General Purposes Committee - Monday 20 July 2026, 7:30pm

General Purposes Committee
Monday, 20th July 2026 at 7:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Minutes - 1 December 2025

Share this agenda point

3 The Printing of Council Papers (Paper No. 26-158)

Share this agenda point

The Printing of Council Papers

4 Constitutional Review (Paper No. 26-159)

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Good evening, Councillors.

Welcome to this meeting.

My name is Councillor Alid Richards -Jones and I'm the Chair of the General Purposes

Committee and the Leader of Wandsworth Council for the time being.

Would members of the committee please introduce themselves.

Please switch on your microphone and confirm your attendance.

Councillor Peter Graham.

Councillor Malcolm Grimson, Independent Councillor.

Councillor Sara Apps, Labour Councillor Shasterin -Queensdown.

Councillor Rex Osborne, Labour Councillor Tooting Broadway.

Thank you, Committee Members.

We have received no apologies.

We have officers present this evening who will introduce themselves when they address

the committee.

Item one, are the minutes of the meeting held on the 1st of December, 2025?

Are the minutes agreed as a correct record?

Item two, declarations of interest.

Are there any declarations of either pecuniary, other registrable or non -registrable interest?

No?

Thank you.

That takes us on to the substantive items of tonight's agenda.

Item 3 is the printing of Council papers.

May I ask officers to present the report?

Thank you, Councillor Richards -Jones.

My name is Peter Sass.

I'm the head of governance for the Council.

So, we wanted an opportunity, members, to engage with the General Purposes Committee

about how best to support members' access to committee papers.

So committee papers have been available online for a number of years, but with the recent

local elections, we thought it was timely to consider the most pragmatic way forward

to support members.

So just to reassure you, we're not – this isn't a binary position as far as offices

a concern, we're not simply going to switch to online only.

We're suggesting that the default will be for members to retain hard copies of agendas

unless they choose to opt out.

And if it's supported tonight, Councillor Richard Jones, we will write to all members

to assess their preferences.

preferences. However, there are also a range of options set out in paragraph 7 to 9 relating

to information reports, large appendices, minutes of previous meetings, et cetera. We've

already been trialling a QR code for public agenda sexual. You might see a QR code on

a sheet of paper at the end of the room, which we update every time there's a different meeting,

and that seems to have gone down well.

So we're already quite confident about that.

And just lastly for me, Councillor Richards -Jones,

in terms of accessing those digital copies of agendas and reports online,

we will of course be more than happy to arrange as many training sessions

as needed for members in terms of how to access those papers.

So very much looking forward to the discussion

in terms of how best to support members in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Sass.

Do any members have any questions or comments on the paper?

Councillor Osborn.

First of all, I mean, my main comment, I think, is that inevitably we are going to move away

from the use of paper as an organisation

because almost everybody is doing so in the world.

I like the idea that the default is that people still have hard copies

of stuff and I confess there are times

when I personally struggle unless I've got a hard copy of the document.

That's not 100 percent of the time.

There are times when if the document is on a machine, a tablet or something,

you can do things with it which you can't do with a hard copy.

You can say, I know that there's a word in here somewhere, a street or something,

but I can't remember which page,

and you can search for it on the tablet and find it straight away

and how many times it comes up.

So there are advantages sometimes to having a document on a tablet or something.

I think the problem is, and I'm happy to think that maybe we are in a period of transition

and we can move from hard copies to documents on tablets and so on.

I think the problem is if you're coming to a meeting here at the town hall from work,

then the idea that in addition to whatever equipment you might have to have at work,

you also have to have some sort of a device which can pick up council papers

and bring that from work with you to the meeting

is adding to the things you've got to organise, the weight you've got to carry,

and all the possible accidents you might have and so on.

And I think a lot of these kind of aspects have to be first of all thought through

and secondly tested. There needs to be a period of test on what we do on all these things.

I'm always willing to move forward and change and adapt, but I would have some trepidation

I think, about losing the hard copies and only having a document on a machine.

Mr Sastry, you want to?

Thanks, Councillor, Mr Jones.

So absolutely, Councillor Osborn, this would be the personal choice of all members concerned.

If supported tonight, we will write to all 58 members and assess their preferences.

Just a couple of things on the digital access.

First of all, all of our agendas are on a web -based application.

You don't need a specific type of device to access that.

The IT offer that's been in place for new and returning members since May would allow

access to online papers, but as I said earlier on, we'd be more than happy to show you how

to do that.

There's also, within the system that we currently use, an app that you can download

that enables you to annotate online committee papers and highlight certain sections, bookmark

certain sections to help you prepare for meetings.

I appreciate that's a very new way of working for many members and that's why we wanted

to sort of tread carefully here and not make any assumptions that members would be happy

to completely switch to online agenda straight away.

but happy to support that.

Kelso Graham.

Yes, I just wanted to question slightly the idea

that there's a sort of direction of history

towards the inevitable point at which everybody

has electronic papers and no one ever wants a physical copy.

I think that would be as premature as saying that we're

no longer going to print books.

And many people indeed predicted that we wouldn't print books.

But Waterstones, as far as I'm aware, is still in business.

And plenty of books are still printed and sold.

And because there are, when you're reading a large volume of text, genuine problems with maintaining concentration, reducing eye strain and everything else by trying to read online.

The fact is that for the same reason that we do still print books, papers that are printed are more useful for most of us at least.

And while I'm quite happy for anybody that can cope with an electronic copy to opt out and do that and save the Council some cost,

I don't think we will ever be removing printed papers in our entirety because it's just not as easy for members to work with.

Councillor Grimson.

Thanks, yes, just very briefly.

I mean, unlike Councillor Osborn, I hate moving forward, changing or adapting, and I have no intention of doing so.

But it's not just a matter of papers coming to members, it's also papers for the public.

Quite often I've been to committee meetings where there's a pile of papers there for the

public at the beginning of the meeting, which is there untouched at the end of the meeting.

And from discussions earlier, I know the move towards QA, QR codes is going on.

But I think the two areas where I'd like to see, we'll be very happy with action, is pretty

much cutting out papers for the public now that are left and the papers which have a

huge appendix in which is a council report which most of us don't need to know in order

to make a decision but which can often take up three quarters of the paper and I think

in those areas I'd be very happy to see immediate action to cut back on the amount of paper.

Okay, thanks colleagues.

I think that's pretty much a consensus really on this.

This is a pragmatic proposal.

I think the committee is clear that we'd prefer an opt -out system to hard copy papers, but

with a desire that we reduce the sum of printed papers where we can, in particular reducing

the printing of unnecessary appendices and things like that.

Can I suggest that ongoing feedback on whether we're getting the volume of printing right

for papers on the evening is mediated through the WIPs and the independent member who can

feed that back to officers as appropriate?

That's very helpful.

Thank you, members.

Great.

Are the recommendations agreed?

Great.

Thank you.

So that takes us on to item four, which is the constitutional review.

It's the chunkiest and main item tonight.

So I'd like to say just a few things about it by way of introduction, and then I will

invite debate and discussion from committee members.

So one of the first acts of the new administration was to announce a constitutional review, and

also to make a commitment that the first product of that constitutional review would come to

the first meeting of full council on the 22nd of July.

And there were two aims behind that constitutional review.

The first was to move towards council procedures that were more open, transparent, and effective.

And second was to breathe genuine life and democracy back into our procedures.

And I think it's important briefly to set that against the background of where we begin.

I think it's fair to say that it's long been recognised that our current procedures, both

for full council, OSCs, and others, are no longer fit for purpose.

They are obtuse, they are not clear, and in many instances they have evolved over time.

They are no longer intelligently designed, but they are a product of years and years

of ad hoc amendments here and there, and practises that have grown up that aren't necessarily

helpful to our proceedings or make those proceedings accessible to most councillors.

Secondly, over the years, particularly the last four years, there have been a series

of changes enacted to our constitution that actually were taken out of the competence

of this committee where they could have been dealt with line by line and instead they emanated

directly from the leaders group, they came to council without any debate and they were

imposed on all members.

That came at the expense of the rights of minority councillors and I would say the effectiveness

of our governance and our democratic procedures.

Thirdly, when coming into administration, the majority party agreed a confidence and

supply agreement with the independent member.

And an important part of that agreement committed the

administration to bringing in some immediate remedies to our

democratic procedures, in particular to restore the

rights of all councillors across the chamber.

So that's what we have in front of us today.

This is the first stage of the constitutional review.

So it doesn't seek to reform everything.

What it does is that it takes our current procedures in the main that relate to full council,

and it seeks to bring them into line with the principles of good governance and the principles that are embodied in the supply and confidence agreement.

Broadly, the draught you've got in front of you this evening does several things.

First of all, it sets out our procedures in a logical order, in plain English, and with

all the relevant statutory provisions that sort of take precedence over it, referenced

clearly for transparency.

They enhance the role of all councillors by placing the right to speak and the right to

put questions at council out of the hands of the party whips and back into the hands

of councillors themselves.

They modernise our procedures, including introducing a facility for pairing, so that for some councillors

who are unavoidably absent because of personal circumstances, there's a whipping, a pairing

system available.

They provide for the first time an ability for the leader of the opposition and the relevant

opposition speaker to attend cabinet, to raise concerns at cabinet, and then to refer matters

to full council if they're not satisfied at that stage. For the first time these

procedures also recognise the role of task and finish groups and

they provide a facility where the chair of a task and finish group can present

the findings of a report to full council. They also remove the guillotine to

ensure that members can make their contributions on the evening and that

the majority party cannot lower the guillotine at a strategically advantageous point.

