General Purposes Committee - Monday 15 July 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

General Purposes Committee
Monday, 15th July 2024 at 7:30pm 

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

all right, I'm going to start the meeting, everybody so.
for everybody present and all those watching welcome to the meeting I'm Councillor Osborne, I'm the Chair of the general purposes committee, which is meeting here this evening and I'm gonna go round every member of the Committee.
name them and ask them to let us know that their present, there are some officers present tonight, but I will let them introduce themselves, as they're called this evening. So if I go through in alphabetical order of the members of the Committee, can I start with Councillor apps, please get evening Chair
Councillor Ann bash Councillor Jeremy and bash West Bank reward good evening everyone.
Councillor corner.
Councillor Bonner, Matthew corner up from 9 m forward,
Councillor Graham, please.
present.
Councillor Grimston Malcolm Grimston, independent Councillor, West Hill work.
Councillor hedges, Councillor Lindsay hedges from Balham ward good evening.
Councillor Henderson
Councillor Councillor hens and form for in Hampton Ward good evening everyone.
Councillor Ireland.
Angela Ireland, West.
Councillor Jeffreys, Councillor James Jeffries, timescale ward
and Councillor lawless present.
so there are.

2 Minutes - 22 May 2024

no apologies received this evening, I'll move on to the next item first item this evening is the minutes of the meeting, can I ask, are they a correct record of the previous meeting?
Councillor Grimston, first caught my eye, thank you Chair, I don't get worked up about these things at all normally, but I have been misgendered in the minute and I'm not entirely sure why I've never ever given the slightest impression that I was a very them since the second paragraph on the I'm very kind for the very grateful for the kind comments I should say I don't want to be too churlish, but I'm not, are they he
and since this is specifically referring to an individual, not to the concept of an independent member, I'm really just quite interested as to why that sort of rather gratuitous misgendering is being carried out.
are you saying is not accurate and you want it correct, I would like to be corrected, but since how it arose in the first place.
I don't think there's any explanation, I've no idea.
it were, we would be trawling back into into our bureaucratic dregs of our bureaucratic system to discover the reason I'm afraid, but thank you for raising it and it will be corrected.
Councillor Graham, it's beyond supporting Councillor Grimston in his request for that to be corrected, there was a point about opposition members asking for a letter to explain the reasons for the decision, obviously.
the reason being that the articles of the constitution require reasons to be put forward for decisions at the point of decision that was not the case, that the previous Chair, there's very kind and recognising that that was not the case and said she would taken away we did ask for a letter from the relevant Members administration just to set out those reasons which was something that sheet undertaken to look into I haven't received such a letter will will one be forthcoming that's my question.
OK, I can't speak for the previous Chair, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking of me.
Councillor apps, yeah, I was contacted a few days ago by the previous Chair, who raised it with me, so I'm very happy to send a letter explaining our reasons, I'm grateful for that and I have no further issues with Minister market, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Graham

3 Declarations of Interests

so the next item is declaration of interest, does anybody have any pecuniary or registrable or non-racial registrable interests that they want to declare this evening?

4 Proposed Changes to the Constitution

that does not seem to be the case, so can I go in that case straight to the single item on the agenda this evening, which is the paper which is before us, I don't think I've missed anything out straight to the paper, can I ask which officer is OK can I ask Mr Choudhrie pleased to make the initial introduction to this paper?
thank you, Chair, my name is outrageous Choudhry, I'm the Councillor stressful of law and governance and the monitoring officer charities the relatively short report before you, there's a number of proposed changes to the constitutional arrangements for the council and I hope it's helpful for Members if I just introduce the proposed changes, the first change is,
a change to the arrangements for the use of the Common Seal of the council, which is in article 14 of the constitution, it is to facilitate the use of an electronic method force fixing the common seal rather than the physical arrangements add that relate to it there are some consequential changes to the standing orders later on in the report relating to that as well.
article 15 is also proposed to be changed in relation to the role and function of this committee to review the Constitution and the proposed changes are contained within the paper, but in essence, it is to remove the function of this committee to be the filter before amendments go to Council for
final approval and the proposal within that is that the function to review and scrutinise.
review and keep under review the CA Constitution be to arrest with the head of paid service and with the monitoring officer,
and the approval of any of those changes will, of course, remain with full council.
additionally, there is a a consequential change with regards to the function of the
finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the consequential changes to remove the Role of Finance, overview and scrutiny to review the standing orders and the procurement regulations.
originally, there's some changes to the way in which the council meetings are are governed going forward, if these changes are agreed.
the first of those is to ensure that a greater
level of notice is provided to enable answers to be formulated ahead of council meeting, so that suggestion in this report is to move from two days to 5 days notice for questions to Council.
second, changes to the line, the way in which petitions are presented at Full Council meetings and to align the response requirements with the petition scheme, which has also contained in the Constitution
the third change to regulate the scope of exercising a right of our clients to introduce a level of discretion for the mayor where the Mayor considers the matter has been adequately debated as to whether or not the right of reply should be exercised, fourth, is to change the way in which adjournments of debates an adjournment of council operates to bring that into line with the practice elsewhere. At current our current practices to allow a small debate within the context of the Council meeting, pursuant to a request to adjourn the council, the practice in most authorities is to
adjourn to have a provision to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the council without.
matters unrelated to the matter under discussion to be brought up.
5th is to change the support requirements for convening special meetings to move away from the current number of members that can requisition meeting the numbers will remain the same, but the Sir J proposed amendment is to require that support to be.
from more than one party
and then the final amendment of Standing orders is link to the amendments in relation to the use of the Common Seal and to move away from the
use exclusively of the fiscal seal, the changes are put before this Committee as a starter for wider changes, and these changes sit within the context of the Council's Co democracy review, that is, and that's been initiated from last year and and continues members will know that there was a peer review.
in at the start of last year and
subsequent to that, this committee sorry, the Council commissioned the centre for governance scrutiny to engage with members that engagement has happened and,
there is some proposals for that will come forward in due course within
with involvement of the centre of governance and scrutiny, to look at other changes to the Constitution, so that's forthcoming members, so what you had for you, other initial proposed changes to the Constitution, happy to take questions from her chair.
before I take questions Kanye, who can I ask you, as they run anyone from the majority party who US-UK?
yeah, you happy for me to to to present the case year, perfect Kate, good to see everybody and Councillor Sarah abs, and Member for Shaftesbury in Queenstown, and I'm also Chief Whip on the Council. This is my first time presenting a paper at this, or indeed any other council committee meeting, so I look forward to working with you all on the issues ahead, but I wanted to set out as a bit of a new be. I wanted to set out what some of my experience of being a newly elected Councillor which I know some of the people on majority and the minority party are, and some of my first experiences of being on this Council.
so so our Councillor GM, in 2022 was a perplexing, but joyous occasion when it brought in my colleague Councillor Amash, as the newly elected Mayor, and of course we were very pleased to hear from the new council leader and the leader of the opposition the following Full Council meeting was to me a complete mystery I was used to attending meetings on a regular basis so I took out my agenda.
and I've started ticking off the items as we went through but quickly became on stock, we have the minutes, fine mayor's announcements, fine declarations of interest, but by then a colleague was already on their feet, proposing to speak about an entirely different Matt matter just after the mayor's announcements.
so after 10 minutes, also we will back onto the agenda declarations of interests, ceiling of the documents, what on earth was that by the time we were on two matters brought forward which turned out to be a Council debate, I abandoned the agenda completely for then the whips, instructions which was much more informative but it did occur to me at that time that anybody else watching this would be entirely confused and would not have recourse to that guidance.
we have a range of unusual standing orders to be sprung out at the drop of a hat which are used more as political weapons and to get through and highlight Council business and to raise residents concerns in an effective and clear manner.
we want the business of the Council to be focused on one thing, delivering the best for the people of Wandsworth and, of course, as part of that, enabling effective scrutiny to supported.
here in this paper were making a modest start, we're aiming to create a culture which will allow discussion and agreement flourish.
as well as debate, and we're asking Council meetings to be slightly better functioning and more transparent, there's a lot more to do on both scores with petitions, we need to make sure that we deal consistently and in a timely way with petitions whether they arrive via a member of the public or via a member of the Council once they've been presented to the Council, we can then receive a swift response to them if they fall below the threshold for petitions requiring overview and scrutiny committee reports
on the app abolition of a German debates, this was one of the aspects of our Council business, which feels to me most antiquated and quirky, I was not at all surprised to hear from the centre scrutiny and governance that not only was this unusual but to them it was entirely unheard of I'm really pleased that we're moving forward and with our local issues debate which will replace in which will be on the agenda.
on questions to full Council. We are coming closer into line with the deadline set by other Councils for their questions, but actually looking south of the river river, you know Lamberth, asked for questions submitted 20 days in advance Bromley and Merton 10 days Bexley the rather more modest seven days in advance. We're altering from two working days to five working days, which is extol extremely generous and balances the needs of the opposition to that of the majority party. I suspect that one of the areas where opposition members may wish wish to have reassurances on making changes to the Constitution, which will involve them and their active participation and input into the changes being made we have. We are very lucky to have very well many qualified officers in this Council who've got experience with many other councils and they have seen task and finish groups and other arrangements work well, dare we say it, even perhaps better than our traditional but an increasingly uncommon GP committee arrangements. We'd like to open up a space for more nimble reform, with ongoing, rather than quarterly discussions and a chance for all of you, to all Members of this Committee and others to contribute to ideas at the start, rather than simply scrutinise that pretty much finalised paper.
to this mind, after discussions with our Chair, Councillor Osborne, and the Executive.
the Executive and I am proposing that we bring forward a task and finish group home questions. We actually at this point wanted to rub, propose further reforms to Council questions, but I was very reluctant to do so without getting a a range of views from you and others about how this could work, and we also want to look at whether or not we should consider other changes in parallel. How do we make sure that we're hearing about things that are of concern to residents and not just Councillors? How do we make sure that we're looking at the council across the piece and not just at full Council when we're thinking about how we make sure that we use questions for scrutiny
I'd suggest we make early progress on this and I know that the Chair is willing to take that forward in consultation with the Executive, I hope very much that that will increase confidence in these changes and help us to make progress in the way we make constitutional decisions as a council thanks very much.
