07
Motion 1
His Worship the Mayor called upon the Leader to present the motion.
Council considered the following motion from Councillors Smith, Wainwright, Candon. Flaxman-Taylor, Wells and Plant:-
We, as Elected Members of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, request that Council agree to holding an Extraordinary meeting of Council to consider the granting of Freedom of the Borough to:-
Cecil Page
Hugh Sturzaker
Jayne Biggs
The Samaritans, Great Yarmouth.
Proposer: Councillor Smith
Seconder: Councillor Wainwright
That Council agree to holding an Extraordinary meeting of Council to consider the granting of Freedom of the Borough to the above named persons.
CARRIED
His Worship, The Mayor advised that the Extraordinary meeting of the Council would be held on Thursday 6th November 2025 at 6.30pm.
Motion 2
Council considered the following Motion on Notice from Councillors Candon, Smith, Wells, P. Carpenter and G. Carpenter.
Councillor Candon presented the Motion on Notice as follows:-
The 2025 Budget introduced an increase in the rate of employer National Insurance contributions (NICs), rising from 13.8% to 15% from April 2025. This represents a 9% rise in the NIC rate for employers. In addition, the threshold at which employers begin paying National Insurance has been lowered - from £9,100 to £5,000 per year.
This policy is having a profound effect on many businesses and entrepreneurs in Great Yarmouth. With over 98% of all enterprises in the Borough classed as micro or small businesses (according to the latest Office for National Statistics business demography data), the impact is widespread. Local employers, including high street retailers and hospitality businesses, have reported that job losses, delayed recruitment, price increases, and wage stagnation are a direct result of these NIC changes.
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), "in 2025126 firms will pass on 60% of the higher costs to workers and consumers, via lower wages and higher prices."
In local government, this too has a knock-on effect. Higher contractor costs directly affect council budgets. Here at Great Yarmouth Borough Council, this increase totals approximately £186k for 2025/26.
Given the structure of our local economy, and the numerous concerns shared by local businesses, it is plain to see that these increases are having a detrimental effect on many.
Council Notes:-
That raising revenue through substantial increases in employer National Insurance contributions is having significant consequences, including job losses, fewer new roles being created, rising consumer prices, and wage stagnation.
That the rise in employer National Insurance has contributed to increased costs for Great Yarmouth Borough Council when procuring services from third-party providers, thus placing further pressure on council budgets.
Council Resolves:-
That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Growth. along with the Inward Investment team, continues working with local businesses and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) to support them during this period of economic difficulty.
To formally record our concern at the increase in employer NICs and its detrimental impact on businesses in Great Yarmouth.
To request that the Leader of the Council write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking for a reconsideration of this policy in light of the harm it is causing to small businesses, vital services and employment in coastal communities like Great Yarmouth.
The motion was hereby seconded by Councillor Smith who thanked Councillor Candon and stated that he fully supported the motion as he had been contacted by many small businesses regarding the increases in costs.
Councillor Cordiner-Achenbach stated that as a director of a small business employing 5 people, what has failed to be mentioned was that the government had chosen to protect small businesses by making changes to the employment allowance. She requested that the Cabinet Member for Business ensured that this message was given out to members in the area.
Councillor Wells commented that statistics can be thrown around but the reality is that on talking to businesses on the ground, this increase has had a material impact on them leading to increased costs. This is a difficult time economically, the cost of living has increased; people are spending less leading to less revenue and costs have increased. This is partly due to world events, but costs have also increased because of choices. The government chose to balance a fictitious hole in public finances by taking it from small businesses in Great Yarmouth.
Councillor A Wright stated that he was not surprised at what was coming from the Conservative bench. In this case there are concerns about industry and taxation. National Insurance is a concerning issue but to suggest that is down to Labour, as if the other side never increased taxes. Councillor Wright referred to Tim Martin, the CEO of the Wetherspoons chain of Public Houses, who stated that the increase in VAT from 8% under Labour to 20% under the Conservative government had had a greater effect.
He commented that he understood the concerns that the Council was having to find an extra £186,000 but they had received an extra £600,000 from central government. Councillor Wright asked the Councillor Candon what contact he had had with local businesses over the last six months and what support he was giving them now.
Councillor Capewell asked Members to be curious about this motion and about what writing to 11 Downing Street would achieve. He stated that 50% of businesses in Great Yarmouth will pay no employer NI contributions this year because Labour scrapped the Employment Allowance. Some businesses would pay more, and large businesses would pay a lot more. It took 300 years to create a trillion pounds of national debt and only 14 years for the Tories to triple that. National Insurance funds the NHS, our pensions, our public services and a new hospital right here in Great Yarmouth.