They remove the role of what I've always argued are redundant and unexplained deputy cabinet

member positions at a saving of 48 ,000 pounds to the taxpayer.

They restore important pre -decision scrutiny to the overview and scrutiny committees, better

connecting the committees to the actual decisions that the cabinet is making.

It introduces the ability for full council to properly debate the substantive decisions

that the council is taking.

And it also introduces a facility for rolling written questions to the cabinet members so

that the work of the cabinet can be scrutinised in real time across the committee cycle without

having to wait for the periodic meetings of the council.

With that in mind, the draught proposals have been substantively available to both groups

for about three weeks.

Regrettably, it's not been possible for the groups to meet to discuss these proposals,

although I must say the independent member has been very generous with his time and feedback.

There has been some discussion between the groups by email about aspects of the

draught proposals and with the benefit of that email traffic I've identified what

I think are some outstanding areas that could benefit from some debate, some

areas which we might be able to resolve this evening, some areas which may just

remain differences between the groups but we can ventilate those issues and

come to a view as a committee. The administration has also come to this

committee with some proposed amendments that seek to meet some of the concerns

of the minority party and to cure some of the disagreement between us. I'm not

aware that the minority party has any amendments of its own that it wishes to

introduce. We've not had sight of those but we will be... I'll explain them when we come to it.

Thank you.

We'll be very happy to consider them.

So, I mean, with that, I'm then in the committee's hands as to how it wants to proceed.

I think a line -by -line examination is not going to be efficient or illuminating.

Perhaps we can address this thematically, or we can address it through some other means.

Maybe, Councillor Apps, if you want to have a first go.

Certainly.

I'll go through how I think it would be good to proceed and then I'll also have some introductory

comments as well.

So first of all, we made an offer to the Administrative Party last week when the papers, or the week

before, when the papers still weren't published in a form that was available to the public.

and it was Thursday and the meeting was Monday and they normally would have been published

the Friday before. We thought it was right to give, and we'd seen one of the papers but

not the others in draught form, we thought it was right to give a better public opening

for those papers so we offered to move the meeting to this week which is why we're here

today. But on the original agenda it had a slightly different agenda ordering which was

They had the first paper which was printing on council papers, but then we had changes to the constitution and standing orders.

Then we had changes to the overview and scrutiny procedure rules.

Then we had changes to committees and corresponding SRAs, which is special responsibility allowances.

So I would say that's quite a logical way to look through the agenda items.

I wanted to come on as well about just some general comments about the process.

Of course, in the previous administration, we did have a long consultation with the Centre

for Scrutin in Governance who kind of ran workshops and consultations with all members.

We then set up a task and finish group which had a number of meetings to look at how we

wanted to proceed and looked at discussions, which my colleague, Councillor Osborne chaired.

And so we do, and we've had some opportunities to speak with Councillor Graham about some

of the changes and some initial conversations. But the whole process has been very rushed.

I admire your optimism about deciding in May to do this in July. That's kind of roughly,

I don't know, nine months, 10 months, 11 months short of the process that we went through.

I do think this will need to be looked back on again and a full consultation of all members,

which I'll come on to with one of my amendments.

But I also just wanted to talk briefly about the confidence and supply document it sets

out.

I think it's a really good document in many ways.

It was important for Councillor Grimston to engage with whichever party was going to take

administration in this situation where we're in minority control.

Three of the principles I'd just like to talk about.

One was increasing opportunities for democratic participation.

The other one for strengthening scrutiny arrangements.

The third for improving transparency of decision making.

The first one has been really difficult because increasing for democratic participation has

not been apparent for the opposition. Scrutiny was in fact cancelled. This will be by the

time we include the pre -election period and then the period till we meet as committees

again. It will be effectively six months. That's a long time, especially for new members

who are ready to get going on both sides. It's a long time for them to wait to get into

their jobs. So I'm looking forward to moving this forward.

The second point on strengthening scrutiny arrangements, I do not believe that 11th hour

scrutiny which is one of the things that's going to happen here, which is basically all

of the overview and scrutiny committees looking at key decisions which are coming to the next

cabinet meeting, that was one of the things that the local government association peer

review most criticised us for. They actually said that it didn't allow them to get properly

involved in decision making, and it was better for OSC's overview and scrutiny committees

to set their own agenda.

Why I would say is it should certainly be possible for overview and scrutiny committees

to look at key decisions which are coming to that committee, but it shouldn't be mandated

that they have to do so.

I also think it would be helpful to allow members of the public to make deputations

to overview and scrutiny committees, and perhaps we can look at that later.

The third thing on improving transparency of decision making.

So far there haven't been any cabinet meetings as far as I'm aware for the new administration,

but we hear of several major decisions being made.

The counselling of new council homes, which was on a Conservative Party leaflet, taking

away key benefits such as school uniform and food for families on low incomes.

We've heard about these through the professionals that we work with and also from families themselves.

but we haven't heard them from where we should have heard them from, which is the administration.

So what we would say is we would like to see principles of constitutional change which

should look at better scrutiny with more public involvement, more strategic decision making,

more cross -cutting between different directorates. And to that end, we'd like to see dedicated

scrutiny officers, annual scrutiny surveys with members of the public, and establishing

across cutting task and finish group to further and actually restarting the task and finish

group that we actually paused before the election, restarting that so we can work through constitutional

changes.

So we don't need to make all of those decisions today, but what I'd like to see is us all

working together on the task and finish group so that we can get those things into place

in due course.

Thank you.

I'm so, I mean, I'll come, first of all, I'm pleased that the opposition regard the confidence

and supply agreement as good in many ways, even if they don't agree with all of it.

That is a useful starting point.

And of course, that confidence and supply agreement has been available to them for some

time now, say.

And most of what we're seeing here in these documents is simply translating what is in

that confidence and supply agreement into an actual workable set of rules.

And there's some nuance about the detail, but fundamentally it is what the confidence

and supply agreement said and shouldn't be of too much shock.

A couple of things we probably ought to cover off.

First of all, it has been challenging to get all of the drafting done in time, but I don't

I think that the drafting that opposition members were left waiting for was particularly

consequential.

The bits that they didn't have earlier on were not particularly significant.

It was quite obvious how those bits would flow out.

So I don't think that has caused too much issue.

That they are correct to say that they offered to move tonight and we were grateful for that.

We obviously have moved other things to accommodate the request for this evening so I think there's

and give and take on both sides.

And that's a useful thing.

Just turning to the points, one of which was cancelled OSCs.

There's two sides to that as well.

Obviously, we did create the general OSC

on a permanent foot, well, on an established footing

to cover the period.

And it was actually the opposition

that then refused to appoint member search on an OSC.

So when we envisaged that, we thought that the General OSC would meet at least once in

order to discuss whatever the members on it from both the administration side and the

opposition side were to discuss.

Of course, there was not a lot of point holding a General OSC on which there were no opposition

members because they hadn't been appointed.

Yes, of course.

So it would have helped if you'd explained the rationale on that.

We hadn't seen any of the papers which explained that decision making.

So as far as we were aware, the constitution was as it had been,

which was that members would just be proposed for each OSC general meeting.

And it was never, we did not see the paper

which explained that decision making until the evening of the meeting.

And frankly, that put us in an impossible position.

I think that's completely fine and reasonable for you to say that.

I accept your explanation of that.

I think that my objection, and you didn't do it yourself,

but I have seen certain graphics on social media and other things

that accuse us basically of operating in bad faith

and trying to hide from democracy, and that was not the intention.

I accept that wasn't your intention in not appointing people to that committee,

but equally I hope you'd accept that it wasn't ours to remove or screep me,

because it certainly wasn't.

I mean, the other aspect of it, too, is that, as you quite rightly pointed out, the Cabinet

has yet to meet, which means, by definition, we have taken no key decisions in this period.

So there have been no key decisions for the committees to scrutinise.

Any key decision has to come to Cabinet, and we haven't had a Cabinet meeting.

So likewise, we are running a spending review, about which there will be more information

on Wednesday night.

And had we had those OSCs constituted, I think about 95 percent of the answers to every question

would have been, we just have to wait to see what comes out in the spending review.

I'm not sure they would have been particularly productive meetings either, which was our

thought when we, because we didn't want them constituted.

We knew that we wanted to change the basis on which those OSCs were functioning.

We didn't think it would be terribly helpful, A, to have meetings that couldn't really discuss

what was going on because it was still all in flux.

But B, to have new members come in and try

to operate on an old set of rules

when we were just about to introduce a new set of rules,

we felt that would be particularly confusing.

That was fundamentally why we have tried to rush,

if you want to use that word, these changes through

for the 22nd, so that newly elected members only

have to deal with one set of rules

rather than having one or two meetings where they're

dealing with one system.

And then the rest of the time, they're

trying to adjust to a completely different system.

So that, we, I think you could argue we got that right, or you got that wrong, you can

take your personal view, but that was the rationale behind it.

I think finally, the process of the task and finish group that existed under the previous

administration was not perhaps one that we at least perceived as being quite as cooperative

or two ways.

I think it got better towards the end, and I think Council Osborne in particular was very helpful at trying to make it function more effectively.

But the fact is that the actual constitutional changes that came forward got dropped out of the sky in us, and

frequently were going straight to full council without any scrutiny whatsoever.

We would have discussions in those task and finish groups, but then suddenly proposals would materialise out of nowhere.

with no discussion for us or opportunity for us to feedback or change what had actually

been drafted up.

So I don't think it was an ideal process.

