General Purposes Committee - Friday 4 October 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

General Purposes Committee
Friday, 4th October 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
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Okay. I'm Councillor Rex Osborne. I'm chair of this committee, the General
remotely. My plan this evening is I'm not going to go around and get everybody to introduce
themselves. What I'd like is every time somebody speaks for the first time in the committee meeting
if they then introduce themselves. I'm looking for ways of saving time in the process of the
meeting. I have apologies this evening from Councillor Hedges, unavoidably detained at work.
I understand that Councillor Ambasch, and I'd like it confirmed if possible, technically,
is observing in the ether, but perhaps not.
Not at the moment, but he is trying to do so, I think.
And we are expecting other people to join us remotely.
For example, from CFGS, the consultants, Mr. Parry and Mr. Mullen, and the author of the
report which is the subject of the second item on the agenda. Andrew Maughan will be
joining us remotely this evening as well. So we will have access to them and be
able to ask them questions and and deliberate with them. I have a
couple of things that I'd like to say before we start to discuss matters in
Ernest. One is that the outgoing chief executive, Mr Jackson, would have liked to have been
here but it has never been possible for him to attend this meeting. It has always been
on a date that he couldn't possibly make. So he's not here this evening. And while we're
on the subject of individual officers of the council, I'd remind members of the committee
that we are bound by rule 21d of the standing orders, which means that we have to be careful
what we say about individual officers in any of the discussions that are taking place tonight,
especially if we're discussing a paper which names individual officers. So we must take care,
and when necessary I will call on the officers to give us advice on what we can and cannot do
on those matters.
But the spirit of the discussion is
that it's perfectly all right in a general way
to have a proper discussion on, for example,
what might have happened in something
under the remit of the council,
as long as things are kept in a general
and careful and measured tone
as we go forward this evening.
So the first thing I'd like to ask more formally
this evening is we've got the minutes of the last meeting held on the 15th of

