General Purposes Committee - Wednesday 22 May 2024, 6:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

General Purposes Committee
Wednesday, 22nd May 2024 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

It doesn't work.
So yes, this is.
OK that does work.
Ready, I could bring it as.
Thank you and welcome to this meeting, my name is Councillor Richard, I am the Chair of the general purposes committee and members of the committee, I'd like you to introduce ourselves very briefly, starting on my left with the Deputy Chair, Councillor Belton,
no one Russian reading, Clare Fraser, southbound ward.
Hello, everybody, Councillor rickshaws, born Tooting Broadway.
Good evening, everyone, Jeremy Amber West Putney, Ward Councillor renamed Castle Irish shopping Green Stonewood.
Malcolm Grimston Westwood.
Matt Corner 9 on foot.
Councillor Lindsay Hedges Balham Ward.
Gossipy, Graham wants will come.

1 Minutes - 5 October 2023

Thank you, Councillors, and I believe we have apologies from Councillor Jeffreys and apologies for lateness from Councillor Richard Jones analysis, how we have a number of officers here who will introduce themselves as and when they come to talk to the committee OK, we've got very short agenda tonight first of all the minutes of the previous general purposes meeting on the 5th of October 2023.
All these agreed excellent and

2 Declarations of Interests

are there any declarations, either pecuniary other non registrable or registrable interests, if there are members, please could you raise your hand and explain that interest?
Okay.
Nothing and the paper we have before us is concerning the political proportionality and allocations to committees it is pay per excuse me, 24th 1 50.
I would just like to ask if there are any questions on that paper before we move to any decisions.
Councillor Graham, thank you, Councillor Kershaw, sorry I for first. I should preface this by saying that we are grateful that the administration is willing to accept an amendment on our understanding in relation to this paper in order to ensure that Councillor Grimston can continue to serve, and I think on both sides of this room we recognise experienced long experience on this Council and value his contributions, and I think it is a very good thing that that has been agreed and that he will be able to continue. So we we warmly welcome that and had had that just been A&E issue. I think we could have wrapped up the conversation there.
we, we have, of course, agreed as part of that, not to move any further amendments, but there is one issue underlying issue in the paper that that amendment and doesn't resolve and what we would like just to scrutinise, even though we accept that we will not be attempting to change it tonight and essentially that issue is that if you look at on page 9 at the table in the paper as drafted
you can see that, for the ordinary regulatory committees, there's a total of 50 positions, seats across those committees, and the proposed allocation was 30 seats to the Labour Group and 19 to the Conservative Group now unlikely Overview and Scrutiny Committees which have to be politically balanced individually. The requirement in legislation for the ordinary regulatory committees is that the balance relates to those totals in the bottom row. The problem that we have is that, as you can see in the recommendations, the Labour group now has 58.6% of the councillors and a Conservative Group has 39.6% of the council is 39.7 if you round up