I'm not assigning any blame on that.

I think we shouldn't apply raised tinted spectacles to what was happening there, particularly

when our normal experiences that we'd use a right that the opposition had within the

constitution, only to find it withdrawn at the subsequent meeting without any replacement.

I mean, finally, just on pre -decision scrutiny, because you can take different views on pre -decision

scrutiny, we're not trying to, and we could have done, and there were some members of

our group who wish to, simply reverse all the changes that happened and go back to the

status quo ante.

That is not what we try to do here.

We accept that, as Councillor Richard -Shane said,

that there were many aspects of the way the Constitution had

evolved under both parties that were not particularly helpful

and not transparent and cumbersome

and had lots of arcane redundancies,

as well as actually, in fairness,

OSC meetings that almost exclusively dealt

with the exclusion of everything else.

We have not attempted to roll that back.

We have left the key decision threshold to where you raised it.

We do have proposals in the Confidence and Supply Agreement to introduce transparency

for the decisions below that, which has been completely lost, and bring that back.

That is not part of these proposals tonight.

That's for the subsequent phases, but we are keen to see a system whereby decisions below

the key to threshold will nevertheless have transparency to members.

But what we're doing by leaving that threshold where it is, is simply allowing those important

things to come from scrutiny that we always felt was valuable both when we were in administration

and when we were in opposition.

And fundamentally, the intent of what we've got tonight is to have a system that is fair

to councillors whether they are in on the administration side, in the administration,

at administration backbencher, whether they're on the opposition side as a speaker or as

a backbencher, or indeed whether they are fair to other groups that may come onto the

council that aren't currently there and which our constitution had no ability to adapt to

before, now it will, and to independent counsellors, who

have frequently been just missing from our rules

altogether.

So that's where we're trying to come from.

We don't think this will see LSEs dominated

for their entire meeting length by pre -decision scrutiny.

Probably we'll see about a third of what they do

as that pre -decision scrutiny.

But we genuinely think that was valuable.

And we felt that was valuable when we were in charge.

And we felt that was valuable when we were in opposition.

and we felt that the loss of our ability to scrutinise the decisions that the last administration

was taking was a real problem.

Not only are we bringing it back for those committees, but we're also allowing the opposition

to come to Cabinet meetings and interrogate matters there as the decisions are being taken

as well.

On that point, I mean, I want to try and get onto the substance of the proposals, and there's

a lot to talk about when it comes to the substance.

So unless there are new introductory points, and I want to look to the independent member

first, what I'm going to do after introductory points are finished is I am going to propose

we structure the discussion like this under four headers, four council meetings, which

is the main body of the reforms, committee meetings, other changes, and SRAs.

So if members could have a think about the topics they want to raise under those headers,

I will make a note of them and that's how we will move through the meeting.

Councillor Grimson.

Thank you, chair.

I speak from the unique position of having been in opposition for 12 years running now.

I'm by quite some considerable way the least successful Councillor on Wandsworth from that

point of view.

So I have seen the changes that we have gone through from the, and indeed you have been

on the council for a long time.

Firstly, I would say to congratulate the now opposition.

I think many of the things that were raised were helpful in moving what I saw the big

journey behind all this, which is to move away from a council which was very inward

and backward looking to becoming one which is outward and forward looking.

We found that both under the Conservatives with Children's Services and under Labour

with Housing that our services were failing without us noticing that we were heading in

that direction.

And I think part of that was that we, as a body of members collectively, were not getting

access to the right information which would help us to notice these changes and to help

the organisation respond to them before they became the problems they were.

And I think the introduction of Task and Finish groups, which I've been advocating for for

many, many years, was positive, and I think some of the outcomes of those meetings were

positive.

And I absolutely agree with Councillor Lapp's.

I made this point that it would have been very, very helpful for those in opposition

to have just a description of what was going on for the annual meeting and indeed a few

more descriptions of what was happening in the interim, because clearly we are in an

interim period and I don't think anybody believes that there's a – or I certainly don't believe

there's a long -term attempt to suppress scrutiny, very much the opposite, but I think that's

accidentally what has unfortunately happened without an explanation in recent weeks.

Having said that, over the last four years I've seen the right that I've had throughout

my career to raise the German debates disappearing because I'm not now, I don't have a whip who

can put things forward, then I'm de facto excluded from that process.

In the final council meeting when I was about to speak, just to say, well done to the councillors

who were going out to raise some things to reflect on some of the very interesting comments

made by outgoing councillors.

But that was cut off by what seemed to me an entirely inappropriate use of the issue

now be put mechanism.

And those things I think did severely – it's not a matter of my rights or opposition rights,

but it is a matter of the right we all have to put things forward on behalf of our residents,

which I think were those are issues that were being damaged by some of the

changes and those are basis behind some of the things that we came to in the

confidence and and supply relation there so I think there are a number of very

positive suggestions in this in the paper tonight I'm broadly happy with it

I've made one or two comments as have counsellors other opposition counsellors

which is what the whole process is about.

I think the final thing I'd say, though,

and this is for both groups,

it was a very frustrating experience for me.

I know it was a frustrating experience for many of the officers.

It was actually a frustrating experience for the councillors as well,

that the relations between the two groups

seemed to have declined to such an extent

that the impression that was coming out of the council

was that each side thought of each other,

that they were bad actors who were badly motivated.

and knowing all of the councillors, I don't know a single councillor who I could correctly apply that issue to.

And so I hope that one of the things that can come out with this is that we recognise that, particularly with the very peculiar arithmetic of the council at the moment,

But what we all have in common as 58 people who went through the process of getting selected

for a seat, easier in my case than for many of you I'd say, for fighting that seat, for

getting elected, we have more in common as a group of 58 people than any other 58 people

in Wandsworth I'd suggest.

And sometimes I think we forget that.

And what I do hope that in coming out of this, because there's no, almost any constitution

can succeed if there's a real will to make it succeed.

No constitution can succeed if there isn't.

And so I do hope that as one of the things that will come out of this whole process is

proper engagement of everybody involved, recognition that a mistake often is a mistake rather than

evidence of bad faith.

And I hope we can get to a position where we vigorously disagree with each other on

policy that can do it in a way that recalls that we are all here to serve our community,

I actually think as a group of councillors we do pretty well, not by and large, but to

remember that that is true.

The one great thing about being independent, one of the great things about being independent

is I can say the truth, that all councillors that I know are well commissioned.

When I was in a group I wasn't allowed to say that about half of the council.

I can say that now.

So I hope that always bearing in mind through this will be that if we're really going to

produce a council which is back at the cutting edge of providing good and innovative services,

then the less time we waste falling out with each other the better I'd suggest.

Councillor Osbourne.

Yes, may I say I think that Councillor Grimston's intervention is a useful attempt to try and give a

try and politically frame the debate which we're supposed to be having tonight.

which I always think is an important addition to these committee meetings.

So, I mean, you'll probably tell me that these are...

I'm going back to the introductory remarks type phrase,

but I'm trying not to do that, actually.

I'm trying to move in the direction of discussing...

Well, I was going to say, you're allowed to have one final go at introductory remarks,

and then I'm going to take sub -topics for the main debate.

All right, well, your opening statement

was an unusual statement for a chair of a committee

in Wandsworth Council.

I'm not criticising it, because actually I've always

thought that chairs of committees

should be driving a discussion rather than simply

facilitating one.

And however, we're not used to it in Wandsworth.

And I mean, you even went so far as to refer to some items

that you had previously disagreed with in other

discussions and so on.

So you've taken a position as chair, quite unlike, for

example, the position I took as your predecessor, where I

concentrated on facilitating what happened mostly. Actually, as I say, I'm in favour of

chairs who do that, drive the discussion as much as possible. I think the point is this,

I think as Councillor Grimston touched on, the current opposition and the current administration

have both set about trying to make changes to the way we work.

They have both, I think, been prisoners of what the local government association called

a sclerotic decision -making system here at Wandsworth.

Both prisoners of a timetable, which we had to fight to try and stay on top of.

And both prisoners of a history of always opposing one another, which is what we are

actually supposed to do most of the time.

But the result is that we always end up assuming bad faith.

I mean, I have to say, I did not feel that we were as engaged as much in the run up to

this debate tonight as I would have liked us to be.

I know there were informal discussions and offers and so on, and we tried to go along

with that and tried to respond in kind.

But it hasn't always been possible to do, and I think both sides end up assuming bad

faith on the part of the others and have done so in this case.

Which brings me to the point that I think one of the things that's important to do if

you're trying to make these kind of changes, is to recognise that there's a history, sometimes

going back decades, perhaps in the case of Labour and Tory, 100 years or whatever, but

recognise that there is that difficulty in getting people sat down and at a level where

they can discuss and agree, and therefore inserting into the process a facilitator,

some sort of go -between, some sort of system for bringing in outsiders.

Remember we brought in the local government association for that very reason.

In order to make it easier to move forward on these kind of discussions.

And may I remind you of one very important thing which took place before the Administration changed,

before the elections on May the 7th, when the task and finish group, which I think may not have been perfect,

but was getting close to working effectively as it went on,

remind you that that task and finish group did not close itself down.

In fact, it consciously paused its work in the hope that it might be reinstituted after

May the 7th in whoever was going to be the administration after that election. You have

a vehicle there within the party's structures for further conversations, further discussion

invitations for people to come in from outside and so on in order to facilitate this particular

type of decision making.

And I think it's worth putting that on the table and I think we will bring it back into

the discussion when we come around to talking about some of the detail.

Thank you for that.

