To consider any questions submitted by Members.  (The deadline for questions is 4.30 pm on the Monday the week before the meeting – please contact Democratic Services by e-mailing democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417330).

The Mayor advised 2 questions had been received from members.

Question 1 – Councillor Mike Whiting

What progress has the Council made in reinstating primary care services in Teynham and Lynsted Ward following the closure of the only GP surgery in the Ward earlier in the year? What alternative premises has the Council suggested to the NHS that may be suitable for a GP surgery in the Ward?

Response – Chair of Housing and Health Committee

Firstly, I would like to point out that it is not the responsibility for the Council to reinstate and run primary care services.  That is the responsibility of The Medic Care Practice and NHS Kent and Medway.  That said we have been liaising regularly with the Primary Care Estates Team who are continuing to support the practice in seeking an alternative permanent site.  Prior to the closure of the Teynham and Lynsted surgery which was a decision outside of the NHS control, both the Council and the NHS looked for suitable relocation sites including a review of any land and property holdings of the Council (which are extremely limited in this area).  As no suitable locations were identified the surgery has temporarily relocated to the Memorial Medical Hospital.  The Primary Care Estates Team are continuing to look for a new site and is working closely with the Council to identify any opportunities through a planning led process and land and capital contributions through any future S.106s.

Supplementary question

Could Ward Members be involved in any conversations taking place with the health authorities?

Response

This had been passed onto the health authorities and would be passed on again.

Question 2 – Councillor Ben J Martin

Does the Leader of the council agree that;

The U.K. and Swale has a proud history of supporting refugees, like those currently fleeing war & persecution in Yemen and Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong, Hong Kong and that refugees are welcome in Swale. Does he further agree that all persons have a fundamental right to be treated with dignity, and in accordance with international law and in line with the UN convention on Human rights, the UN convention relating to the status of refugees and its subsequent protocols. Does he believe that though the letter sent from Kent leaders to the Home Secretary highlights some valid concerns, it included language which was at best regrettable and at worst inflammatory and that the intention was to put forward a case for additional support from central government, including for the acceleration of the asylum process rather than inflaming anti-migrant sentiment? 

Response – Leader

This country and indeed Swale absolutely has a proud history of welcoming and supporting refugees from various asylum programmes over the years, most recently seeing many of our residents open their homes to those fleeing the war in Ukraine.

All of Kent’s Leaders have been proud supporters of various schemes including VPRS, Afghan and Ukraine.

As leader of the Council, and I would hope to speak on behalf of every member here,  I and the Council absolutely believe in dignity for every human being and that human rights for all absolutely need to be upheld. 

This is why I, along with the other Kent leaders, including those from both The Labour Party and The Liberal Democrats as well as the Conservative Leaders, felt it necessary to hold the Home Office to account. The letter was a line in the sand, a recognition that the burden being placed on Kent by the Home Office, not by the migrants themselves, was unsustainable and inequitable, and as a result impacting on local services and communities. 

Leaders felt that should this continue it risks service failure, worsened outcomes for everyone, inflamed community tensions, and ultimately a potential risk to life.

I do not agree that the language was inflammatory but it did seek to clearly and explicitly express the strength of feeling amongst Kent Leaders that the current situation has to be resolved, the burden on Kent has to be recognised and shared across the country, rather than looking at individual cohorts in isolation. Already since the letter, a further 3 sites have been secured by the Home Office in Kent without any consultation or engagement.

I will be meeting with Robert Jenrick on Friday to discuss.

Supplementary

Does the Leader feel press coverage added fuel to the flame and conditions at Manston are tantamount to a concentration camp?

Response

I did not read the press coverage and have not studied Manston and apologise for my lack of knowledge in being able to respond.