Councillor Graham, thank you.
so Jew, just before we start, I did have an e-mail from the chief executive and which he said that Mr Evans will be setting out at this evening's meeting detail of what the Task and finish and next steps were anticipated to be.
is that the case
so.
thank you, Councillor Graham, I think we said that we will set out a bit more detail about what the CPS plans were in terms of their broad areas of investigation going forward, so the Chief execs said, Mr Evans, to provide an outline of the next stage of work at the meeting on Monday so could you I mean I think would be helpful to have that outline now and if it doesn't include a task and finish groups at least we know where we stand on that in terms of detail or lack of it.
the question yet.
yeah, nerves phone, thank you, Councillor Graham, so the CFT, as the paper indicates the CFD, yes, a partner who is on the first stage of the review and you've all seen the how put indeed its are appended to the paper and we've also commissioner now for to partner with us to support us in the second stage of the democracy review I think the the value they bring in terms of insight independence,
just knowledge of other areas and all the Council they were, we've I think, is absolutely invaluable and helps us re holding a mirror to ourselves as we as we go forward, and I think having a independent of independent voice going forward is important.
the they're very clear in the next steps that it is a you know effectively, a whole Council endeavour, they engage members in exploring and implementing ways to improve the way we take decisions.
and accountability and member empowerment. One resident engagement in in a council, so the CPS in their proposal will look at a key themes coming out of the first stage of the review, they will look at Scrutiny, Scrutiny arrangements, the purpose Committee's terms of reference, all the sort of detail you'd expect that they reference in their first stages and they have their first report that came forward to you. They'll want to look at Cabinet and what Executive and their decision-making and developing a model for that and looking at a kind of the way the Council works as well, and I want to work with
members and officers to gain ideas, input ideas through conversations, focus groups, but also, as we discussed about the the Task and finish type process we were talking about so, and I don't think I can give the absolute clarity of what that will will look like I think it's it really is a
to get the CPS kicked off on that work, for us to look at what that task and finish would look like for the Task and finish itself actually to to think about how that work moves forward, obviously with relevant input from the Executive.
OK can does that answer your question well in part, but but but not completely, so I mean I I Task and efficient finish Group ordinarily under both LDF LGA and CFA SDS, guidance has a constituent committee of a council to which it which it sets it up, sets up a terms sets up a membership, then it goes off and does it work, and then it comes back to that committee before anything else happens now. Is it envisaged that General purposes will be the Committee for these task and finish groups? If so, we'll be having another member of general pay another meeting a general purposes in order to set these groups up because we've talked about one being created so it is at least proposal is going to come to us given that Mr Choudhrie talked about removing the filter of this committee while we actually be following the CFT as an LGA guidance in having it come back to the constituent committee before it goes.
to full Council out of these are all things that are quite unclear, so it would be helpful to know what's envisaged when it if you read the paper just at first blush, it looks like some technical changes on constitutional change.
if, if you actually look at what might happen or what might be permitted to happen, it could lead to whole swathes of the Committee Halsway to the committee structure, that we have the rules, that we have everything else going straight to full Council without debate and being voted through without any line by line scrutiny now it sounds like that's not the intention of the Executive and I'm grateful that that that appears to have been indicated, but that is the quandary we're in, so it would be very helpful to have some understanding of what the next steps actually involved in detail.
okay is that?
Mr Choudhrie, you want to say that's, if I if I might start that and that at least Chair until Councillor Graham, I refer to paragraph 10 of the report where we set out the changing the arrangements for monitoring and reviewing of the operation of the constitution weren't mean that members won't be engaged in the development of the proposals for change.
yeah, the those reference to task and finish groups operating in other councils and the intent is for that to operate here, you've heard Councillor apps as they started to mentioned that the Executive intends to commissioned a Task and finish groups, so that will be the parent committee that the Task and finish and group will report to and the Executive as a committee just like every other committee of the Council and then that will report to it and if as part of that,
it's acknowledged in paragraph 10 that the membership of those groups will be in consultation with the Chair and will include membership of could include motor of this committee, as well as the political balance of the Council, so that's the intent and the initial Task and finish Group as Councillor apps has indicated will commence on the instruction of the Executive or I'm I'd rather concerned by that I know I'm gonna take Councillor Amber Hsu, who's had his hand up for a little while.
I'm glad we started talking about the centre of governance and scrutiny report because I think it was a really helpful report.
he has given an air analysis, but it is also fed back our own analysis, from the in-depth interviews with officers and with Councillors, and I think it gives us a very good bedrock of some quite thorny issues, a Chief Whip has said will need to take some time to chew through them but I think,
the paper is a good start, in some of the can are clearing up issues to do with how we might be more efficient.
as a Council, and I s support the recommendation strongly, I had one question to answer 4 Councillor.
but for Mr Choudhry, and that was when I was Mayor, I struggled with.
standing order 27 and 28 adjournment of debate, an adjournment of the council meeting.
the two rather different things I was briefed, I think, by Mr Choudhry what one led to a debate of a particular issue that was often unrelated, as the Chief Whip was saying, to whatever they was on the Council agenda and made the meeting very disjointed.
and the other was adjoining the Council to a future meeting, but on the first.
could Mr Choudhrie explain a bit how the pages 11 and 12 the bits in in the box?
how that changes the adjournment debate?
so that we somehow don't get into dealing with two two debates at the same time and and getting model, because I I, I found the changes that are suggested there as a non-legal person quite quite hard to understand.
just on a point of personal point of order I've just for I know this is an attempt to be helpful, I think I think it might be helpful for us to talk about the report in general and the C J C F G S work in general and the next steps in general before we then move on to each of the proposal because we have something to say on all of the proposed changes so probably taking those in turn later, and but dealing with the generals is now would be a better way to structure debate, otherwise we are going to end up going backwards and forwards and and have asked about your German debates to just to be clear. There's get an answer to the specific question on one on a German debates and I take your point, Councillor Greg,
so, Councillor Ambersham, yes, the current arrangements signed Standing order 27, the debate can be adjourned under Standing order, 28, the Council can be adjourned and reformer 27 is was rarely you certainly in the three years and I mean this Council only once I think Councillor Grimston, you are the only person that
rightly, when matters were reaching a point, that useful debate wasn't to was impossible, that you suggested a or a period of reflection of a of a minute or two to allow tempers to to quieten, so that was the intent behind Standing order 27,
standing order 28 is the the the motion, sorry, the the the Council procedure rule that is most relied upon to bring forward debates on matters that might not be related to the item under discussion.
and that is you know, as Councillor ABS that said, the practice in this Council, certainly as far as I have been able to establish through my own contacts amongst the monitoring officer group, the that I'm in and contact with as well as examining or a number of constitutions across London is unique, nevertheless both provisions exists in other councils and they do serve.
genuine purposes, so Standing order 27 to adjourn a debate it may be, as on the instance that Councillor Grimston raised it, it was necessary to take break, or it may be that a debate has gone as far as possible and there is an issue that needs to be clarified before the debate can can continue so it does have a purpose and that is why it exists and,
constitutions in all local authorities, that I am aware of Standing order 28, which is relating to adjourning the Council that, again, is a useful provision and in fact the necessary provision. There may be an emergency that we need to address the Council for all. Also simply, it's not possible to continue because, for example, there is a disturbance that is not possible to resolved during the course of of the council meeting, and so the changes that are proposed and paragraph 20 of this paper at page 11 and 12 are intended to align the practice of this Council with the practice elsewhere and to
and retain the useful function the adjournment motions serve.
thank you now, as I go forward, I'm going to prioritise general point.
that doesn't mean I'm going to rule out specific questions, but if possible, try and keep your remarks to begin with the general point and we're also going to prioritise people have not yet spoken, so if I may, I am going to take Councillor Grimston next.
thank you Chair, it's no spare with members of the fellow members of the travelling Road mafia, the and and I was, I think, first sour taste is congratulate the the administration and the officers for carrying out this initiative, which I think is already lead to some very useful things and also congratulate Councillor apps for presenting the paper if I might say so clearly and and and lucidly, but one of the recommendations clearly in the report was the Members should and and Lead Members should prepare should present reports more and I'm very glad to see and congratulate Councillor apps for for putting that into practice.
if I could just offer a few thoughts from the other end of the age timetable from Councillor absolute were there with the good due deference to my dear friend Councillor and we're the over there.