And as I said, in terms of the proposals

that are before the committee tonight,

the status of task and finish groups is unaffected.

In fact, it's actually enhanced in these provisions.

So can I now canvas topics, please,

for how we're gonna structure this.

I'm just gonna go around the table.

So starting with full council meetings,

start with Councillor Apps.

What topics would you like to see discussed?

And they could be as simple as the amendments you want to put forward,

or they could be broader things.

Yeah, so I want to discuss some of the aspects of how we conduct debates and motions.

And also, I had a couple of amendments just around with the reintroduction of cabinet

questions, you know, we need a couple of consequential changes elsewhere.

Have you got a copy of your amendments for the rest of the committee?

I can…

Yeah, well, I think if we distribute them sooner rather than later, that's probably going to help the debate.

Councillor Osborne, do you have any topics to add to that?

No, no, I...

Has Councillor Aps swept them up for you?

No, I'm going to...

That's fine.

...back up Councillor Aps as they go.

Okay.

Councillor Grimston.

Just in terms of what Councillor Upps has just said, one of the issues that might be

worth, since we're talking about the, where the questions the cabinet members ought to

go, whether that might be worth discussing first, because my feeling, okay, that might

be worth discussing first.

Anything else to add at this stage?

No, I circulated a note, I think to all members, just with my, you know, just questions really.

And they are questions rather than fully considered points of view.

Councillor Graham.

Just two more to add, which respond to comments from both groups actually, in terms of feedback.

One is about prayers, and we have an amendment just to make some clarifications to what the

intention was, and the other about the point in time within the meeting that petitions

could be handed in.

Okay, thank you colleagues.

I'm going to kick off then, and I'm going to take Councillor Grimston's steer and start

off with Cabinet members' questions.

I think that both groups and the independent member have converged on this issue, so I'm

going to try and summarise it and then invite questions.

In the published draught, the facility for members to put questions to cabinet members was taken

out of full council meetings but was inserted into the committee meetings, with the principle

being that having cabinet members available for a question and answer session in the scrutiny

meeting provided for a more dynamic and a more thorough forum in which the cabinet members'

performance could be scrutinised.

That said, it's obviously as a matter of principle, it's not mutually exclusive.

We can question cabinet members in the OSCs and we can question cabinet members in full

council.

The other original driver behind the proposal that cabinet member questions

would come out of full council was to accommodate an orderly timetable in

light of the fact that the guillotine is now being removed from full council. So

it was thought that the agenda couldn't be too burdensome or turgid otherwise

members would be detained in the chamber way past the old guillotine time and

And that was the original intention.

That said, there have been representations from both groups and the independent member

expressing their preference that actually questions to the cabinet members should stay

in for council.

So it appears that both groups actually have amendments that would give effect to that.

So the administration group has an amendment, a standing order 22A, which would reintroduce

oral questions to cabinet members to full council.

It takes the scheme of the provision for oral questions to the leader in Standing Order

22, but just applies it with the necessary changes to cabinet members.

It will add a further 20 minutes to the agenda of full council, but my proposal is that we

do that, given the clear preference of both groups, and then we see how the arrangement

goes.

because like all these arrangements the draught in front of us is a good faith

basis for improving our procedures but we will have practical experience of

these procedures over the next meeting or two or three and it's on the basis of

that experience then we can come back to this committee and make tweaks or

further amendments as as is necessary. Councillor Abst, I don't know if you want to pick

up the discussion from here. Yeah it's certainly very welcome to see cabinet

questions reintroduced. It does appear that we do rather better with our suggestions when

we've got the support of Councillor Grimston, so thank you for also agreeing with that.

But good to hear that some of your own group also felt it was good to reintroduce them.

I think in terms of these, I've had a quick look just now. It looks practical. I think

that your point about coming back to it in time is a good one. What I would suggest is

in terms of the overall recommendations for the whole report, we would like to see an

addition of an amendment to include the kind of a commitment to having a start and finish

group task and finish group, rather, to steer through sort of consultation involving members

to look at standing orders, to look at how they've worked,

to produce recommendations for the overview

and scrutiny committee procedures,

and then also to look additionally at public involvement

in council scrutiny and decision making.

It's something that we started to look at

and we'd intended to come back to in this term,

and I guess we still can, we're still councillors,

but as an administration, it's a difficult thing

to get right, public involvement,

because what you don't want to do is just to enable a small number of actors to dominate,

but you want actually to make sure that it generally involves people who are affected

by those services or by those areas. So I think it's something that we do need to look

at in general together. And I think restarting the task and finish group in September, as

Councillor Osborne has suggested, would be a good way to start to look at some of those

broader issues which need to be looked at in terms of both the full council meeting

but also in terms of the wider scrutiny.

So just taking those two things separately, so it sounds like you're content with the

administration amendment on cabinet member questions.

If that's the position, that's helpful.

Just a quick question, how is it different from what exists at the moment?

So I mean, it is different in the sense that it puts time limits on the questions and answers.

It doesn't, it allows alternation, it doesn't actually put the lead on the opposition speaker

precisely because they will have the opportunity at the OSCs because there will still be those

questions there where the opposition speaker is there.

So it opens up to backbenchers of all parties.

So there are those differences.

But essentially what it's trying to do is take the arrangements that apply for the new

arrangements that apply for questions to the leader council and translate them into questions

for the lead, and questions to cabinet at full council.

So it's basically based on not what used to exist, but rather on the questions to the

just with the removal of the three questions up front for the leader of the opposition.

And if I could add briefly to that, I think for me the main difference here is that we'll get through more questions and more answers.

In the previous council we were finding, and it varied from cabinet member to cabinet member,

but there were answers which could stretch on to five minutes or longer.

They weren't particularly informative because many of us lost interest after about a minute

and a half and didn't pick up the point.

Anyway, it was quite difficult to separate out the key point.

So I think limiting the answer to a minute and limiting the question to a much shorter

thing normally I think will work right.

There needs to be provisions, and there are in the questions to leaders, for more complex

issues to have more complex answers.

But I think this really does put a very clear discipline on the cabinet member to give a punchy answer

which gives the key point of the matter rather than sometimes it getting rather lost in verbiage.

I've just realised I'm in danger of doing that.

I'm going to take it then that the amendment is agreed.

I'll move it formally later on in the discussion, but I think if we can move on to the other items, that would be helpful.

I think, Councillor Apps, the next thing you wanted to talk about was, and I'll come back

to the task and finish group, but do you have an amendment on the task and finish group,

or is that something you just, right, if I could see the text of that, that would be

Yes, I've emailed it to this group, so hopefully the clerk and the monitoring officer, and

of course I realise you can't look at your emails potentially, right, this second.

Thank you.

Okay, so the next item then was debates.

Yeah, so this is a matter that we have raised both in our conversations with Councillor

Graham and Councillor Grimston and also I think it's been raised in email as well that

we do not support. There is a couple of standing orders, standing orders 15, oh sorry, 29D

and 30G, which basically mean that if a Councillor speaks on a referred up item or on an item

of business, that they're then precluded from speaking on that, speaking on those types

of items for the next two Council meetings. We think this is unduly restrictive. We don't

really see the reason for it. And there could be times when it's a problem. For example,

if you were actually making considerable progress on constitutional amendments,

and we've actually got our whip here, Councillor Rigby here tonight,

she might well take a sort of particular interest in these areas,

and it might be appropriate for her to speak on it at subsequent meetings,

but this would effectively prevent her from doing so.

My group are also, it was something that we had a lot of unity on,

in terms of people really felt like it would be restrictive,

not only on gender but potentially on age, potentially on life experience, and we just

do not think it's helpful and it's not necessary.

Our groups themselves can decide and make sure that we proportionately allow people

to speak.

We don't always need for that to be controlled.

So I think we're just coming at this from different angles.

The reason the restriction was put in was in part to stop one or two Councillors, could

be any Councillors, deciding to dominate proceedings and speak all the time.

Bear in mind that for the referred matters, there are guaranteed speaking slots every

time.

It doesn't necessarily apply to items for decision.

On items for decision, it's the Mayor may just choose to take speeches, but they're

not the guaranteed slots.

But on the preferred matters, there are guaranteed speaking slots.

It may not be necessary for there to be more than the opposition speaker and cabinet member

speaking on those items.

And if by putting the restriction in, it stops someone deliberately putting in just for the

guaranteed speech.

That was really the thinking behind it.

It was to stop debate either being extended by someone just

wanting to nab one of those slots when they didn't really

need to speak, or to have one or two counsellors consistently

dominating those proceedings, giving others a chance.

So far from being discriminatory,

my view is just as with the ballot,

that actually that restriction potentially opens up

the possibility for others to speak.

Now, I do note Councillor Apps' point about opposition speakers on an item for decision.

That is potentially something we could put the, we could put, say for the proposal of

the recommendations and the opposition speaker, that, I mean, I think that would be reasonable.

I mean, we weren't anticipating lots of items for decision ordinarily coming up in the same

area and I think that's just why that wasn't something that occurred to us.

But you are right that there may be times when constitutional stuff is coming back again

and again and again.

So I'm quite happy to have an amendment that adds the opposition, relevant opposition

speaker to 29D in the same way that the opposition speaker is added to 30G.

But I think that in terms of that restriction, it wasn't coming from the place that has been

interpreted and I personally can see some advantages to it.

Probably not, but would you need to add cabinet member as well to paragraph D?

The proposal to recommendations covers that because it was an item of the decision.

It will ordinarily be the cabinet member and if it isn't, it will be the relevant person.

So I think the administration can cover that all.