Councillor Wainwright commented on Councillor Candon’s assertion that he has been talking to small businesses and stated that he had talked to 2 small businesses in Regent Road. He stated that he did not agree with the increase, but everything went wrong following the Conservative's 14 years of austerity, and as a result, everything is broken. Big businesses will be paying 1.2% more and lots of this revenue will go into the NHS, which the Conservatives have broken too. NHS Waiting lists are going down. Councillor Wainwright commented that the motion was purely politics and jumping on the bandwagon. The highest tax burden since World War 2 is currently being experienced and the Conservatives are picking on just one of these. He appreciated that people are struggling but this is due to austerity and the tax increases over that period.
Councillor Plant commented that it was interesting that their memory only goes back 14 years. It took 14 years for the Conservatives to get the economy back on its feet and to get debt reducing. Now the country is £60 billion in debt and the Government has no plans to deal with it except for taxation. There is no innovation and no industry and there is not enough money in the system and he questioned what are Labour going to do about this situation.
Councillor Murray-Smith commented that employers’ NI contributions was a device to create the illusion of not taxing employees. It is just accounting and trickery that has an additional negative effect on the productivity of small and large businesses. It stifles innovation and expansion, creating a net drag on economic growth. Tweaks to the tax system was the worst to have been done and should be abolished entirely.
Councillor Grant stated that for a local business, as the thresholds have gone up, there has been a phenomenal drop-off and a decrease has been seen because of negativity. VAT went up but income tax came down. Public sector receipts as a percentage of GDP were 35.8%. This has now increased to 46%. There have been a number of unprecedented crises in that time; the banking crisis, the energy crisis and the Covid pandemic. A tax on jobs is the worst thing. To create jobs you need the employers on side and increasing taxes is not the way to do it.
Councillor Candon was hereby given the opportunity to sum up the motion before a vote was undertaken.
Councillor Candon commented that Members had heard a lot of noise this evening. There was a comfort blanket of blaming the last government, but it is hitting our economy now. It is hitting jobs now. He stated that he had heard from local businesses that they are unable to take on Saturday staff in the run-up to Christmas; hospitality businesses have had to freeze pay for the first time in five years; a local contractor will have to cut jobs, and a local marine services firm has stated that the NI rise has added thousands to their payroll bill and that this is money that would have gone into new apprenticeships. Organisations which care for our most vulnerable residents, are being forced into impossible choices cutting services, cutting staff, or fundraising harder when donations are already down. It is wrong that government policy makes life harder for those who do so much good.
Councillor Candon commented that in his opinion, it was hypocritical as only a year ago, the Leader of the Labour group here in Great Yarmouth, proudly welcomed Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to Regent Road. They promised local businesses that Labour would be the party for business. Yet just months later, it is their government that is delivering one of the biggest tax raids on small businesses and on charities and hospices in living memory. Labour say one thing in Great Yarmouth, and then do the opposite in Westminster.
Councillor Candon reported that some Members this evening have argued this this rise is necessary or inevitable. It is neither. It is a choice, a choice to raise revenue by punishing small businesses, charities, and care providers. It is a choice that hurts coastal communities like ours the most, where 98% of businesses are micro or small businesses. Let's not forget: this policy will cost this council alone an additional £186,000 in contractor costs next year. That's £186,000 less for services, regeneration, and support for our residents.
Councillor Candon concluded with so colleagues, we face a clear choice. We can deflect and excuse, or we can act. Tonight we must act. We must support this motion, call on the Chancellor to rethink this damaging policy, and show our businesses, charities, and residents that we are on their side. Labour came here promising to be the party of business. But in Great Yarmouth, businesses, charities, and workers are standing up together to say—Labour has let them down. Colleagues, put Great Yarmouth first. Support this motion.
CARRIED
Councillor Jeal requested that it be noted in the minutes that he voted against the motion.
Motion 3
Council considered the following Motion on Notice from Councillors Smith, Flaxman-Taylor, Candon, Wells and Plant :-
The Leader presented the motion to Council as follows:-
2025 has been the worst year ever for small boat crossings, with over 25,000 people crossing the Channel this year alone. Since July 2024, over 50,000 people have crossed the Channel, leaving immigration policy under the government in tatters.