I'm probably the oldest, I'm the longest serving member here.
traditionally, I think once with has been known as being very good at service delivery, we tended to develop a set of services, look around for people to deliver them at and then delivered them at people quite effectively and we were always very good at getting top marks in the old comprehensive performance assessment will wipe felt that way before they turn off many people here what we weren't very good at though, was being proactive and noticing changes in the environment and responding to those changes as they developed, we developed a culture where scrutiny just looks at this cycles paper. The Leader's Group just looks at this cycles paper group meetings, as I remember them, tend to look at this cycles. Paper Executive doesn't look at anything at all, and occasionally in councils you get meetings, debates are on future looking, but of course that's neither the the place for detailed discussion of such things, nor indeed is the enough of them so result. I think we tended to be rather reactive, rather than proactive, we tended to be rather insular rather than outward looking, and I think the children's services issue was just a very clear example of where that took us the environment out. There was changing, we could have been doing peer work, we could have been talking to, as members officers always had a different culture, but the Members we could have been talking to other Councils, we did we, we set our stall against that and we got seriously caught out and we have failing children's services. One of the things that any Council would be most willing to deal with, so I hope that the the wider picture in all that we're doing through the report and how we take it forward, will be to me looking at how we change that away from being so focused on now and then and more focused on what's yet to come, and particularly what we can do about it that will help to shape the future in a way that will be to the benefit of all about residents and
I think if we lose one of the things that is using our collective wisdom as members, there was one moment just after the pandemic began when we had a collective Zoom meeting which most Councillors took part in, were completely out of the public. I completely out of party politics, we just shared what we were seeing in our wards was emerging as the pandemic emerged and the thing that always stuck in my mind, I think, was actually Councillor Dickie that just said one of the things we really worrying him or several children who didn't have computers at home and who were now not in school and were being very severely disadvantage. The cabinet member for education at the time took it up and ran with it, and what came out of that was a programme of local businesses donating computers which went directly into those homes. A superb idea that I mean
I guess any of us would say we should have thought of that, but it was getting together in that informal contexts where this very, very good idea that came out that then, on a cross-party benefit of basis, was brought forward to the very significant benefit of some very needy ones with residents. It's never happened since we have never had a similar thing where we just get together in a room with no real agenda where we can just throw ideas out where I can, we can bounce ideas off each other. I have to say, and this isn't meant a criticism of anybody, I've not had a single discussion and on being approach wants by any of the new champions on any of the areas, for example, just saying you know, you have been a Councillor for 30 odd years now, yeah, what's going on in your ward is there anything here of interest, and we don't have that culture there and I hope we will really focus as we go forward on how we unlock this
the experience that, as a group, we have right the way across the borough, inevitably, the Barry tends not to be equal politically, its nature of the nature of things that, as Members we are, we have.
10 tendrils into all of the areas of the borough, and I just don't think we use that to the at all at the moment, so it's creating the space where we can have a kind of discussion like we're having at the moment without the red light going on, and it's all having to be shut up very, very rapidly, and I think the concept of task and finish group is is going to be central to that. I hope it is where I, I'm I'm distressed, to hear that that's all going to be done by party political balance and everything because with the task and finish group which are so far away from policy, but they're not going to become party political, I would hope where simply The Best people than most interested people would get chosen, so I hope that's something we could look at, but just to then says I think I hope that sort of broad view will be the the the the the the prison through which we view any proposals either specific wants this evening, or any others going forward, is how do we open ourselves up, how do we make better use of our members, how do we get better use of spotting what's coming assets down the road and shaping it rather than waiting, as we did with children's services for us to hitters, and then facing all sorts of more difficult programmes in putting that right, and I would say one thing from that, I think is that as the as we try new ways of doing things, it's gonna be particularly important. Those members were centrally involved in how that might affect our constitution were how any changes may occur in the constitution and how we might shape things, having tried them out, to see whether they work or not. So in that not getting too much into the detail of particular items, but I I don't mind very, very strongly, as this is actually the moment when we should have be having more Member reflection of what the constitutional changes might be.
with all due respect to officers.
we are one of the things we tend to do as a Council, We do it in in in the induction programme is we kind of only get officers, views of what being a Member is like, and that's value and officers have a obviously the ED in a central role to play in what we're doing. But when you inherit yeah, being a member is not like what anybody who is not a member would think it was going to be until you actually started being a member and we're the only ones, I think, really who will know about it, and I don't want to exaggerate that, but we will have a special perspective on how these constitutional changes may affect the way we're doing things they may help, and I think to in effect write out that or bypass that towards going straight to full Council at this stage, in particular, in my view, would be a mistake, but I do say a full congratulations to to the administration. I think this is a really great move forward and I hope that we will all work together to get the best out of it.
still looking for those sort of general comments. Could I come to Councillor corner, please? Thank you are Councillor Osborne and thank you for the discussion so far on the paper and and for your presentation, Councillor apps, I think it's really important, as Councillor Graham alluded to, that, we do discuss this CFD, yes, report in in more detail and and with a focus specifically on that paper, before we go into making sweeping changes, we need to consider the themes of is report. I well I was really excited when I heard that this governance review is taking place. I have no doubt, even as a a member and at newly elected two years ago, that there can be
some changes that are made, but it does seem we put the cart before the horse in in this work we've got this report, we haven't considered the key themes about we haven't.
Kings Head meaningful consultation with the entire Council and, of course, as general purposes committee, we should be considering how the entire Council can be, can work better and, and we should be involving, and including colleagues who are not on this Committee in the discussions about how we can improve things. So I would urge Councillor Isabelle, and if I have you to facilitate wider debate on this paper, if that can't happen tonight than it does need to happen at some point. I very good OK, thank you, sir, well sorry, I finally finished I didn't I didn't mean to interrupt you, I thought you'd finished, I I thank you. I do have one question on on this, which is
can the
the centre for governance and scrutiny paper be considered as a separate item so we can reach those conclusions at the next meeting.
thank you for your question, I've got Councillor Ireland wanted to come in.
who can make if you've got a specific question, do it?
Mr Choudhry, yeah, I'll we have quantified the number average number of contracts and deeds that are sealed with a manual process so far I'd be hesitant to put a figure on it, Councillor Ireland, simply because the legal process of
executing the deeds and contracts will remain. What will change will be the carrying careering to and fro to to my office, where the seal is is is kept for for physical seal, to be placed in an the signatures to be place, but there will be some efficiency savings, certainly with that volume of contracts and deeds being processed every year. There will certainly be some some savings
very quickly, Councillor Ireland.
thank you, and you mentioned it's a resource, hungry, hungry and expensive process, you'll talking about the whole process, not just the seal feeling, yes, no Councillor on, I'm I'm talking about they are in the process of sealing if a contract is signed by two parties, the lawyers on both parties prepare their contracts, the first party attaches their seal and signature and then that is then forwarded to our lawyers who then check through that the see
execution on their side is proper than it comes to our administration admin team, who will.
as attach the the seal and then one of the authorised signatories of the council will need to be present in order to a test that the seal has been affixed to, so it's s literally witnessing and signing to save, that the seal has been attached, so it isn't the whole process, it is that execution that will improve if we have the electronic process.
you know what this might be, my fault, if you don't know how much it costs, how can you say it's expensive, I'm not trying to be flippant, honestly our would it might be, I don't understand what you're saying, it's a physical process, so Councillor I'll if I can describe it so at the moment we have basically documents being careered and posted in order for the physical seal to be attached.
we're an electronic process will simply be once aside has agreed the use service like Dokki side sign it, and then an e-mail comes across to the other side say we signed a new signing and I look a signature is is attached, so we've taken out the administration in that middle process.
several I'm going to, I'm going to come to you that there have been several instances where people have thrown up particular questions, I think about the discussion on the the democracy review process and so on, can I just ask Councillor apps to just answer some of those points and then I'll come back to those of you the I'm taken yet.
thanks very much I think there's been some really interesting points so far, and certainly you know good points to reflect on.
I was very interested in Councillor, Grimston proposition and the task and finish groups not be politically party political based, I think that is something that maybe we should work on, I think there's going to be a trust-building exercises, we get into this process and it may be something that develops.
I've also had very clearly the strong interest in the centre of scrutiny and governance, and I agree with Councillor corners proposition that we look at this later as a as a as a group of Councillors. We've been partly through that process. Each of the groups has had a discussion with Centre for scrutiny and governance reports being circulated. They are not here tonight, they will be here at later instances, so let's make sure that we make good time for that discussion in terms of this paper. It's it's a case of preparing the ground for the changes that we need to make. I would go so far as to saying GP Committee has not always been an exemplar Committee. Sometimes there's been more heat than light. I want to be very clear that what we want to see is more discussion, more consultation, more opportunities for Members input and Maureen opportunities for Members input at an earlier stage, and I think that is best achieved outside this committee. So that's why we're moving forward with this in this way, so absolutely will come back to you on the centre of scrutiny and governance, and let's make sure that happens. Thank you.