I suspect it not.

Thank you.

Council Rosborne.

Yeah, can I go back to my question before?

What sort of difference are we trying to make?

I mean, I have to say, you assemble

in a relatively small environment in Wandsworth,

58 of the most voluble, outgoing, ambitious kind of people.

And you say from lots of different ideas and two different parties and independent and

so on, you assemble them all together, give them the right to speak and then you say,

oh dear, I'm a bit frightened that a couple of them may dominate all the others.

I mean, the assertion seems to me to be completely ridiculous.

I've never seen a situation in Wandsworth Council where any two or three councillors

dominated the discussion.

There was always a free for all.

There were always people fighting to speak, always things taking place which involved

a variety of people.

And then you're now expecting the mayor, who will be chairing the meeting, and I suppose

the monitoring officer advising the mayor and so on and so on to say oh that

person spoke three and a half months ago I don't think they should come back and

have a crack. How on earth is this going to be workable in the process of our

council meetings? Well I think part of the problem is that people of Wandsworth

elected an independent who messed up the whole picture because it's a really

difficult balance on the one hand for me or anyone in a small political group or

as an independent to get access to speaking but then not to end up with a

structure that puts me on the same basis as a group with 28 or 29

councillors in them and so the attempt is through many of these things is to

graze a structure whereby I as it happens at the moment but anybody in my position

and who knows we may be in multi -party politics in the future we've avoided it

so far, but that may be the way things are going

and certainly are elsewhere, of managing to try

and carve something out that both respects the rights

of the small group or independent

without giving them more rights than they deserve.

And I think many of these things, the attempts here

and the discussions that we had in the confidence supply,

I think Sarah and I had a discussion about what happened

with the adjournment debate.

And it did seem to me that the role of the mayor

to say, oi mate, you were an independent, you spoke two meetings ago, we're not going

to let you speak immediately, might be the simplest way of regulating and dealing with

that inevitable tension.

I didn't understand this point about diversity and how this structure would prevent diversity

because as far as, unless the argument is that people from certain groups should get

more speaking rights than others, in which case

we need to argue that point.

But I don't see how limiting people in time,

so they're not contributing meeting after meeting,

would affect diversity.

I don't see why that would affect a woman

counsellor more than a male counsellor, for example.

I wonder if the opposition might be able to, literally.

I just don't understand the argument.

Yeah, so a couple of different ways.

So one is just on the broader issue about saying, well, an opposition spokesperson can

speak.

Well, sometimes we might choose to have somebody within our group who's not an opposition spokesperson,

perhaps somebody who we think may be an opposition spokesperson in the future, but who's focused

on a particular issue, say, for example, the Constitution.

And it's not clear to me whether or not the WIC would be the opposition spokesperson,

so that might not resolve it in that particular case.

So that's the first thing.

We just think it's unnecessary.

And I agree with Councillor Grimston.

It's probably better to regulate it in other ways, either within the groups or via the

mayor, rather than formulising it in this way, which is very restrictive.

The second thing on diversity is we have different councillors with different life experiences.

Sometimes those life experiences are more relevant than others.

For example, some of our members are a good deal younger than some of the others, and some issues may affect them more.

I include myself in that number.

But they may have more, there could be issues coming up that may particularly affect younger people in Wandsworth.

And they might not want an older member to speak on that.

And also, we have some certain groups who are very underrepresented.

So we may choose in order to make sure that we're balancing out the residents of Wandsworth.

We may give slightly more speaking opportunities to that councillor in order to make sure that

they can always bring that life experience to the table.

This is just unduly restrictive.

I think this comes to the point that the opposition wants to choose which of its members gets

to speak, rather than allowing to put in and have opportunities of their own outside the

control of the WIPs.

We have left for group motions unrestricted that you could put in again and again.

But what did occur to me is that, although it is not the intention both for questions

and indeed for speaking slots, a group could choose to lean on its members to only put

in if the group wanted them to put in and not put in otherwise.

So we would see a situation in which there were two or three guaranteed speaking slots

and suddenly there were only two or three applications from opposition councillors to

speak because they'd all be on the naughty step if they put in additionally to what the

whip wanted.

These provisions at 30G and 29D actually stop that from happening quite so much because

actually the opposition will have to rotate who speaks regardless of what the

whip wants because after they've had their favourite picks their favourite picks

will be ineligible for a couple of meetings. Can I just say what's very

clear from your contribution Councillor Graham which I did enjoy is that you have

never been to a Labour group meeting. That is indeed true. We are very democratic we have

discussions in group about who will be the most sensible people to speak

everybody can volunteer and pretty much people do get the opportunity when they

want to. We work on a democracy does not only happen in the council chamber it

also happens in our group functions and it's not for you to determine how how

our group decides its democracy so I would say this is unduly restrictive and

if you want to make this a co -produced document then you'll certainly take that

into account. I'm not trying to force how your groups and part of my point on how

these rules should be set up is that they should work regardless of which groups we

have.

They should work after subsequent elections when we may have multiple groups on the council.

We could easily have had multiple groups on the council at this time.

So it's not particularly targeting necessarily your group.

It could equally be the administration group that chooses to lean on its members to only

get certain members to put in.

This would prevent us doing that.

So I'm not trying to single you out, and I'm not trying to divine how your group meetings might work.

I'm merely saying that these two provisions here do force a rotation of who gets to speak,

which could be prevented by WIPs in certain circumstances in groups,

future groups that aren't even represented on the council right now.

Council, I'll come to you in a moment, but it seems to me there's an important distinction

between group motions where this restriction doesn't apply.

So that is still in the hands of the groups, and the groups can still curate who they want

to speak on their own motions.

But when it comes to speaking on the direct substance of the decisions of the Council,

What these restrictions do is that they promote a diversity of contributions on those questions,

which I think is quite important. It's a distinction I think we shouldn't lose sight of.

Yeah, look, I am strongly of the view, and I'm not the only one, that actually the political party process

and the role of the political parties and their own democracy, all of them, their own internal democracy,

are an integral part of the overall democracy of the Council and of any other institution that they're involved in.

And I think that should be recognised and preserved.

We have a problem as articulated by Councillor Grimston from the point of view of an independent Councillor,

and that problem should be resolved.

This is not the way to resolve it, that's the problem.

Just a quick question.

Where do maiden speeches fit into this?

How do we ensure that councillors who have been newly elected

get their maiden speech in as quickly as possible?

Well, I'm saying the point is that neither on group motions nor on these,

is the mayor restricted from calling other speakers from outside the guaranteed slot?

So if provided the business on the agenda isn't heavy and

the mayor is satisfied that the business can be got through in good time,

she could call lots of additional speakers and

she could call additional speakers on these matters or on the group motions.

So I think that the maiden speeches are recognising that it states that they should be respected

and heard without interventions and heard without noise.

But the fact is that as long as an agenda doesn't get too long, the mayor will have

the flexibility to call additional speakers if people don't get a slot in one of the ballots

to ensure that those maiden speeches can be got in.

Okay, I think this issue has been ventilated now quite thoroughly.

Can we take it in, I mean, I said I'd take it all at the end, but can just for the purposes

of keeping order, can I just minute what the positions are on this amendment?

So could all those just indicate those who would be inclined to, as Councillor Apps proposes,

delete these provisions?

And those in favour of retaining them?

Okay.

Thank you.

Motions, wasn't it?

Just on D, do we want to include opposition speaker on D, 29D?

Yep, I think that's a fair compromise.

An amendment to insert the words and opposition speaker after proposed recommendations.

Yep, all right.

Okay.

Okay, so the next topic then was motions.

Councillor Abbs?

Yeah, so the next thing which I just wanted to propose an amendment to was the word limit

of 150 words in length for each motion.

Councillor Graham and I discussed this.

Councillor Graham explained that he didn't like compendium motions.

I explained that I did.

We have a difference of view, a difference of personal preferences about motions, but

I see no reason why the administration should restrict the opposition's ability to do wordier

motions.

I do not see the problem.

And I think if the administration prefers shorter, briefer motions, as we do on many

occasions, that is fine.

They can produce those motions.

I do not believe it caused any particular problem in the past when there were somewhat

longer motions.

I think sometimes they're a little bit too long.

But again, that's personal taste in motions.

And I do think this is a little bit dictatorial

in its approach, which I did express to Councillor Graham.

So that is why I propose that this is removed.

I just think it's unnecessary.

So you can say a lot in 150 words.

You can even have a compendium motion in 150 words,

provided it isn't too verbose.

The fact is that it's supposed to be a motion, not an essay.

It's open to opposition counsellors, any counsellors and members in OSC to bring papers to OSCs if you want to write papers to have longer inquisitions of things.

But it's supposed to be a motion. It should really be about a single topic.

It should really be getting across fundamentally a single point.

150 words is quite generous, I think.

I would have had it shorter.

You could certainly get a compendium motion

in 150 words provided you're to the point.

Question.

Does your 150 words exclude a statement

being kind of read into the record

by including it in a resolution?

For example, I'm straining my memory now, but if I remember correctly,

after the riots in 2011, both sides agreed a statement which was included in a resolution

that went to full council.

And it was as though we were reading something into the record about what had taken place that year.

I think that would be an item for decision rather than a single group's motion.

These are group motions put forward by one side only.

And I think we're such a joint position to come forward, it would be an item for decision.

Was this your only point on motions?

Okay.

Would it exclude the opposition trying to get something read into the record in a motion

then in that case?

I mean, okay, I picked an example that was agreed across the floor, but that might not

be the case.