3 Political Proportionality and Allocations to Committees (Paper No. 24-150)

that is not reflected in those totals, in fact, the closest to those totals, the closest numbers would be 29 to the Labour Group 20 to the Conservative Group and then the one unallocated, so if you look at what's there, there is actually a variance of over 3% from the average, whereas that variance would be below 1% if it were adjusted in that way. So we are concerned that we as a group have been in the underlying paper deprived of a seat that we should have had and of course,
it is perfectly easy to adjust the that we accept that you know it has to be reasonably practical to make those totals reflect the the overall balance of the Council, but just by adding one seat on one committee that could be done while maintaining the other statutory criteria which obviously includes the administration having a majority on each Committee so we are concerned about that.
Because it means that in effect, there is one less seat on our side than I would otherwise be one when adding Councillor Grimston on that does affect the overall totals, but it just perpetuates that problem, and so it is quite difficult at this point, because what I wish to do is ask the administration why they were unwilling to adjust those figures and, as you can see in the summary box, these this paper is at the request of the administration, but the administration member responsible for this paper and those recommendations is not here. I don't think it's particularly fair on the monitoring officer to ask him why the administration was unwilling to adjust those totals to reflect what the legislation says they should be and I'm wondering if any of the administration Councillors know why they are whipped to oppose out this evening, but thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Graham, just going to check Councils born, you had your hand up and I didn't know whether we need
no okay, Councillor Osborne,
can I first of all just reiterate how much on our side amongst from the administration we also welcome the fact that we are on track to include.
The independent Councillor Malcolm Grimston on this on the general purposes committee and I'd want it, I'd want I want to make sure that is on the record.
to represent us, but I think the point is is this that everyone should take note of this, this Council is about to go through quite a.
a deep rooted and possibly dislocating, certainly very changing process as a result of the democracy review which we have commissioned, it's exciting and I think it will move once with Council.
far forward from where it is, I think we are, if I can put it as bluntly as possible, a bit of a backward Council in the way that we approach decision-making, and I think we can move to towards a better and more democratic future with some major changes.
Those changes are going to require participation, commission's working groups and so on, from members of our Committees, from all sides.
is going to be a different style of working, and I think on balance, what that means is it's a very good idea to increase the or, if nothing else, increase the numbers on the committees, which is the main thing which we are trying to do at the moment, not by very much but to increased committee size to about 10, in almost every case, some gone down a little bit, some have come up a little bit and so on, but that's the general, the general target, so that that work can be done, and it's the first time we've done this since since the administration won the election in 2022, it's the first review. We've done, it's the first look, we've had at it and as far as we are concerned, the changes we are currently proposing are within the proportionality limits that are required of us in legislation and therefore that's that's the way we want to go forward
I hope that parties on both sides can embrace that process and we can get it decided this evening, thank you, OK, Councillor Graham, and then hopefully we can move wildly, as s sorry, I mean, I think the issue here is that I I I took a look when when looking at the principle because,
Essentially, it is very difficult to see how accounting for the legislation and complying with the legislation does not mean that that total number of seats and the allocation across that total number of seats should not be the closest possible to the percentages of the make-up of the Council. That is what I read legislation to mean. I also looked at about seven or eight other councils to look at how they've CA allocated the proportions across their ordinary regulatory committees, and in every single case they had chosen the number that was closest to the percentages. I struggle with the notion that a that or a different number should be adopted and it is still be compliant, but the point was if it is compliant. There was therefore a choice between options to choose the number that was closest or to choose a number that was less clear, so perhaps I can ask the monitoring officer
given that our constitution and I will just back yes, our constitution, article 13, requires
clarity of aims and desired outcomes, and says that decisions should make clear what options were considered and rejected in the making of a decision, and giving the reasons for that decision. Whether the reason for that choice is in the paper and, if not, where it is given that we're being asked to this take a decision this evening,
okay, we that yes was thank you, Councillor Graham, my name's, I've just chosen me, and the council's monitoring officer, Councillor Graham, add that you've answered your question at the start of your initial opening, which is that this is a proposal that is put forward at the request of the administration and the given allocation is as set out in the paper and the
sorry given allocation of total seats, as set out in the paper and the allocations to groups match as closely as possible are reasonably practical with within the principles set out in the in the legislation there are, of course, alternate calculations that,
it could have been done.
now the numbers could be increased very significantly to achieve, as close to mathematic proportionality as possible, but that's not what's before this committee and what you have before the Committee is an allocation and a.
and they are split off the seats to the relevant groups, as set out in the paper I understand it.
There may be, you know, a an alternative proposal put forward that too, would still, in my view, meet with the principles set out in the legislation subject to members agreement.