Councillor hedges.
thank you Chair, and thank you, Councillor apps, for that I just wanted to go back to paragraph 9, where we talk about the approval of changes for the constitution, going to rest with full council now I know Councillor Grimston talked about his history of being on the Council but sadly I only have a couple of years to talk about, but in those couple of years for Council the agenda has been pretty jam packed, so I guess the question here is if what you're proposing or what the C F G S is proposing in the document at the back.
significant changes to the Constitution, I reducing down committees from the current figure down to something like for which, again, just to reiterate, is significant, how how do you expect for Council to have to give us enough time to scrutinise and make proper decision-making on that, because it seems to me that,
this is going to be an impossible task.
but let's take a few more comments and I think we'll come back to some of that some of these points I think later on Councillor Henderson.
thank you for sorry.
thank you Chair,
sorry I punch, is I'm competing for a seat on my voice.
thank you Chair, first of all cause a.
I am extremely worried experience in in terms of committees constitutions.
and I have to say
I mean Selby ABSs experienced when she first became a Councillor was very similar to mine, I've never come across an organisation that operate why that was a prison, it is bizarre, completely totally bizarre, and is quite clear from the report on new house f g s so if we are complete and total outlines so it makes sense to change, it certainly makes sense to streamline things.
if we can't actually pause a structure which is far less adversarial than excellent
clearly, politics will always play a major role in any local authority, but the caste system particularly basically enquiries adverse comment, and so we should be looking at an opportunity to reduce that. We should be looking at opportunities for much more resource group by members members at an earliest each. I mean many of the reports that we can actually receive in Committee concern. Things are frankly but at 90% of the work is being done already
frees up when the Adult social Care Health Committee we have in the whole member reports.
I think Brook Kinnaman and in reality the Committee does actually have very much choice. They can make comments on some of the detail, but in reality they're not actually making any fundamental toys and as a consequence, the scrutiny is purely paceman. Frankly, doesn't all exists. The scrutiny committees are not genuine scrutiny committees. They certainly need me. So these initial changes, which I have to say I think are incredibly modest height, proper, probably would have come out of that. One, would have preferred to have gone a lot further. The issue constitutes or changes which are before moving at a brisk pity, I think
extremely modest. It was any others of some of the best-loved so procedures that exist in the debate on Council, whereby each element, it's company, raised it in the middle of any other debate on any item of business, but I am so the report from CFG's, certainly for the purposes of this committee, as being background, inflammation, setting the see what is going to happen in the future. I think Councillor absence, given the clear undertaking that there will be plenty of opportunity for all members to contribute to that debate and to how, as you recommendations contained CSG as are taken forward, if indeed at all, we may not agree with all of them, but that is very much for the future.
the constitutional changes was actually set for decision by this committee is technically Aesop recommendation, hello, I think, incredibly modest, and I think, a affirming towards them, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Geoffrey says, thank you Chair, and I just had a specific question if I made stranded the changes to the standing orders for adjournment debates.
one, and I think, most importantly, placing it under the discretion of the Chair to accept the motion.
I hope the administration will appreciate the concern that a relevant but challenging motion may not make it through on that basis, so I was wondering whether it be guidance perhaps agreed on a cross-party basis as to how that discretion should be used and I'm really not being flippant, but I think there is an important point there around protecting the interests of future minority parties in being able to raise of course related to Wandsworth council their ability to raise,
issues using that that vehicle.
Lawless.
thank you Chair.
like Councillor out, my second meeting was ahead of the heavily disrupted by by certain events that takes took place, I think it was read this tasteful as well and residents don't want to see that sort of stuff from their elected representative I agree with Councillor Henderson that I think this is a modest and could could definitely go further, so I want to ask why was any thought given to the reform of points of personal explanation?
OK, I'm going to, I think, take Councillor Graham and then I'm going to come to Mr Choudhry because I think there's a list of things that we need few answers on so Councillor Graham first though I'll now make the general reflections I was hoping to make at the beginning, but I suppose he's trying to seek clarity on what was proposed, I should state that, as the opposition, we are not opposed to changing the constitution or changing the standing orders for as long as I've been on this Council I have thought that the way to Standing orders are put together are highly confusing.
the language is arcane and there are definitely ways to do things better. We are not opposed to changes to the way Committees handled business or indeed, but those committees are there. Obviously, we want to see the detail of that. We do think there are advantages and strengths in the model that we've had, which is indeed why, if the opposition for so many years supported the structure that we had as the opposition, but fundamentally also, we recognise that Labour Councillors have a majority on this Council if they wish to change the procedures of this Council, regardless of whether we support that on OK, they are within their rights to do so. What we are within our rights to do, or should be, is discretionary as those changes, and to make sure that they are explained and to make sure that they are adequately debated, and this is where I have
severe concerns, which I unfortunately been deepened, but what I just heard so we've had a review by C F G es that was supposed to run in parallel to a working group set up from this committee that working group was never established. We now have a position where CFT es have brought forward a report. There are many things in that report that might be described, as you know, initial things to implement. For example, they talk about a quick fix to the overuse of Essex 83, a procedures which would involve changing the
cabinet responsibility, but that hasn't been brought forward. That's something that's in the report. They talk about the fact that the Leader is not regularly exposed to scrutiny and open accountability is difficult to identify. Well, that's something that might have been addressed, something we tried to address with the evidence session that we put down for our last special meeting. They talk about the fact that the way we deal with papers, which is something that happened under us, as well as as now, in which officers names, are to appear on papers and recommendations. There's confusion as to who owns them should be clearly owned by members of the Executive. That's something that could have been implemented, in fact, that something could be implemented without even needing to come to this committee. None of those things have happened. Instead, this report sets out a series of changes that do not follow from what CFD yes have recommended have not been discussed with CF, GSS and many of which run contrary to see SDS and LGA guidance, and they absolutely do and we will take you through that when we get on to the proposals in turn, and I can quote exactly how that is the case, furthermore, we need to look, why do we have a constitution, yeah what's it? Therefore, it's there to prevent the abuse of power and it's there to provide structures whereby the Executive can be held to account and whatever you may think of how the Conservative administrations of the past went about its business, we will always made sure that we could be held to account and opposition Members had the rights and ability to do so. What we now see is a situation in which completely, contrary to what the C F G S paper on how to review Constitution says Task and finish groups will be set up under the parent committee of the Executive. The Executive is the power the Executive as a Committee on which no opposition or backbench members sit now. The Constitution is owned by all of us as Councillors. It is completely inappropriate for that Committee to beat the filter on how the rules of the game that he has to follow are changed. It's like saying that we're going to revise things in the House of Commons, and, instead of having public bill, committees were given to a subcommittee of the cabinet that is the abuse of the separation of powers that you would put forward if you allow that to happen, it is completely contrary to guidance. The Executive would dictate the terms the best task and finish groups. It would dictate the membership of the task and finish groups and it would suck say whether they had succeeded or failed without any wider input, all line by line scrutiny by an actual Committee of this Council utterly. Contrary to what C F G S recommend, we felt that CFDs should be here tonight to answer questions on a report. I can tell you that if they were here, there would be horrified by that proposal. It is fundamentally dangerous now I don't know if this is happen deliberately or by accident, but in effect we are debating proposals for this to be the last ever meaningful meeting of this, Committee, despite the fact that we're scheduled lots of meetings this year, and we should, supposedly in order for us to deal with these issues, instead of which that's going to be handed over to the Executive, the very body that it should not be handed to
the very body that the Constitution is supposed to protect us against and not allow them to have untrammelled power if we put forward this change to article 15.0 3 not not the bit about whose technically in charge of the review, but the fact that changes to the Constitution have to come back to this Committee first and we don't replace it with anything else we are allowing the Executive to be an elected dictatorship is that simple now?