In May 2023, Great Yarmouth Borough Council successfully obtained a final High Court injunction blocking Home Office contractors, including SERCO, from using any hotels within the borough's tourist-designated "GY6" seafront area to accommodate asylum seekers.
This ruling not only shielded Great Yarmouth's tourism industry from disruption but also set a legal precedent, empowering other local councils to pursue similar planning- based legal challenges when migrant accommodation is proposed in sensitive or strategically important zones.
These instances are proof that it is Conservative-led councils that are taking real action to protect their residents, while other parties issue press releases and politically posture.
Despite the council's strong legal position, many residents remain deeply concerned about the pressures on local services and the potential for future accommodation sites in the borough, particularly in the HMO market.
This Council believes:-
That local communities must be properly consulted before significant decisions are made that impact local services, housing, and community cohesion.
That the use of local hotels and HMOs as long-term accommodation for migrants is not a sustainable solution and places disproportionate pressures on local infrastructure and services.
That local councils, as the democratic voice of their communities, should have a say in how accommodation needs are managed and delivered.
That our council can respectfully differentiate between legal migrants in Great Yarmouth with permission to stay in the country, many of whom work in the rural poultry factories, and asylum seekers who legally cannot work and have no recourse to public funds.
This Council Resolves:-
To write to the Home Office expressing this Council's concerns about the potential use of hotels and/or HMOs in our area for asylum seeker accommodation and to request full consultation with this Council on any future decisions.
To call on the Government to develop a sustainable, properly planned, and community-consulted approach to housing asylum seekers.
To call on the Government to adopt the Conservative Party's draft Deportation Bill that tackles the underlying cause.
The Leader hereby requested and proposed that a recorded vote be taken on this item.
This was seconded by Councillor Plant.
Following a vote, a recorded vote on this item would be undertaken.
Proposer : Councillor Smith
Seconder : Councillor Plant
Councillor Wainwright commented that the Tories had had 14 years to sort the asylum issue out and now we have a motion blaming the Labour Government before us this evening. The Party opposite are now chasing Reform, but they know full well that we have no asylum seekers in the Borough, although we have recently been informed that there could be 11 residents in the Borough, possible children living with family or friends, receiving subsistence only support. However, this information has not been verified.
The Leader is calling for the Council to write to the Home Office expressing the Council's concerns about the potential use of hotel accommodation and/or HMO’s in our area for asylum seeker accommodation and to request full consultation with the Council on any future decisions. The Leader goes further “demanding the Home Office consult with the Council”
He knows full well that the Council is already in regular discussion with the Home Office.
In fact, there have already been 24 requests over the last 3 months from the Home Office and after receiving those requests, the authority produced evidence to show that the sites are not suitable, and so far, they have all been dismissed.
This is a bit different to March 2010, the then Tory Home Secretary informed the Department "not to consult with Local Authorities” and after that directive, the number of Asylum Seekers in hotel accommodation increased from 1200 to 9500 in just 8 months.
Adding to tensions in the Town, we have our Independent MP calling for protests against even the possibility that asylum seekers could be housed in the Town.
We firmly believe that the use of local hotels and HMO’s as long-term accommodation for asylum seekers is not a sustainable solution, that is why the Labour Government are in the process of clearing the backlog of asylum applications, and have already deported 35 thousand failed asylum seekers whose applications were refused, something the Tories failed miserably to do.
Let’s not forget that many asylum seekers now given permission to stay in the country are now working in Great Yarmouth in our NHS, our care homes, on our farms and in the food processing industry. Without asylum seekers who have been given permission to stay, these vital sectors would collapse.
This motion is without foundation, it is scaremongering and playing into the hands of Reform.
It is a pity that over the last 14 years, the Conservative Government did nothing to address this problem, and the Tories opposite never demanded or lobbied their own Government in the way they are now proposing to do.
Councillor Boyd stated that Members needed to be careful how they spoke about this issue in the Chamber as immigration was not inherently a bad thing, but the people of Great Yarmouth have concerns about the millions spent on housing asylum seekers and this motion addresses that concern.
Councillor Williamson commented that the motion was a huge hypocrisy, as the massive rise in the use of hotels came under a Tory government. A humane approach to asylum seekers needs to be taken and levels of migration need to be controlled. However, he was deeply disappointed, as this type of motion fanned the flames of xenophobia.
