent Members to table motions at every Council meeting,
2. Avoid the considerable cost to taxpayers of the Council potentially needing to defend a legal challenge to the constitutional change to motion rules*. 

* voted through at a meeting of the Council on Thursday 13^th November 2025’

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the amended motion was taken:

For: Councillors Crozer, Finch, Lammas, Pearce, Mrs Turpin, Vye and Williams. (7)

Against: Councillors Anang, Animashaun, Bowen, Brake, Browne, Campbell, Clarke, Cook, Coombs, Curry, Doe, Fearn, Field, Filmer, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Gurung, Hackwell, Hamandishe, Hamilton, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Hyne, Jackson, Jones, Joy, Kemp, Lawrence, Mahil, Mandaracas, Maple, McDonald, Murray, Nestorov, Nestorova, Paterson, Peake, Perfect, Louwella Prenter, Mark Prenter, Price, Shokar, Spring, Stamp, Tejan, Van Dyke and Wildey. (47)

Abstain: Councillor Spalding. (1)

The amendment was lost.

In accordance with Rule 12.4 of the Council Rules, a recorded vote on the substantive motion was taken:

For: Councillors Crozer, Finch, Lammas, Pearce, Spalding, Mrs Turpin, Vye and Williams. (8)

Against: Councillors Anang, Animashaun, Bowen, Brake, Browne, Campbell, Clarke, Cook, Coombs, Curry, Doe, Fearn, Field, Filmer, Gilbourne, Gulvin, Gurung, Hackwell, Hamandishe, Hamilton, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Hyne, Jackson, Jones, Joy, Kemp, Lawrence, Mahil, Mandaracas, Maple, McDonald, Murray, Nestorov, Nestorova, Paterson, Peake, Perfect, Louwella Prenter, Mark Prenter, Price, Shokar, Spring, Stamp, Tejan, Van Dyke and Wildey. (47)

Abstain: None.

Decision:

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