Councillor app, so so we can rely on her goodwill the whole point about setting rules for those in power is that you don't allow it to be on the basis of goodwill, will you make sure that the rules ensure that they have to do what is right and proper this is a profoundly dangerous approach, whether or not that's the intention and,
yes, you have the votes you can potentially push this through against all of the guidance of the groups that use supposedly say we should listen to you,
praising CFT, SDF, GSC, don't do this, but if you want to ignore them and do this, which would make us a total outlier, by the way.
if you look at the rules for changing the constitution, not only to CFDs, say that it should come back to a committee, but you look at every borough surrounding us, could I checked all of their constitutions, Lambeth, Hammersmith and Fulham Merton all of them require constitutional changes to come back to a committee of the Council irregular Committee, not their Executive, before they go forwards, even Richmond, which has a committee system. So is very different because you can't just change, make the same sweeping changes. They still have a subgroup set up to deal with line-by-line scrutiny. C F G, essay that should scrutiny should be there. It may not be the intention but cannot push this ruinous way without totally abusing our powers and allowing others that come down the line to abuse them. You are setting up a position whereby it as he as we know, elections can change in 2026. You could have an incoming administration if you lost or 2030, which at the first meeting the Council. Every single Committee has changed. Every part of the system has changed.
all of the cabinet responsibilities and delegated powers are changed, and he would have no ability other than one vote in that meeting, to do anything about it, it is profoundly dangerous, I do not understand why this has been brought forward in this way and dropped on us without any consultation.
thank you, Councillor Graham, there was some specific questions there for Mr Choudhry to answer.
thank you Chair so.
if I as the the the broad question that
Councillor Graham put forward as to how this this Council would be an outlier of made, the changes are proposed in this paper, I disagree with him, I too, have gone through a number of constitutions and
what I've done rather than focusing specifically around the area of this Council, I've looked at 6.00 authorities across London, from North or South as to where some a couple in the middle, so I've looked at her Harrow Bexley, Havering Kingston Islington and Kensington and the arrangements vary.
for Members benefit in Harrow for example the
provision that they make for reviewing the Constitution is that it rests with the monitoring officer, who can propose changes, having consulted with the leaders of the political groups, and take a report straight to council.
in Bexley, the duty to now rests with the Chief Executive, in consultation with the monitoring of Officer and approval, still rests with Council Havering the arrangements there give me a moment, sorry, I've scroll past.
there is a
limited power, a review for the monitoring officer, but substantive changes sit well for approval by a governance committee before it goes on to council, and I could go on, but I want to have, rather than list that for for Members' benefit, the suggestion that it is the executive who can make these changes.
without involvement. I'm afraid, misses a key point, which is that the responsibility to agree any changes to the Constitution, substantive changes to the Constitution will still rest with council, so that's a or or or a short response to Councillor Graham point as to whether, politically, at something that is is desirable, I'll leave to members to debate rather than contribute. A couple of other questions were posed from Councillor Jeffreys. Regarding the a German motions in the discretion of the Mayor, I hope Councillor Jeffreys is helpful if I just clarify what the proposal is a proposal, is that the motion to adjourn so standing all the 28 that will simply become a procedural adornment emotion, so if the council needs to adjourn, for example, there's an emergency business can't be conducted, et cetera, and the mayor will still retain a discretion in case that motion is abused so a member routinely stares up to.
look to adjourn without without because what there will be in place of what the current arrangements are for discussing matters that are not related to the matter under discussion is the new Standing order 39, which is the matters of local interest.
which will be dealt with by the issue being served.
on notice to the chief executive and added to the agenda at an appropriate point, there will be the right of the Mayor.
I on taking advice from the Chief Executive to reject a request under that it is simply a lift and shift of our provision for motions. So in the same way they've emotion on notice is inappropriate or not in accordance with Standing orders, and it would be would be rejected, is rarely if ever used in practice, because the Mayor is there to a oversee the the the proceedings rather than Co comments from the details, and then Councillor lawless asked a question around as to why was a personal explanation were not included? I suspect that'll be could be a matter for discussion for the next task and finish group
I we've had a good general discussion for about 45 minutes, what I'm going to come to you, Councillor Graham, so that you can you're indicating you want to make a quick point and we are going to allow that, but can I also ask you to move the debate towards the decision as well in in the insane with and then I'll I'll go go back to the people who were to
okay, just actually Councillor hedges was your question or a rhetorical one, though.
OK we can we can answer it, apparently, so that that's I forgive me, I thought it was a rhetorical question.
so Councillor Councillor Graham first, and then we will be moving towards a decision. Okay, I, I'm happy for us to move towards discussion of the individual proposals and look at them in terms of vote on a matter and one that I think, sensible yeah, I just I just wanted to come back on what Mr charges saying. As the monitoring officer. There are two parts to the proposed changes to article 15. The first is about who formally has a duty to review the Constitution, and I completely accept that that is often the monitoring officer in other authorities and we're not necessarily opposed to that formally resting with the monitoring officer. The point is not that the point is the part of the bottom. Changes to the constitution must be approved by the Full Council and we're deleting the words only after consideration of the proposal by the General purposes Committee were removing, in his words, the filter
that is not the case in other authorities, there is not the case in in most of the ones he was describing even now and I have yet to check but officers described Richmond as having no review function when I look they did have one.
removing that filter is what is so dangerous and giving the power that filter to the Executive, at least officers, should admit that that is utterly contrary to what C F G S guidance states should be, the case will be at least accept that CF GSS says absolutely in no circumstances should that filter role which they also say must exist be given to the Executive.
I'd like to go to Councillor apps and then we really must move towards a decision. I think Councillor apps, you're going to answer the point from Councillor hedges, is that correct? Yeah yeah, absolutely, and also brings in the points by Councillor Graham and it's been really interesting hearing the points we don't dismiss them at all, but we think we're kind of we need to me. We need to hear the the arguments back because I think there might be a case of missing the point where what we're creating here is, rather than having the opportunity as an opposition, to be voted down in GP
committee were given the opportunity to co-produce proposals, giving a strengthening hand. The fact is, is the enrichment and many other councils there are informal arrangements were not talking about not having arrangements were talking about making changing them so that they're in a less formal setting, which we think to be frank given, as I said earlier, the less more heat than light. We think it would be good to have proper, constructive, positive discussions rather than create an adversarial position, and we also want to be more nimble and five foot and to be able to make fast progress because we have. We want to make some changes with Centre for scrutiny and governance in good time as well, and so my my point to Councillor hedges would be that of course any opposition party can can object proposals in full Council, they can bring questions, they can have debates, they can vote against just as you can in GP, but we hope that you won't want to if you've been part of co producing those proposals, so we look forward to debating these things more. I also wanted to come on to the point of Pope, which is terrible, to use acronyms
on a point of personal explanation, I agree with Councillor lawless, these don't work well at the moment, in many cases we really undernoted about this, but we did feel it needed further consultation with members to make sure that if we adjust so we do so in a way that is suitable for the rest of the constitution and which makes sure that it mirrors other aspects of the constitution.
sometimes they're necessary, you know clear, we don't want members to be slandered, so that's important to make sure that doesn't happen, but sometimes they're raised and relatively trivial cases and sometimes they raised in a disruptive way and we want to find a way to manage that better so that they keep the flow of the debate in full council going so that will be an important change to thank you OK, I'm not trying to give it three things I want to move to a vote on the paper now.
to discuss each proposal into due had OK. Do you have amendments to the paper, but we do get out, we have we have technical points we wish to raise under each, so I think if we just take each heading in turn, some of that we can be very quick on other things will want to just to to ask potential questions about the technical import of them, and we can then bring the amendments up as they go. So if we just take protected article 14, just each of these headers just use up just how many are there altogether, what their as many as have been put in the paper, OK, so each what each element of the paper, some of the right to prolong your promising me, some of them are very quick. I yes go on then
very quick.
OK well, if we're taking changes to article 14 first, we don't have any objections to this, so we are quite happy to vote for that to be accepted.
I think, restructured sorry, are you proposing that we do we take the
the paper in parts is that what you're saying precisely what I'm discussing, because I think otherwise we'll get very confused and we will try not to abuse, is to prolong debate on necessarily we just wish this debate each of the proposed changes in term which is the function of this committee unless it is removed OK can I let me take the mood of the meeting I mean, do we want to take it in part, so I'm quite I'm happy to do that if we want
OK, Councillor Lawless.
I can understand what Councillor Graham saying, but I do think we have debate a large part of this paper already.
yeah
I was, I was expected, forgive me, I was expecting you to move amendments to the paper that's that's the only thing, but you're saying you want to vote on every section of it I will do wish to vote on each of these proposed no amendment, Dudley, we have three amendments that we wish to make in some cases we may move an amendment depending on what is said or it may be unnecessary depending on what is said we may be draw some all right, but we do wish to discuss at each of these proposals interim, which is what we had to do.
okay, I think
I mean, my instinct is just to let you try and amend it, or I mean your amendment might be to say that you don't want to support a particular section of the of the paper, in which case tell us which PDG's you don't want to vote for and then that becomes an amendment. We have specific technical points which we wish to make under each of these proposed changes. I've, with the exception of a couple's like the first one, where we just agree and we can simply agreed. I think it would be very helpful just to allow us to make technical points and asked technical questions under each of these proposals. As I say, we can move straight to a vote on the proposed changes to article 14, set out at paragraph 6 to 8. Because we we agree with that. What's what's a technical point, what do you mean what there are some things about whether it will actually have the effect meant there are things, for example, about changing the date for submission of questions about what that will mean in practice in relation to group meetings and indeed ASC dates.
there are others about whether actually removing the powers of about the listed functions of from the Finance ASC would actually have that effect, which was irrelevant to how those functions as set out in terms of the LGA 2000. So there are various points where we we, some of them, are uncontroversial, someone entirely technical and we're just like an answer whether or not we get it will these last asked the question and on other points, we wish to raise very substantive concerns and and move amendments were appropriate, and it's just
if we do it by the structure of the headings, no-one gets confused and we can make some progress.