I mean, you typically read things into record on your feet by reading them rather than writing

them into the record.

I mean, it is possible to reference where further text might be found.

You could even host it on a particular page of a website and note that it can be found

at that page of a website as part of your...

I mean, you can, if you are suitably flexible in how you

approach it, find ways to incorporate text without

incorporating the text within 150 word limit, I'm sure.

The point remains, it's supposed to be a relatively

simple exercise in setting a topic, setting out something

that can be debated by everybody.

And more than 150 words is essay territory, not motion.

I still think 150 words is very generous.

I think we've exhausted discussion on that.

I mean, it just seems proportionate and reasonable to be restricted to 150 words.

Does the dependent member have a view?

I tend towards the opposition view on this.

I'm not trying to think of examples where it's been a problem that there's been a motion

there.

And I think, I mean, it's good practise to be as precise as we can.

But equivalently, there are sometimes issues where there's a bit of, you know, part of

what the motion is doing is SAIsing, is putting out a point of view, which can then be discussed.

And I agree with Councillor Graham, 150 words is pretty generous.

But I think whether it needs putting in stoneness, my inclination for the moment is to leave

things as they are, and if the groups are using it and putting in tomes, then at that

point we can revisit it.

I think my only counter to that would be I'm not sure how many of the longer form motions

were actually read by all of the members of the Council.

And certainly some of the amendments I know were read by, given ones that I spent a long

time writing, were read by very, very few people indeed.

The longer these things get, the less inclined members are to actually pay attention to them

as well, and justifiably so, if they're long and rambling.

I just think you can get, you can make a lot of points in 150 words, concisely to therefore

spare colleagues the burden of having to wade through unnecessarily verbiage.

Look, I think the balance of view is that we remove this provision.

So, I think I'll come back to the omnibus vote at the end, but I think that's...

Please.

Could I just come in on the...

Because you asked if this was the only point about motions and debates.

Now, clearly, the administration is proposing a very different way of doing debates so that

we have the motions deadline earlier and then we have a ballot for people to speak.

I will be interested to see how this works.

This is one of the things that I would like to see us review.

And if it's not working, then think again.

But for the time being, after talking to colleagues,

we think we can, it will involve some changes to our practises

of how we work to make sure that we can meet that deadline.

But I do not think they're insurmountable.

So we are prepared to give that a shot

and see how it works for us as a group.

It may require some flexibility, so say if we need to look at any meetings that have

been scheduled on dates when we might need to meet, for example, close to the council

meeting, we may need to look at that.

But for the moment, I think we're prepared to come back to it after we've seen how it

operates.

No, thank you.

That's really helpful.

Any further points on motions?

Otherwise, just looking at your list, Councillor Apps, I think that takes us to the end of

your items for Council.

So I'm going to go to Councillor Graham, who had a point about prayers.

Well, so just before that, if we are removing that 150 -word limit, we also need to remove

the 200 -word limit on the motion as amended, because the whole idea was that otherwise

you'd be forcing an amendment to reduce the length of the motion, which I think if you're

going to have source of the goose, you have to have source of the gander.

I'm afraid that leads to potentially the excessively long amendments and essays on amendments coming

in, but if that's where we're going, that's where we're going.

Can you give us the rule reference?

Not off the top of my head.

I know it's there.

I think it's under amendments, I think.

I think we're content for that to be removed and that would be fine

Okay, prayers.

Yes, so very simply, there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding about this.

All we're attempting to do with prayers, well, it was initially we were looking at a way

to have them happen as part of the meeting, but without putting out the start time for

business of the meeting, which was part of trying to manage this issue of removing the

guillotine.

It seems pretty clear that colleagues don't agree with me on that and that they would

prefer just to start the meeting at 7 .30 and then have the prayers and have themselves

stay that much later as a result, which is fine.

I have no particular objection to that.

What we are doing with the amendment that we put around is simply to clarify that this

is at the beginning of the meeting, that it's part of the meeting and in the meeting.

The bell obviously goes when the mayor comes in and then you have the prayers and then

it simply adds that the bell will be rung again at the end just so that any members

that, and there are some members that don't wish to take part in religious activities,

can then enter the chamber, which I don't think the bell sounding is a particular problem,

but if it is then you can tell me, but it just clarifies that this is a part of the

meeting.

So, this is one of the provisions that we were aware of in a slightly different form.

And there was concern in our group that if a number of members stayed outside and then

only joined the meeting when the sort of at the end of prayers, then there may be a feeling

that that's showing disrespect to our guests who have come to. So I want to

make people aware of that and that there was concern about this. Can I just

clarify this would be part of the streamed part of the meeting? Yes under

the Vice -President. I mean that there are prayers in other institutions including

the House of Commons which occur before business gets underway and are not

broadcast. That allows those that want to attend or not want to attend to do. I

I mean, personally, I felt that was a sensible way

of doing things.

I appear to be an extreme minority of almost one,

and so I'm quite happy to go along

with the views of others on this.

I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful.

I think that one should be tolerant,

both of those of religious activity within the meeting,

of activity by different religions,

when the mayor appoints a chaplain

from another denomination or another religion altogether,

as has happened in the past, but equally we should be respectful of those that don't want to take part in that,

because they have firm views that are non -religious.

I speak for someone who doesn't have a theistic belief myself, I have no problem staying in the chamber,

but there are others that do, and I don't think we should discriminate against them,

and just sounding the bell afterwards just lets them come in, if there are any members that choose to do that.

And there may be none. I don't think sounding the bell is offensive.

This is not something I feel that I can sign up to at this meeting. As I've said

before, maybe you don't believe me, our group's very democratic and I would not

be able to, given the objections that were stated to me and to Councillor Osborne,

I do not feel I'd be able to kind of decide on a particular approach with

this with the second bell without having discussed that with them first. So it's

that we'll certainly think about but and no doubt have discussions on but it is

something that some of our members felt very strongly about so I'm going to

reserve my position.

It seems to me to be I mean I'm happy to vote for the provision as it stands but

members presumably can stand outside or watch the television and hear when

prayers have finished anyway. So, well, that can be argued in either direction, can't it?

In that case, all the bell is doing is helping them to know when to come into the chamber

after the prayers. So that can be argued in, I think, either in favour or against the proposal.

I can't really see that thing. I can't imagine there's any potential chaplain out there who

isn't aware that not 100 % of people ascribe to their particular religion. I suspect if there

maybe they're not in the right job.

I wasn't really going to express a view on this, but I mean I, for my own view, I think it's a shame to depart from the status quo, actually.

I think it's, there's real benefit in the Chamber opening up with a collective experience,

and it's rarely an experience that speaks to a denomination of a majority of the Chamber.

To my knowledge, there's never been a Methodist Calvinistic preacher in the chamber that I would recognise.

But I've always enjoyed the variety of speakers that we've had.

It's a collective experience.

It removes the prerogative for people to abstain or not abstain and therefore make a statement,

and effectively it takes them out of the position where they have to make a statement.

I would be inclined actually to delete 34C in its entirety.

This committee can always revisit it, but I do so on the basis that by deleting 34C we are maintaining the status quo.

I'm happy to get along with that, but I think the fact is that there are some of my colleagues, and not me,

that have in the past always avoided coming in because they don't wish to be part of religious activity.

I think that the bell sound again is merely out of respect for them to say that they can choose to avoid participating in that if they wish without having to have their ear to the door.

And actually the feet from the chamber has not been operative for the last few meetings.

They wouldn't actually know.

So it wasn't intended to be disrespectful to any of those in the room or the chaplain giving the prayer.

It was intended to be respectful towards those members who have views that I don't share,

which is that they don't actually wish to participate in religious ceremonies.

My proposal is to delete 34C, but on the basis that the position could be revisited.

Okay, the next item is petitions, and I think I can take this quite quickly, which is there's

an amendment to Amendment 2 that simply restores the position of handing in petitions from

the end of the meeting to the start of the meeting.

So again, we are a restoring status quo point.

Is that agreed?

Great. Okay. So we can agree amendments then. So I think that concludes the points on full

council. So if it does, what I want to do is just for the benefit of democratic services,

just quickly go through the amendments that have been agreed and pick up on the task and

finish group amendment that we haven't discussed either way.

So, on questions to cabinet members, the administration's optional amendment is agreed.

Yep.

This is the 22A.

Yep.

So, optional amendment, is that agreed or do we need a vote?

This is the amendment that restores cabinet member questions to, yep.

So that's agreed?

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

All in favour?

Okay.

Thank you.

That's unanimous.

Just a further point on that.

Can we also, as a committee, have an understanding, because it is in a 22A, but that automatically

gets us off to a point where the numbering isn't straightforward, that it is delegated

to the monitoring officer just to adjust the numbering so that we can have regular numbering

throughout rather than having A's and insertions.

All in favour?

Great.

Agreed.

So on debates, let's vote on it formally.

There was Councillor Apps's proposal

to delete paragraphs 29d and paragraphs 30g.

All in favour?

All against?

Yep, yep, and then so that's fallen.

There's then Councillor Graham's amendment to paragraph 29D to insert and opposition

speaker into the first clause.

All in favour?

Great.

Then, on PREZ, there's the proposal to delete paragraph 34C.

All in favour?

That's you, too.

All against?

Thank you.

And petitions.

Do we need to vote for 34, the change to 34A to clarify at the beginning of, which was

the first part of Amendment 1?

Yes, we do.

And then also then the part of Amendment 1 from the administration, but only in respect

of 34A, which moves prayers to the formal beginning of the meeting.

So all in favour?

Thank you.