1 Minutes - 15 July 2024

July are the minutes agreed as a correct record agreed okay no I agree with them
as a correct record I'm just raising two matters which are better raised here
than anywhere else and it's an attempt to be helpful so and I did indeed do
this last time around relevant to the minutes of last occasion the first is
that about this time last year, you'll recall, and those members who were on will recall,
that there was a certain amount of discussion about the delay in the publication of the
annual record of members' allowances and expenses, which we were concerned had been delayed so
far as to have put the Council in breach of the law.
It was raised at that time that they would be published more expediently, and indeed,
It appears they have been because they are online on the council's website.
But that in turn raises the point that it was the previous practice, it was the practice
of the previous administration to bring that annual report to a meeting of general purposes
every July.
It was a routine matter for that report to be brought to the committee.
It has been published online and not brought to the committee.
So my first question is has a policy decision been taken not to bring that report to this
committee any longer.
OK, that's your first item.
Can I just, before we finish dealing with your first item,
can I just ask, as I said I would, that you would say who
you are and what you are.
Sorry, for anyone who needs that, my name is
Councillor Peter Graham.
I'm the opposition speaker for this committee and a war
councillor for Wandsworth Common.
OK, so there's a question on policy of
publishing allowances.
I'm not certain that anybody would have an answer to that this evening.
Are you happy to get a written reply on that?
Well, Mr. Choudry may be able to offer a response, but I think the point is that if this committee is no longer going to see that report,
that should be a decision that we take.
It shouldn't just, I mean, I'm not suggesting any malice.
As I say, it has been published, so this is an improvement to last year, but it's just we haven't got it.
Councillor Graham, I've got the message. I'm not accusing you of anything.
I'm just saying I'm not sure that it's possible for anyone to answer it this evening.
Is there... OK, yes, sorry.
Thank you, Chair. My name is Abduz Chaudhry. I'm the Councillor's monitoring officer.
Councillor Graham, with regards to policy, I'm not aware of any change in policy.
the practice had been to bring forward the allowances paper
as part of a report on future allowances,
current and future allowances,
if there's to be any changes at the minute.
There isn't a paper to bring forward.
When that paper, if a paper is to be brought forward,
it will be brought forward and the allowances paid out
will be referenced as part of that paper,
as has been the case in the previous years.
All right.
Your second point, Councilor Graham.
I will follow up other issues with that outside of this room.
That's jolly good, yeah.
Second point.
The second point, and again I'm not trying to create any trouble with this, but I did
raise at the last meeting was that the previous chair had undertaken to get an explanation
from Councillor Apps in relation to the decisions that were taken last May.
I raised at the last meeting, and indeed both you and Councillor Apps said that that explanation
would be sought, but that the message hadn't been conveyed at that point, which I'm perfectly
prepared to accept.
However, I still haven't and I don't think the committee has had had that explanation
and so I was wondering if it was going to be forthcoming.
Okay, Councillor Apps, you may be able to answer that.
Yeah, I'm Councillor Apps, I'm a member for Shaftesbury in Queenstown.
I was slightly surprised by that.
My undertaking was to share it with the opposition group and I shared it with your new whip on
the 5th of August.
Well, the...
One second, you have to ask the...
I would like to come back on that because...
Very quickly.
Well, so our group did indeed share a response that had been brought to him, and he responded
back, as I understand it, saying, first of all, pointing out that it didn't actually
answer the question, which was why and the reason for a different allocation from the
most proportional allocation having been adopted.
But I believe he also responded back to note that it needed to be shared with the committee and not with him.
That's what he told me, and certainly he conveyed back that it did not actually provide the reason which was being sought.
Council Graham, this toing and froing isn't really going to get us anywhere, I don't think.
And I take your point that you're not trying to cause any trouble or anything like that.
Well, I'm going to suggest that you take this up outside the meeting rather than take up time of the committee this evening.
That's fine, just for the benefit of those viewing this action, and slightly bewildered by what on earth we're going on about.
The point is that the committee is under a legal duty, as indeed are all committees of this council,
to provide the reasons for the decision at the point of decision.
I'm sure that's right, Councillor Graham, but I don't think we can, we're clearly not able to resolve it here this evening.
So, it needs to be taken up outside of the committee.
Okay, so let me go back to the minutes of the meeting.
They otherwise agreed as a formal record,
an accurate record of the previous meeting, agreed?
Very good.

2 Declarations of Interests

And then, do I have any declarations of interest,
including any pecuniary declarations from anybody?
No, none?
We bought our own suits.