all right.
sorry, Councillor lawless, yes, thank you the on this paper, there is one recommendation.
so I think we should that the party opposite, should I ever make their amendment and we vote or we are sitting here discussing and voting on this one recommendation, this is a function of the way the papers have always been Britain for GP, but the practice will work well with the practice.
sorry, Councillor Graham, I've not good sorry, so what are you proposing Councillor roles, but I think the party opposite if they're going to suggest amendments, let's hear the amendments as putting to the vote and then let's move on yeah. Let's we'd like to turn to reach those proposals without votes, if it, if it is it move, is not to have votes and as we go and also technical questions we we did to set out to start that. We wanted to have a general discussion on their mooted. Yes, Councillor Graham, I've not called you hang on a second, I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to put the entire paper to a vote, okay, what I'm going to ask you to do if, if you can, is to suggest amendments to that paper, if you're saying that you've got no problem with our proposed changes to article 14, I don't understand why I need to take it in parts so that's going to go through on the nod, because you're not objecting to it, and there will be other sections are presumably in the same category, so what I'm going to do,
Hang on a second Councillor Grimston. What did you say? I just it seems to me I mean for one thing, I'd say this is an important paper years where we're going in the Council and its unfortunate if the attitude is well, we had an hour now, so we've got to that's almost the whole thing that we're trying to get away from the that the danger. I think he'll take it as one is that will simply get a 6 5 voter. I don't know how I'm going to vote at the moment, which is unnecessary when there are areas of the paperwork, the agreement which we can work, move forward on together, which in effect we can send a message back to Councillor absent. Their colleagues saying Don't worry about this bit, everybody's agreed with this. We don't need to look at this further rather than being almost forced into an oppositional picture, and there are several question I presume hope I'll get, but I'm not sure what the word group is used in paragraph 22 in a way that I don't really understand, and I want to be able to just clarify with the officers as to what that is just one example. I can ask that question now since I'm on if you like that, but just a general point, I think, for for the particular point we are at the moment, I don't see the harm in going through a paragraph by paragraph h, which is not unusual in this Council in many papers and it will happen, or at the very least it will mean the areas where there is unanimous agreement on this on this committee are very, very clear for all to see, and those can can move ahead very straightforwardly.
OK, Councillor Grimston is not paragraph by paragraph, that's not what you're proposing, is it, I think, proposal?
wide. I'm now independent, we've we've already, the opposition have already said the one doesn't need to be discussed by it's entirely in agreement, so whether that's paragraph paragraph, but I think we do need to have an opportunity. I think, with their specific points that I have not raised yet because I was talking generally, as you rightly suggested earlier, which I would like to be able to raise. We all do, and I don't see, I think, in terms of efficient business, but also the message that we want to move towards, which is as much consensus and agreement as possible. I think this might take us closer to that than just been forced into a single vote on the paper as he may or may not be amended
OK, I'm I'm just a bit thrown by the by the process, I confess.
look and I'm not trying to
tie everything down to one hour's discussion or anything of the kind, but although much as I would have liked to be in the case, of course, okay, what in that case, Councillor Grimston here's, what I propose, I'm going to go through and say I'm going to take each section that he is headed up. Proposed changes to
is that?
Councillor apps, could we make sure that any amendments that are related to those are taken at the same time please?
yes, OK, he's everyone happy with that way of proceeding alright, so I've got in the paper on the bundle of documents on page 7, I have proposed changes to article 14.
can I ask, is there any opposition to that that section that set of proposals in the paper?
so that section is agreed, okay.
agreed unanimously agreed, we then have proposed sorry, Mr Choudhrie, or the problem.
but problem chair can I just suggests that the link linked paragraphs from page 14 August paragraph 23, which is the arrangements for reporting the affixing of the seal to Council, is that also agrees, so we know that that part is dealt with OK, there are also there are concomitant paragraphs later in the document if we agree proposed changes to article 14 we agree the concomitant paragraphs later on OK.
all right, OK, so can I go to propose changes to article 15, or is is there any objection to that section, no, you?
okay, you have questions points to OK, can you go on then, who's making them Councillor corner?
thank you Chair, the first point I would wish to raise on this is that, as we have briefly discussed in the general discussion, that changes to the constitution must be approved by the Full Council, but there is no safeguard bear to ensure that there can be meaningful, detailed discussion at Council and we know there are other standing orders that allow for Council to be adjourned at.
and even guillotined, so, depending on where change proposed changes to the Constitution lie on the agenda, it might be that they essentially go through without many members really being aware of what was being proposed and without there being sufficient debate, so can we get a clear commitment,
from the administration that that will never happened in that, it will always be a substantive debate at full Council, ideally proposed changes would come to this committee, of course about that's certainly my possession and our position on this side of the table.
but if that wasn't happen, can we have that assurance? There will always be substantive CA discussion, at least at full Council yeah I don't think there's any suggestion that that wouldn't be the case and let's have admitted OK so in that on that is that it on proposed changes to article 15. So yes, I did make the point earlier that of course it is always open to the opposition to raise debates, to raise questions, to take forward issues on proposals and that they want to see debated, so that remains that remains something which is fully available to the opposition. But of course, as I said before, we hope that that's not something you'd want to do because you will have co-produce the proposals. Thank you
OK, very good car, Mr Choudhry, just to repeat members, paragraph 10 sets out the intent going forward, which is that monitoring and reviewing the operational constitution will engage members and the intent and referenced the arrangements that operate in other councils, so it should not happen that.
a substantive amendment to the constitution comes straight to Council, it would be highly unusual for each do so.
but where locally, subject to substantive and detailed discussion at all times, it comes forward at the Council meeting will or might to be covered in our guillotined on the north style.
basis, but are you think you've had an assurance that there will be a substantial debate, I mean, sometimes they are guilty and sometimes they're not, I mean we can't predict, you know how short of time people might be, so I I I think you have your assurance and it will be minuted okay.
next one, I've got is proposed changes to questions asked by members of the House as well, we handled I haven't made by point, I'll move my amendment on article 15 years so.
do have an amendment on article 50, what the point is that, as I said.
there isn't an assurance on task and finish groups here, that's just an assurance. What we're doing is removing all of the safeguards and then saying while we're have an assurance that there will be a task and finish group, but we've been informed that the task and finish groups will be determined by the Executive, it's like sort of a bank manager's writing to you to say what we're going to change the terms of your account and it will well know in theory allow the bank to withdrawal or your money and transfer it to the Bank itself, but don't worry because here's a letter saying that we don't intend to do that so that that's
you cannot remove say, Councillor Graham and then say what our intention is not to do this in the future. Councillor Graham, what is your amendment? Our amendment is simply because there is obviously confusion. I think there's even confusion amongst the administration Councillors themselves as to what this might allow them or what they intend, but what this might allow is to say, is to break this into two parts. They've changed a 15.0 1 about the head of paid service and the monitoring officer take that over
that we're not necessarily opposed to that, that's not a problem, it's 15.0 3 and our amendment would and Members have at its circulated in paragraph 1 New sub-paragraphs save that article 15.0 3, shall remain in force until an alternative procedure for scrutinising changes to the Constitution is considered by the General purposes Committee and approved by Full Council. It simply means that we want to see that mechanism and have confirmation of what that mechanism is before we get rid of the safeguard, because otherwise anything could happen and and, as I've said, what if we continue down this line without this amendment, we are running completely opposite to what the Centre for government scrutiny says should happen or a completely opposite, to what the LGA, thank so should happen and as a total our thank you. Thank you, Councillor Graham and J. You have a seconder for that amendment. OK, can we move to a vote on that, particularly that specific amendment, then all those in favour of the amendment, please
all those against.
we've got a record of that, the amendment falls, OK, can I move on to propose changes to Standing order 11, then please?
your question OK question is that obviously, set out in the LGA 2000 Overview and Scrutiny Committees can only have functions appropriate overview and scrutiny committees, they cannot have any others, so by removing these points from the the purview of the committee they're not actually removed because the Finance Committee is the fallback. The Committee for any overview and scrutiny functions and and areas and knock site another committee in practice it can't remove power from or an area from the Committee's remit because the Committee can only have remits appropriate to overview and scrutiny committees and anywhere are the onto site and come to the Finance Committee and in any case,
so is this we know on proposed changes to Part 3 Appendix B, or are we on proposed changes to Standing order 11 Ahtisaari Appendix B OK Part 3 Appendix B?
do you have a seconder for that? That's not in amendments, a question to see Coel due to say, how can this have any meaningful impact, given the owners are functions can't be reduced by virtue of standing orders they have to once they have by law you can't add to them, but hurry go on and on it, with the Finance has to fall back for reasons for the ones that aren't allocate.