And then on petitions, there's Administration Amendment 2, which just moves petitions back

to the start of the meeting.

All in favour?

Thank you.

I knew there was one.

So, this is the proposal to delete paragraph 33A and 21A.

Yes, so it's 33A2.

Yep, 33A2.

And then the consequential 200 words is 21A3.

okay all in favour of that yep all against

that's passed okay yeah chair I'm very sorry but there was a consequential

amendment that I meant to bring up earlier which is related to the personal

points of explanation. In it, I think it is standing order 15. Sorry, I've reached a point

I need to take off my glasses continually and put them back on again. So it basically

says that there won't be interruptions during leaders' questions. As we're adding back in

cabinet questions, we ought to say and cabinet questions. So I hope that will be relatively

straightforward. Yes, so this is standing order 15A. To insert after the words

questions to the leader, comma, questions to the cabinet members. Can I suggest that

we just delete to the leader and just have questions? Then you don't have the

All in favour?

Thank you.

So that then takes us to the amendment from the opposition regarding the task and finish

group.

So Councillor Graham, do you want to respond to that?

Yes, I mean, I think the wording there is perhaps a little tendentious.

I don't have any particular objection to trying to move the next phases of the changes through

using a task and finish format.

I mean, I hadn't thought about it in that way, but I'm not opposed to that in principle.

I think trying to frame it as a resumption of the previous process I

think is perhaps something I just I just think we can we can take that away from

this meeting I think it may well be if that's the way that you want to do it

I think that may well be something that we can accommodate I don't particularly

like the wording of that that recommended recommendation G I just

think it yeah it it bakes in certain things but that doesn't mean that we

can't do it in that way, if you see what I mean.

I'm of the same view, which is that we, as a committee, we can note that it was proposed

that the task and finish group was a vehicle to complement this process, but it's not something

that we want to attach to the standing orders themselves.

So in other words, yeah, we've heard what you said.

We're quite likely to come back and do it through a task and finish group format, but

we just want to think about that and we don't want to commit to this particular wording

because it does.

I think to expand on that, I mean, I think there is merit in the task and finish proposal,

but that is quite an undertaking for the council to do.

And it might be justified, it might not, but it's not really something that we can ventilate

properly in the context of trying to get through the standing order this evening.

So I'd rather minute it as something that I think the administration should pay attention

to, but not really one that I want to attach as a formal recommendation.

But it might move things on at some level.

I mean, there is a substantial second section to that paragraph as well about reviewing

the new standing orders and all the rest of it, which is also what we want.

So I think there's a difference there as well in that a task and finish group to look at

how we implement the next phases of changes is different to reviewing how the changes

have already made have worked or not worked.

Arguably, that would be two different task and finish groups rather than the same one

or it might be a different process.

And so I just thought we haven't thought about any, because literally we've had this amendment

at the meeting.

We're not saying no, we're just not saying yes, yet, if you saw what I mean.

Councillor Apps, anything else that Councillor Grimson might want to add?

For clarification, it wasn't to add it to the actual constitution itself, it was to

add it to the list of recommendations on page 8.

I think the important thing to note here is that, as Councillor Grimson has pointed out,

There's a lack of confidence, which is partly based on experience and partly based on the

two -party nature of our council.

And this was really about building that trust and that confidence for the opposition so

that we felt that we were confident that we would be involved in the following stages.

So clarify that.

I mean, an alternative which might give some confidence to this is to have a new recommendation,

of G to explore using task and finish groups to take forward the work of the constitutional

review and assess its progress.

Councillor Grimston.

I think because we've restored to this committee the role of taking line by line things, in

In effect, this committee is that, that task and finish group, and it's more than a task

and finish group, it's a standing group with that, because the membership of the task and

finish group was more or less coterminous with general purposes, if I remember.

And from that point of view, yeah, I mean, and there's nothing to stop inviting other

people here, but it seems to me that that change means that since all of the relevant

debate has to come through this committee which will be more or less the people who

would make up the task and finish group anyway with maybe a few extras.

I think the circumstance might have changed, but that's not to say that the task and finish

approach might not be relevant, but I think I tend to agree with the chair that to commit

ourselves to that at this point rather than giving it a little bit more thought, but there,

as long as it is very clear that we opposition members will be fully involved in the process

at each stage.

Can I just move on from this, because I want to give the committee provisions proper time,

but can we now move on the proposed amendment to add paragraph G to the recommendations?

All those in favour?

As I.

No, no, no, as proposed.

As proposed.

All in favour?

All against?

Okay, that one falls.

Thank you, colleagues.

So then the next heading is committee meetings.

Councillor Apps, shall we just go down your list of amendments?

Is that convenient?

Okay.

So the first one is I'm receiving a request for a comfort break.

Five minute comfort break.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, colleagues.

We'll now resume discussion of the paper, and I want to move on to changes to committee

rules.

Might be, so we've got amendments from the administration group and the opposition group.

The administration group has one amendment which relates to numbers on OSCs, so I propose

to take that first and then we can move on to the list of amendments from the opposition.

Yes, so this is simply reflecting feedback from the opposition that they wished the numbers

on OSC to be larger than the numbers that we have allocated.

This is not something we wanted to do, but it's something that we are prepared to do

to meet their concerns.

and so it would mean that all the main OSCs have seven members and that would

leave the sub -OSCs with five members so there's a sort of consistency of

approach across them. You have any comments on that? Councillor Apps.

So firstly, we do welcome the expansion of the numbers. When we met with our group members

and labour councillors, one of the biggest concerns was about the inability for labour

councillors to serve on overview and scrutiny committees, because there simply weren't enough

places. And people felt quite rightly that that was an important part of the job of being

Councillor, particularly in opposition. I note that the proposals though still leave

us shorter than the number of members that we have, so it will still require some, unfortunately,

some members not having that opportunity to serve on an overview and scrutiny committee

on a sort of ongoing basis. So it is still problematic. We also have some issues with

the new subcommittee overview and scrutiny committees. They're about very important

issues about enforcement and opportunity but we feel that in this council issues

one of the main criticisms from the local government association was the

level of siloing that we have within within Wandsworth. I'll never forget a

point that Councillor Grimston made about how important it is like when

councils were actually able to get together and share experiences they were

actually able to kind of resolve some of the upcoming issues that were that were affecting

people like for example in COVID and being able to talk about the shortage of computers for children

became an important issue. Sorry to steal one of your anecdotes but it had an impact on me

and so getting into narrower and narrower more and more different overview and scrutiny committees

I think is not ideal so ideally we'd prefer to be for issues that are coming up to be dealt with

by task and finish groups and for the important issues around policing and enforcement and

business opportunities and ensuring we support the voluntary sector should be integrated

into our wider overview and scrutiny committees.

So I think a few things.

First of all, on the numbers, the fact is that we have an administration group which

29 counsellors and we have members of the administration that cannot serve on an

OSC and we others were already very busy with other things as well. Covering that

many places obviously puts pressure on our backbenchers who are going to have to

serve on two or more OSCs and a whole host of other committees, ordinary

committees, external bodies, housing panels and the like. So this is

is already us trying to be accommodating, but equally, we're not in the position that you were in,

or we were in previously, of having a large number of backbenchers to cover these.

I appreciate for the opposition, it's a slightly different position, and you have a relatively large opposition, very large by recent standards.

And therefore, you want more places to go around because of your expanding numbers.

We have the situation in reverse.

We've got very few to go around, and we don't want to put unnecessary pressure on our members

by having too many places for them that are all having to run around to cover.

The other side of this as well, I take what you're saying about siloing, but actually

the LGA view and indeed a school of thought that is as strongly outside this building

and indeed in one instance within this building,

is that you should not have lots of OSCs.

In fact, you may only have one OSC, in which case

most members of council will never get anywhere near

an overview and scrutiny committee.

This is actually much more generous in terms

of the number of OSC places it provides,

and would have been even on our original proposals,

than most other councils.

Furthermore, the sub -OSCs are essentially

there to act in the same overview and scrutiny function as the main OSCs, not least in holding

the cabinet member to account and looking properly at their portfolio areas.

And I think just turning to the points about those sub -OSCs, they are cross -cutting areas,

but that's precisely why it's quite difficult to accommodate them within the main OSCs if

you don't create a sub -OSC to deal with those areas, because then you've got multiple committees

that those cabinet members are having to attend.

You've got no real direct oversight of what that cabinet member is up to.

And frankly, those sort of issues just get timed out at the others.

So I think this does reflect quite well the nature of the relationship between a cabinet

member and a committee.

And because they are, in effect, OSC committees, albeit on a mini scale, allowing your members

all opportunities to engage in that kind of scrutiny process.

Thank you.

I do think that we all need to change our thinking a little bit.

We haven't yet got used to this situation of being in overall control and we're sort

of applying the old rules in exactly the same way.

So for example, we're now almost half of the council and yet, you know, obviously you've

applied the same rules around outside bodies in the same way as we would have done when

we had quite a decent majority, as you did when you had a decent majority.

I think, remember that we're here to call on.

If you've got outside bodies where you're struggling because your members have so many

responsibilities, you can call on opposition councillors to help with some of that burden.

and I'm sure the independent member too.

So you know, I think the work is to be shared.

You know, we can have opposition members

chairing task and finish groups.

I think the other point is just to note

is that when we agreed with the sort of having two overview

and scrutiny chairs, we thought there were six committees.

There are now eight committees and we've still got two.

So you could also share some of the chairing burden with us so that we could take on some

of that, which would be a much fairer allocation given our number of councillors.