come back. So first of all you, you said that it was the closest possible and it isn't, and secondly, he said it was as close as the incorrectness I was closest, reasonably practicable, but it would be entirely possible to add for one of the committees where there are proposed, for example, Planning Committee below 6 Labour Members proposed, and for Conservatives to make that 6 5 that's reasonably practicable and then the total numbers would closer reflect the political balance. So I don't think that's the case, but I that wasn't the question I asked and you did ask didn't answer the question I asked you, which is that there was a choice. Where is the reasoning for that choice and the reasoning for rejecting the closest possible annex allocation set out? Thank you. I think I'd just like to come in at this stage. Councillor Graham, I appreciate your concerns
obviously, what is quite difficult is that.
The reasoning behind it is not in the paper and clearly that has been, it's all been handled it very you know very quickly, and I think that that might the reason behind it would need to be sought outside this committee, the proposal in front of us is to do this with an amendment,
I understand that, but the amendment doesn't have actually addressed this point because, as underlying points in the paper, the amendment as a separate issue to that and our constitution, article 13 says that those reasons should be set out at the point of decision. This is the point of decision and we don't have those reasons. Article 1 also requires all of that to be interpreted to ensure that those responsible for decision making are clearly identifiable to local people and explain the reasons for the decisions. Now this was the decision of the Labour Chief Whip. She made the choice between those two options. She is the one who has also said that she is unwilling or for the administration to to accept any amendment that would correct the balance and make it more accurate. She is not here and she is not accountable, so I, for the fact that there are no reasons set out, is contrary to article 13 and the fact that she is not here. It's contrary to article 1 and this is of our constitution at the moment that, as as Councillor Osborne said, where we're trying to initiate a process of change, it doesn't, it doesn't instil confidence in in the way we're going to go about change to our constitution if we are breaking it in the process of initiating that that might back that happening. OK, thank you, Councillor Graham, yes, I hear what you've said. It's been noted and hopefully we will be able to come up with
an answer for this.
Councillor Anne bash, on mindful of the time,
I am wanting to move that we move to the next business as well, so sorry we can't do that at this stage, I'm not taking that because we have to have the amendment tabled the amendments and then take the sorry, let me.
Right.
okay, I'd like it if we could move to a, we obviously understand. There is an amendment to the paper that pray in front of us yet, so I think it possible, if if, if it would be, if the administration can say that they will retrospectively provide a reason, a letter from the whip in order to be monitored, that would go some way to meeting my concern, but the fact is, we are making a decision tonight and we don't know why I think that is a problem, so I think it doesn't need to be addressed so, Councillor, the amendment that
Hang on.
I thought they, let me just pick this up, I think I understood the amendment was the opposition's amendment, I will obviously take away and pass your concerns back to the Chief Whip right, but if we could move the amendment, I think came from your side which was that I did notice that Councillor Belton had his hand up and I wanted to Private came round.
Councillor Belton will very briefly bow the Chair Capaldi after I put my hand up, in fact she said she would take note of it and reported back, so we have taken note, I certainly have of your comments and we'll try to make sure that this doesn't happen if indeed anything has particularly evident in the new situation that Councillor Osborne was previously.
explaining so I understand the point and clearly the Chair does and will take note of it,
as you know, there are other things tonight we move on from that on that basis,
I applied for and I am grateful that there is some acknowledgment that there is a bit of an issue here that can be rectified were right and so thank you so we aren't this is a bit of a practice because we've talked about this so what I what I'm going to say is to sum up the discussion has been around and the questions on the percentages on the closeness about it that we've heard that the committees need to be as
closely and close and as reasonably possible to the percentages of.
Excuse me, I am summing up Councillor.
as closest as reasonably possible and practicable to the percentages of the councillors on the Committee and that we, I've agreed to take away the reason why can't one of the councils the the the there is some concern now I now understand there is an amendment,
there is indeed an amendment which I hope.
there are copies of it, yes, please circulate excellent, thank you and.
I think they've them, we've got it.
Yes.
I think we've all if you'd like to just propose him or excuse me, I propose the amendment, I'm happy to propose the script which is broadly to this is very simply to adjust the proposals in the paper to increase the size of the general purposes committee by one and to put that one additional seat in the an allocated column where it can then be picked up and occupied by Councillor Graham Stow OK do I have a second for this second Lord said,
well, I will where it is necessary. I think we've got to form a seconder is that which is Councillor Belton, he stuck his hand up OK and we all agree that we need to vote on that, or is everyone happy with this proposal agreed? Thank you very much and including the Chair who will vote on that OK. Thank you very much, Councillors. We should probably know, Councillor Crichel, that because due to the some of these changes, this is your your last appearance chairing Cherryleas Committee, so I think we ought to also thank you for your efforts. So that's very kind of you and Councillor Graham, but I'm sure we'll see each other again on finance
okay and.
Councillor Grimston, I'm also sound very pleased that you're going to be back on general purposes, thank you OK.
Okay and I declare the meeting closed.
What have we is?