Councillor Graham, I can say no more than what is contained in paragraph 11, it's to align that changes to out of 15 that the proposed changes made to the remit of the Finance Scrutiny have Finance who has see the role will still remained for finance ASC to,
through scrutinised policies relating to purchase of goods, services and materials and equipment, but notwithstanding orders and the procurement RHI, regulations, which form part of the constitution. That is the change proposed by changes to the awkward 15 that would suggest that the standing orders were currently unlawful because the overseas on by Maggie all jangle selling all no doubt, Councillor Graham, we don't want any legal aid to can't have. I haven't called you and we don't want a debate here, you've asked a question, you've had an answer, do you have made me from is legally do you have an amendment to that proposed? No, we don't have a member who just moved yet again, okay, you're going to vote against it or I'm very good. Can I put that to a vote, then the setts at the bottom of page 8 in the documents is it
it's.
I think it's yes, it is sorry, yeah, it is, you have got it, so all those in favour of deleting it is is that right.
you know, you're just going to vote against it.
okay, all those in favour of that paragraph.
all those against.
all right, thank you.
the other any abstentions, Yes, 0 and the there's a a nice abstention, their thanks very much OK, so can I move on to the proposed changes to questions Standing order 11 then?
what are you after here, is this a question?
OK.
I understand why that that that that the arguments for having a longer period of time.
for for questions to be considered and their responses written prior to the full Council meetings, but moving to a five day period from the current today period will, under our current timelines for committee cycles, mean that questions, some questions will have to be put that are relevant to a certain area before that Committee has met in that cycle so for example and,
one of the most affected committees will be the finance committee which, as we know, it has a huge remit and will very often, if not at all times.
on the current schedule meet after the questions have to be put, which means that there is an opportunity for scrutiny and questions will be put to the Council, which could have been dealt with at the committee. So can the administration rethink this and ensure that the timeline for questions will allow all Committees to meet prior to the key questions having to be submitted? Can I ask, are you proposing to vote this down or amend it, or what I'm asking that question? I would like the administration to reconsider Councillor up
yeah, I say this relates to amendment 2 of that you are proposing, so we can deal with that amendments straight after I answer this question.
so let's see how it goes with this new deadline. I think that's gonna be, it is, as I pointed out before, it's an extremely modest change compared to what most Councils do. It's absolutely on the balance of making sure that we give good time for the opposition, but also adequate time for the majority party. We need good answers to questions, not just good questions, and the current time limit is unreasonable. If I may say so, I mean we've got a lot to do in this Council, we've got important business to get done and we do not think it's a reasonable deadline.
I would also say that you have the important advantage that you've got supplementary questions, so you will have seen the papers you will no doubt have studied the papers in detail that are coming to have safe finance, you will know the areas that are of interest to you and you can bring forward further information that comes forward through your supplementary questions we do absolutely making undertaking to make sure that you've seen the papers and I'd also say I would add to that around constitutional proposals that are coming forward or will make best endeavour to make sure that you've seen all of the information that you'll need in order to make those decisions, so if we could move that,
I understand the point that's been made, I think it's been made now several times. We have had lots of conversations about questions if we could move to them moving. The amendment can I move to a vote on that section and you are wondering urgency amendment if it possible, because this is something that we resisted need when we were in charge. This isn't going to change that will give P Councillor Graham, can we ran on to allow Oval amendment? I want him introducing the amendment, because this is information that I obtained. Many members on the other side are aware of the may amount to as on the papers here, this is this. This proposal is something that was resisted when we're in charge, and we defended the rights of the opposition councillors to Labour councillors. That time to have the time adequate to them, instead of which now we have the ASC, is brought forward much closer to the annual Council. Thank you in the calendar and we will now have a situation where there is no ability for us to respond to that led to the annual Scrutiny letters move through all I haven't even introduced what I'm saying, all we are learning, and I think you had several times, actually the amendment, because of the haven't described the amendment. The amendment would allow that 5 days in circumstances where the ASC isn't meeting a week before, but where the ASC falls within the notice period, it was simply said it instead of being on the Wednesday morning, it would be on the Friday, which still gives you a substantially longer period than that OK. It was a perfectly reasonable OK, that's enough, thank you. Can I can I move to a vote on that? That's your amendment to is it then, in that case, all those in favour of the amendment?
is there a seconder for yeah, of course there is okay, all those in favour of amendment to.
all those against.
OK, it falls.
proposed changes to petitions, any objections, their question, a question very quickly to the question is simply.
to either Councillor acts of the monitoring officer does anything in this change prevent either opposition members referring stuffed committed through the Council's petition scheme or placing on the agendas of those committed to their rights as oversee members.
Mr Choudhry.
no, it doesn't, as paragraph 14 makes clear, it is simply aligns the process, so the current arrangements are very small. Petitions can representing the council that make are taken forward to 0 or cease its simply to ensure that those petitions also aligned with the process that exists in article 3 Annex A. So this is one of the Mr for MR one that I'm allowed to was
OJEU Councillor Graham, so can we can we move to a vote, then on proposed changes you asked a question, you've had an answer, I don't have to take you if I don't want to now now, then let's just take a vote on it, all those in favour of that section then proposed there's no amendment to this.
so all those.
is that does that mean we're in unanimously in favour of?
all those in favour.
all those against.
all those abstaining very good, thank you proposed change to the exercise of a right to reply, Standing order, 21, be if you've got any questions, objections to that anybody.
why did?
we've where there were things that could have been brought forward to this committee, the Executive, as instead decided to bring forward something that they do not mention that they still wish to review haven't reviewed and, just by pure coincidence, relates to powers that opposition councillors have tried to exercise and whether this is a change that flows from C F G S report or to change the PLO's flows from pure spite.
OK, is that OK, you want to answer that Councillor out, certainly our well?
we looked at this, I mean we could have just abolished entirely. That would have been perfectly within our rights, but actually we think it can have a useful part. However, I do not think it's appropriate for members to stand up and make points of reply when almost everyone except themselves does not wish them to do so and wants to hear other voices within the Council. So it's a matter of making sure that we manage debate and that debate has moved forward and we hear from a diverse number of councillors and that no single voices are allowed to dominate all those all those in favour of that proposal then
all those against.
thank you was there one abstention, I don't think there was no proposed changes to two motions of adjournment at the bottom of the documents, page 10
is there any objection to that, is there an objection or a question, or what Councillor corner very quickly thank each other's?
proposed change makes reference to.
topic of local interest being brought up, I do want to hear some detail about the guidance that mayors will receive about what is and isn't a matter of local interest. It seems to me that if a matter is of interest to anyone in the borough or any organisation that it might be defined this as local interest, will there be guidance on what is and isn't it a local interest in what the thresholds of for considering something to be local, national and international interests?
Choudhry
so Councillor corner on page 12, the new Standing order 39 is is set out. I can really say no more than what's contained within the first two lines of the new Standing order. The language used within that are our a mimic of the language, useful, unnoticed motion. So it is for Members to be able to demonstrate that it's an issue alive to they are all per the Ward, or it relates otherwise relates to the business of the Council. I am very hopeful that and if I can just come back very quickly to to add some absent colour to I'm saying on frequent occasions at this Council, topics related to foreign policy and things going on in other countries who has been proposed for debate, and it always been OK for people to argue well, look, it's happening in a for on the in in the international spare, but it is of interest to our communities locally
would a topic like that be considered a local concern or local matter, is that not been answered already, but let to your question, no agriculture's think it has, can we move to have a vote on that, please, on the proposed, but we need to know what a local Wilhelmsen is before we can vote on it where you've had an answer on that already I asked if there would be further guidance given to the Caribbean, some mayors
and how it will keep any any assurance that there will be at did you want to say something 0 sorry?
I was just going to proposed an amendment that here they just, it seems to be. Firstly, I'm not sure Ward, the Council is actually the right place for ward issues. We need to be careful that it is not a matter of saying Well, I've got a problem with the roundabout or potholes in August, as row can we get these sorted or not or where it is a matter, it's something in a ward that you think might be something that's happening elsewhere in the borough and raising it to colleagues' attention. I think that's that's a very different matter, but I wonder whether what we're really these things really more about matters of topical interest and of local interest, and whether it might be worth amending the title to matters of topical and it could be local or topical, but I prefer matters of topical interest and simply just to say draw the Council's attention to an issue that is live and topical or something of that or relating to business of the Council and the I'm not sure what the raising the ward specifically onto to 8, we're not excluding it and it kind of gives an impression. I'm not sure what it's, therefore, is not there for very parochial issues in our wards, is more there for things that might be of interest across the Borough. Understood very helpful is that an amendment Councillor Grimston
how would we phrase that amendment?
the sentence here is.
yes, it's it's 39.
yeah, you can help.
and we will alter it to topical and Local, local and topical local and topical matters of local and topical instrument, okay, we'll take that as it will take that as an amendment.
local or topical, can we take that as an amendment sorry, Councillor apps?
sorry.
right, so draw attention to the Council's attention to an issue that is live in their ward or a topical issue relating to the business of the Council, would that be?
appropriate acceptable and that'll do okay, all those in favour of that amendment, please.
all those against very borrowing points, and we have our own amendment, so we, you have your own, put amendments on what on on this item okay.
I say.