I think we've been exceptionally generous in chairing arrangements already, so that

would be my response to that.

Can I propose then that we, can we vote on Amendment 3 from the administration so that

that governs numbers on OSCs.

So that essentially puts all members of OSCs

at seven rather than five.

All in favour?

Great.

All again, all opposed?

Right, all abstaining.

Okay, so Amendment 3 of the Administration is passed.

Councillor Apps, do you want to take us through yours?

So the first one is Standing Order 44, I think.

Yes, we actually just discussed this.

So this is, Standing Order 44 is payment in respect to travel being at first standard

first rate fair at the moment and we were proposing to amend that to

standard class. Happy to do that here but also happy to do it as a subsequent

meeting if it's being looked at elsewhere. I think just just to clarify

and I understand the confusion, that section of the standing orders at the

back simply lumps together all of the existing standing orders that we haven't

had time to review yet and can't just get rid of with the intention of

reviewing them, so I don't think anyone has claimed rail travel at first class fares.

I don't think anyone will be.

We certainly won't be allowing anybody to.

That's been sat there for a very long time, undealt with.

We will deal with it, but I think it makes sense to deal with it as we deal with that

whole section rather than trying to deal with things in isolation.

Agreed.

And I think you had a related point about gifts.

Yes, we can look at that at the time of which we're exploring it.

Thank you.

Okay.

OSC terms of reference.

So my proposal would be that where it says, I think it's page 55, item 10 .4, that it says

that it will look at relevant key decisions at the next cabinet meeting that shall replace

that with a more permissive view which is can consider any key decisions for

consideration at future cabinet meetings and so it's sorry Councillor you said

page 55 did you mean that

It's 57, apologies.

So it's basically to say that we could look at relevant key decisions at future cabinet

meetings.

So it could be the next one coming up, but it could also be one in a few months' time.

That would give overview and scrutiny committees more chance to look at things that are coming

further down the horizon.

And then the other addition that I'd suggest is add in a point ten, which is that to look

also at the future work programming of the committee, including the consideration of

task and finish groups.

That is something that committees had started to do as a matter of course, and I think it

was useful for all members of the committee to be involved in looking at future work planning.

So I think that's just been, and I understand, basically what we've done with these is simply

try to make the amendments necessary to make these rules function.

These are not ideally worded.

They need to be completely rewritten to be more comprehensible, to go into those kind

of issues as we've discussed with Councillor Grimston, to make explicit the arrangements

around task and finish groups and the circumstances by which OSCs might set those off.

So this is not by any means the last word on this.

This is just the bare minimum amendments necessary to make this function.

The point about relevant key decisions at the next cabinet meeting coming up at that

point is to put those pre -decision scrutiny things first.

However, that doesn't preclude stuff that's further away being discussed by the committee.

That will be covered either because a member of the OSC chooses to place it on the committee

agenda when we're guaranteeing that that will get debated next.

So we did find, I certainly found in the finance OSC that I would put something on the agenda,

it would be put right at the back of the agenda by the committee chair, and then it would

get either talked out or close to talked out.

This actually gives you the opportunity to make sure that your items are debated right

after that pre -decision scrutiny before the rest of the agenda is reached.

And the work planning process, which again needs to be something that is actually fleshed

out and how chairs should go about doing work planning with the committee, that needs to

be fleshed out in the proper replacement rules.

But that will, in terms of the business otherwise set out in the agenda for the meeting, again

cover stuff that's coming down the line but not immediately.

So we do expect that kind of scrutiny of stuff that's going to happen but isn't happening

quite yet and discussion of those things to take place at the ISC's, these amendments

do allow for that.

They don't explicitly talk about it yet and that is something that the set of rules that

replaces this set should talk about.

What I'm seeking to do through these amendments is to create an enabling culture where committees

can choose, like they absolutely can choose to look at all the key decisions that are

coming up at the next cabinet meeting.

But if they decide there are some key decisions

where actually the time would be better spent elsewhere,

and as you've pointed out by, you know,

if your report's right at the end,

which I know you're saying these won't be,

but the fact is if there's enough key decisions

and there's enough to say about them,

you know, the other things may well drop off.

So I think as far as possible,

I prefer committees to be enabled to set their own agendas.

And I would also remind you that this was

one of the main criticisms of our system of scrutiny was this 11th hour scrutiny.

And in fact, I don't know if you remember, but the picture of, you know,

if you're building a house, at what point do you want to be involved in building the houses

at the design stage before it's built, or do you want to be helped picking the curtains?

And it did feel very much with some of these reports coming late, you know,

where we're seeing them just before they're issued, we're very much at the picking the curtains stage

and not really having a positive impact on their plans.

So I think there is a genuine principle difference between,

certainly, some members of the opposition and us

on pre -decision scrutiny and indeed between us

and perhaps certain outside bodies

in that we found the value of pre -decision scrutiny

was not in influence but in accountability.

And I think that the external view was that if you're not able to influence something

because it's just about to happen, that actually from time to time there were amendments that

were consequential and accepted under both sides under pre -decision scrutiny.

But their view was that if it's too late to influence it, what's the point of discussing

it?

Our view was that we were holding the administration when we were in opposition to account or that

we were being held to account when we were in charge, as we are again now.

So we have a different view.

You can call it 11th hour scrutiny if you like.

What it is is that when you actually

know what the detail is, you get to discuss it.

The danger of the stuff that's coming down the tracks

is that you're only going to get detail on things

that aren't controversial.

And if anything's controversial, the detail will be withheld.

And that's also what we tried to get across.

But in terms of the committee work planning together

and deciding what it wants to discuss,

that's absolutely where we're trying to go with this.

We've not put this in here because this

is just the bare minimum amendments necessary to make

this function.

But that's absolutely what we want

to be reflected in a proper set of AIC procedure rules

that give real guidance to chairs and to committees

on how they should do things.

So we definitely want to do that.

The fact it's not here is because these are just

amendments that are just a bit of surgery

to make this work for now.

But it's fully our intention to have that reflected in what replaces it.

On that basis, Councillor Apps, are there any of these, given that the Phase 2 are going

to consider in detail the OSU rules, and as Councillor Graham says, the amendments before

us to the OSU rules are just the ones that are consequential really on amendments to

full council, just to make it cohere.

On that basis, are there any of these amendments you want to press tonight, or do you want

to bring them back to the next meeting that considers the draught OSC rules?

Because I'd suggest that's the more elegant thing to do.

Yeah, we will press one element of it, I think.

And the point is, I mean, I hear what Councillor Graham is saying about a difference of principle

between the two parties.

That difference of principle, by the way, became very clear about two, two and a half

years ago.

And we highlighted the difference and had it debated in this committee more than once.

And I don't think there's anything that any of us can do about that this evening.

there is a difference of principle and that's that.

I think it's worth stressing the need for the future work programme.

I hear what you're saying, I take your point that you are kind of moving in that direction

and we'll get round to it.

But from our point of view, it was important over the last period and I think it's an important

gesture of this committee to the other OSCs to lock it in to our decision tonight and

make sure it goes to full council as well.

So I would press that one, the future work programme.

So I mean, in the spirit of sort of working together, I think taking the final bit on

just the future work programme of the committee, I mean, I delete, I think we need to go back

and look at how we do task and finish groups.

But the future work programme of the committee

as an additional point after five under 10 on page 57,

and just say the future work programme,

if you want to make it a standing item, which

is what that would effectively do,

then I don't see there's any harm in that.

It may be that then when you get to actually,

you've done it in a pre -meet or a meeting outside or whatever.

But there's no skin off our nose to include that.

So let's do that.

Did you want to propose that?

Yes.

So that our item 5 stands and simply reads the future work programme of the committee.

Thank you.

So that's in addition to page 57, paragraph 10, new paragraph 6, the future work programme

of the committee.

All in favour?

Thank you.

I think that brings us then to the end of committee meetings.

I think there was one last item that you had, Councillor Apps, and that was SRAs.

There aren't any amendments, I think, but I think you might have had a point on them.

If there aren't, there aren't.

Apologies, I was referring to the paper.

In that case, are there any further comments on the paper from any other committee member?

If not, can I move that the recommendations be approved?

We do need to discuss this amendment.

Yes, you're right.

I was waiting for the monitoring officer to kick me under the table.

He was too polite.

Yeah, or too far.

Mr. Charj, would you like to introduce this amendment, please?

Yes, members.

So in light of the current position in terms of appointments to committees and the uncertainty

brought about by the by -election to ensure that there's maximum flexibility for the council

or membership to be properly constituted into the committees.

This temporary provision that's before you

introduces a power to the chief executive act

against a proper officer to make appointments

to committees on nomination from the relevant group leaders.

It has a number of controls within that,

which is that the appointments can only

be within the existing scheme, follows

the political balance rules and that the size composition, terms of reference, etc., of

the committees aren't affected. It has an end date of the 21st of October, 2026, which

is the date of the next ordinary meeting of the Council when this clause will cease to

effect unless it's retained by Council.

Thank you, that's very clear. Any questions on the amendment?

Councillor Graham.

It's not a question, it's just a statement that I don't particularly like having to do

it like this.

It's just to work around for the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

The point is that there's a grand flaw of the clause, so it can be seen that this will

just go away.

All in favour of that amendment?

Thank you.

All in favour of the recommendations of the paper?

All opposed?

Thank you.

The paper passes.

Thank you colleagues.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

General Purposes CommitteeMonday, 20th July 2026 at 7:30pm

General Purposes Committee
Monday, 20th July 2026 at 7:30pm