Councillor Williamson also stated that he wanted to disassociate himself from the joint letter which was signed by the Leader and our MP as it was unworthy of this Council. He referred to comments made by Samuel Johnson in the 1700's and recommended that Members watched the TV programme "Berlin 1933".
Councillor Upton stated that in response to Motion 3, the call on the Government to adopt the Conservative Party’s draft deportation bill, read out some facts:-
Since Labour came to office there have been over 9,000 enforced returns from the United Kingdom. A 25% increase from the previous year. Overall; returns have increased to over 35;000. A 13% rise compared to the year before.
Facilitated/ monitored returns are up 16% to 5,300.
Labour’s immigration policies are working.
The Conservatives have had fourteen years to fix the system but have left it broken.
Indeed, only a few years ago, there was Robert Jenrick boasting about the number of hotels he had procured for asylum seekers. Furthermore, a massive own goal was Brexit and the ripping up of the Dublin agreement, making it far more difficult to return and process. This caused a massive backlog that Labour is now working through.
Labour are picking up the pieces of the mess that was left.
The Conservatives are proposing to dis-apply the Human Rights Act. Is this not a massive problem. Asylum seekers are Human Beings, they have rights. So my response to your call on the Labour Government to adopt the Conservative Party’s draft immigration bill is; Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.
Councillor Candon stated that migration has always been part of our story. For centuries, people have come here to work, to settle, to contribute. I see this every Sunday in my own church, where nearly 400 people from across the world gather, integrated, part of our community, and giving back to society. That is the positive face of immigration.
However, unauthorised small boat crossings are very different. More than 50,000 since last summer. Dangerous journeys, run by criminal gangs, that are unsustainable for the country and towns like ours.
Using hotels and HMOs as long-term accommodation for asylum seekers is not sustainable. It places disproportionate pressure on local services and erodes community cohesion.
That is why local people must be properly consulted before decisions are made. Whitehall cannot dictate. Councils like ours are the democratic voice of our communities and must have a say in how accommodation is managed. We need to also be honest about the difference between those who come here legally, play by the rules, and contribute to our economy and asylum seekers. It is not the same, and we should not pretend it is.
And yet Labour dismiss these concerns as "scaremongering." Tell that to families who are unable to get a GP appointment or young couples priced out of housing, or elderly couples having to live next to HMOs. Labour talk; Conservative led councils act. Our injunction on seafront hotels protected tourism and the character of our town. That is the difference.
So, I support this motion. It is about fairness, sustainability, and common sense. A message that Great Yarmouth is not afraid to speak the truth; immigration can be a strength when it is controlled and legal. But the current system is broken, chaotic, and must be fixed.
Councillor Martin queried why this motion had been brought to Council as we have previously worked together as a Council to put a stop to hotels being used in our tourist areas which at the time, was under a Tory government. And as far as she was aware we still continue to work together.
We all understand people’s concerns and worries around this issue but this feels like nothing more than an opportunity being used for potential electioneering in preparation for next years elections and it is shameful and irresponsible to do this, especially when tensions in the Town are already so high. As a Council, we are taking this issue seriously and should continue to focus on this, instead of playing games and performing in the Chamber.
Councillor Wells commented that the use of language is important and the words legal and illegal have become blurred when used in the context of migration. We have legalised asylum seekers. This country has a long history of welcoming genuine asylum seekers but 3 to 4 years ago, there was a huge surge of asylum seekers. The Conservative government increased investment and introduced the Rwanda scheme. The first thing that Labour did when they took up office was to scrap this scheme. Residents in the Borough are concerned. We want to make a statement of intent and make it clear to the people that we have their backs.
The Leader advised that the reason for bringing the motion is that people mistakenly believe that the Town is full of asylum seekers. We have no asylum seekers but we do have legal migrant workers. This is about telling our residents that we support them and their businesses. We were the Conservative Council that took the Labour government to task.
A recorded vote was taken on this matter as follows:-
For the motion:-
Councillors Annison, Bensley, Bird, Boyd, Candon, P.Carpenter, Flaxman-Taylor, Freeman, Galer, Grant, Lawn, Mogford, Murray-Smith, Plant, Smith, Stenhouse, Thompson, and Wells.
Against the motion:-
Councillors Capewell, Cordiner-Achenbach, Gren, Jeal, Martin, McCluskey, McMullen, Newcombe, Pilkington, Robinson-Payne, Sharp, Upton, Wainwright, Waters-Bunn, Williamson, B. Wright and A. Wright.
Abstentions : Nil.
CARRIED.