I'd actually had discuss this in advance for Councillor crimson was very much at the same opinion that he was, but I think we know what we are voting them here, what we're doing this instead of us at now? I I should preface this by saying, I think the German debate system we have is absolutely crazy. I think that the way that you can interrupt any other debate is crazy. We've kept and a German debate here that can still interrupt other debates, so it it's not even doing what did the Executive suggests that it wishes to lease, propose your amendment, what I'm setting out the concern and I'm setting out what the amendment is seeking to answer and address. So our concern is on the matters of local and topical interest, not only be reducing the time but now set of egg Cabinet Member haven't to know their brief and having to stand up on the spot and answer to anything that they could get challenged on, which was the case for all of our cabinet members for decades. They will have written notice and be able to read out a scripted response, but more to the point, when they read out that scripted response, they will not have to take a stance, they can sit back down and there will then be no vote, so there will be no way to hold the Executive to a position on those issues. It removes the vote and it gives advance notice and then on the A German, that there would still be a vote on that one, but it puts it entirely at the Mayor's discretion, which puts the mayor in a very invidious position because, whereas currently as possible to balance between the parties, the mayor would have to pick only one during a meeting, you tell us what the amendment actually is, please, Councillor, so the amendment is the amendment 3 in front of you. What it does is it does two things first of all on their Germans. It makes it and actually gem debate, exactly as a German debates occur elsewhere, there would come at the end of the meeting, couldn't interrupt business earlier and would be on the same lines, otherwise as the exactly the administration as set out, but that it would automate so that the same group couldn't have at 2.00 meetings in a row which would also allow the independent member to to make and a German debate if he so wished, whereas currently is excluded because one of the other factors here as it gives explicit power to the whips okay on all of these matters, so it's it allows the German to full at the end of the meeting after all other business and it prevents although other things that the thank you do you think I make Councillors Graham changes then then on the matters of of of local and topical interest. What is simply does is it removes the prior notice, it reinstates a vote and it makes sure that it comes at an appropriate juncture in the meeting,
okay now thinks that if we had more of guidance in advance, we might have been able to agree, I think you've made your point, thank you, so can I move to a vote on it then place all those.
all those in FE haven't had an IM mover and seconded 0 sorry, where is your seconder OK for very good, thank you.
this is this is your amendment 3, isn't it, yes, it is OK just checking all those in favour of the amendment please.
all those against all those abstaining.
all those abstaining, no, no abstentions, OK, very good.
can I
so you have the amended motion from we've got, we've had two amendments to amendments to the same thing.
firstly, succeeded, second, one fell yeah, so can I move to propose changes for requisitioning special committee meetings?
is this a question or a proposal where we haven't I do we didn't vote on the the?
the proposal as as amended,
the which proposal as amended previously, so we had an amendment, was accept over the memory I estate I say, and then we never indicated whether we support understood and forgive me, Mr Choudhrie was trying to point that out to me, so can I can I see,
all those in favour on the part of the proposal as amended.
all those against.
all those yesterday, the technically the amended proposal, as them in any abstentions, OK, so in that case is there a concomitant?
change
the consequent changes to it, which is part of your amendment, Councillor Graham, but I seem we were facing on that. At the same time, we're happy for that to happen, OK, so that was bound bound up with what we've just voted on good. Can I move to proposed changes to the requisitioning of special committee meetings? First of all, OK, Councillor Graham, then thank you. So this is a power that we have used once in the last two years. The only reason we used it was because the DHSC agenda was overloaded and we used it to allow full flexibility about when that meeting would have been held, rather than using our statutory call in powers that would've were forced to meeting far sooner. What we now seem to be have is that for a power that we have used very sparingly and reasonably, and where we didn't use the statutory powers, that would of course, far more inconvenience, this will now be removed from us and removed in a way that no other Council that I can find does, I'm not aware of a single Council that has this group restriction on who can call special meetings,
and more to the point, although the 72 Act is ambiguous on how councils and allow things to be put on agendas it, nevertheless in saying that every member has the right to base place something on the agenda and have it debated it effective, it's it's basically stating that if there is no time to debate something
asset, regular meeting that there should be provision made. Okay, I think this is a very, very strange, clean, clear response to the opposition using a power reasonably and sparingly and, and I would also like to ask Mr Choudhry what is to prevent the members of the Conservative Group reconstitution as two groups, one for Battersea and one for Putney, and Tooting and thereby meeting the qualifications or by ourselves because, as far as I can see in law there is nothing to prevent us doing it and that work and we could appoint a joint leader and joint spokesman exactly as coalitions do elsewhere.
so can a quick answer to that, Mr Choudhrie, since you've been named.
there is nothing
Councillor Graham, a group is two or more members who choose to constitute as a group, so yes, it is possible if that's the way, can you also excited as a further clout follow a pattern, is there anything to prevent opposition councillors, were the Labour Group to refuse to a centre a special meeting calling a special meeting of the Council for all 58 Councillors succumbing debate the same thing under our statutory,
yeah, there's nothing to prevent as a statutory power.
perhaps whether she really wishes to go through with this change, okay, because it's quite clear that we were not exceeding, can we move, wrote reasonably Stonehouse and 100 usually get rounded and aggression, Councillor Graham, can we move to a vote on it, then are you faults, can I thought this is the last occasion will ever get responses non-executive because Executive will be unable to Executive in future and then I was a regular Council can I just outside Lancaster the Grimston has the floor,
thanks.
just a couple of questions about para 22 and the comments around Standing orders pretty firstly, why is Standing Committee and Standards Committee being special doubt as big as separated out as being different from the other committees like the other Committees, it only has two political groups on it. It seems very strange if this is something to do with the fact that happens to be an independent member who of course he's not a group on it at this moment, it seemed slightly strange to write the Standing orders around the particular membership of the Committee at this moment in time, I found that confusing and also talking about members of groups in their does. This include, for example, the parent governors and the and the
religious governors on the Education of you and Standards, Committee, overview and scrutiny committee, and does it include the independent members Rodney independent member on the standards committee?
assume specific by maestro, since specific questions to Mr Choudhry.
so.
sorry.
so Councillor Grimston with regard to the children's committee and the IPI's on the standards committee, they are not for Members, they are able to participate, but they are not members of Council and therefore cannot form groups with regards to the Standards Committee, it is at least two members on that committee for more than one group, it is just so consistency amongst it's a smaller committed than other groups, that's all
OK can I move towards a smaller companies, sorry, sorry, Councillor Grimston, I'm sorry, I just didn't quite understand the the question that sorry is that specific 200, or is there something in the national legislation that says more than two groups because, as I say, we don't have to groups on the Standards Committee any more than we do on any other committee?
it's not.
sorry, Councillor Carter says now is not from any national guidance any more than the proposed change to other committees, requisition special meetings, all right can I move wording to the Standards Committee, which is precisely the same as all the other commissioner 200 political thank you. Thank you, Councillor Grimston, can I move to a vote then on this section 2, going to get a response from what you've who is last occasion we may ever get one. I want to move to a vote on it. I think it's time we've had we've had question and answer session time to move to a vote, all so this section are you objecting to it, then you don't have an amendment to it, do you are objecting to it? Yes, office, you, you want to vote on it in parts. In other words, OK, can I see everybody in favour of that section of the of the main paper
all those against.
OK, so it falls, so it goes through run.
so if I move to the very last of the proposals, correct me if I'm wrong with the last of the proposals, is about the common seal.
de can can I move straight to a vote, I've got questions and if we make I'm not necessarily against this, but I have questions are very quickly question, yes say, first of all it it doesn't just the paper doesn't actually state why this should be removed.
it may be an opportunity to update the arrangement for storage of the keys to the box, but why do we wish to remove this record from meetings of the Council, and why is it the case that we would not? Therefore I ensured that the same record is kept online or at least make a change to ensure that it was, I could potentially see that you remove it from the agenda as a standing item but to remove it altogether strikes me as a a diminution of the public's ability to see what's going on.
Mr Choudhry, yes at.
emission on my part, Councillor Graham, the record will certainly be kept and it will be made available to Members and the public, it would be entirely inappropriate for the record not to be maintained, okay, it is simply to remove the report receive receipt of the report at
that Council, which certainly in the three years I've been here, has never been considered all looked at Konye, can I move to a vote on that section? This comment on, can I just come back a week? Well, we have another example where were given an assurance, but there's no guarantee that anyone has to follow it. This is the problem with this whole malarkey. Now we are in a position where we Councillor Jones, Councillor Graham, on how guarantees and they're not going away to write it comes actually enough. Thank you very much. What can I move to a vote? Cynicism from the many section proposed changes on the common seal. Can I see all those in favour of this section, please
all those against.
OK, any abstentions no 0.
really proposals in the document.
I beg I'm going to suggest that we move to a vote on the document as a whole, having been through every section of it, all those in favour of the document as a whole.
including including the recommendations and the next steps and all the rest of it and the amendment yeah, or exactly all those in favour of the document as a whole.
all those against.
any abstentions, no okay, her thank you for that.
on a point of order, can I ask if the next meeting that, if the next meeting of the general purposes committee, we have several meetings scheduled this year, which we didn't previously on stand-alone nights, will we be meeting on those occasions?
thank you for your participation this evening meeting closed.