3 Democracy Review (Paper No. 24-278)

If I can move on then to the first item on the agenda, which is headed up democracy review.
And I think I'm going to get an introduction from, is it from?
John?
Yes, I thought it was.
Yeah, John.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
and thank you committee. So the first item on your agenda here is an update on the next stage of the
democracy review. Members will recall the LGA's corporate peer challenge in 2023. It made some
clear recommendations about reviewing its governance model and processes to ensure
efficient decision making. Members will recall we commissioned the CFGS, Centre for Governance and
for the sort of recognized independent experts in this area to undertake a first review and
that review letter was brought to this committee in July and we referenced the fact that we
would be beginning the next stage of the work to actually implement the proposals that came
from the original review and we brought CFGS back on board to do that. This committee asked
a paper came to this committee with the CFGS in attendance to discuss about how that review
is going to be taken forward. So this paper sets that out, sets out a journey that the CFGS will
take. We're proposing and we want to make sure that cross -party work is a key part of the
work to take these proposals forward and this paper sets out a task and finish group based on
the membership of the general purposes meeting and we will keep that work off in the coming
weeks with an aim to get the first set of proposals agreed through the May Annual Council
next year. So I'll pause there and just to introduce we've got Ian Parry who many of
you will know from your interactions with the CFGS in the previous work and his colleague
Anthony Mullen as well. So I will happily take any questions and also Ian and Anthony as well.
Can I suggest that Mr Parry and Mr Mullen at least say hello if not some words of introduction about
the papers. Thank you very much indeed chair and good evening members of the committee. Yes, this
is not necessarily the implementation, it's the next phase in terms of how the
implementation should develop. So it's as before in a sense, we want to be as,
and the council wants to be should I say, as inclusive as possible and if anyone
feels that they've, you know, been overlooked or hasn't had their say or
wants something, wants to input in any way, we very much welcome that. So we need to set up some
sessions, some of those will be one -to -one, some of those will be kind of group focus group type
sessions where we look at what changes might be considered and why they might be considered.
And my colleague who's joining me, Anthony, is our research expert in the team and we want to,
provide some evidence as well for the committee to look at and for the focus groups sessions
that we hold so that we can see a kind of benchmark, if you like, of good practice based
on national guidance, based on research on what's happening in other councils and just
general good practice. So we can perhaps help to compare ourselves with, if you like, best
in class or what's happening elsewhere and hope that that might help to steer us and steer members
into looking at what are the best and most realistic options for improvement. Clearly,
we detected the will of the council, the majority of councillors to improve, to make changes. There
are great opportunities, we thought, in improving, giving greater input from members, greater
authority for members, great opportunities for members to be involved, to make things
more accountable and stronger, to be more open, transparent, democratic, agile, all
the good things that you'd expect in scrutiny and in good governance.
Very mindful of what the LGA report said and the fact, clear fact that the system has been around
now for 20 odd years and whilst you can make almost any system work, is it fit for the future?
Is the question, can it be improved? Is there a better model out there that would give you
more agile decision -making, more transparency,
more clarity about how decisions are made within the council,
and greater opportunities for members to be involved,
both in the accountability side of it,
but also in the strengthening of policy and decision -making.
So that's the kind of journey
that we hope we're going to take with you over the next few months.
We very much want this to be inclusive and joint working with members and hope
that we can reach consensus at the end of this. We're not looking to
impose anything, that's not our job, that's not what we're here for.
We have no rights to do that anyway but we do want to, as much as possible, see if
we can build a level of agreement about what the opportunities for change might be.
Thank you, Chairman.
Okay.
I'm going to invite the committee then – first of all, I should say that this is a paper
to note, but it has some substantial elements in it which will give rise to, for example,
a working group or task and finish group after this meeting and so on.
So we are noting something that will have results.
But if I invite members to ask questions of Mr. Parry or Mr. Mullen or Mr. Evans or anybody
else for that matter.
But also don't feel restricted questions.
You can make points as well in this committee.
I've got Councillor Graham first.
Thank you.
And I wanted to start by welcoming the tone of this paper and the nature of Mr. Parry's
introduction there.
I think that we were at unnecessary odds in July in our approach to this process.
I think that from the opposition's point of view, we are keen to participate in cross -party
working.
We will enter into that in good faith.
And we wish to try and make this work.
we recognize that we're probably not going to see
eye to eye on everything, but that's fine.
The point is to find those areas where we can agree,
and we will certainly attempt to do so
and be flexible in our engagement with that.
So we welcome this process, and for that reason
I will try not to rake over the bad blood
that may have existed previous to this.
Can I just start by asking for an undertaking,
given that the task and finish group be based on this committee's membership, an undertaking
that every member of this committee who wishes to be on the task and finish group will be.
I think we can give that undertaking, no problem whatsoever.
That is very helpful to have.
Perhaps Mr. Parry could help on this next point, which is obviously a task and finish
group, at least under CFGS guidance, has to have a parent committee.
Given that this task and finish group is based on the general purposes membership, going
to be chaired by the general purposes committee, would it be Mr. Perry's view that it should
be viewed as a task and finish group of the general purposes committee?
Can you, I mean, I can, I'm happy for Mr. Parry to answer that question.
I think it can also be answered from the chief whip side as well if necessary.
Should I take a few more, I mean, point noted, take a few more comments and we'll circle
back to answering some of your questions.
Is that okay?
Okay, because I want to bring in you.
I guarantee we will get back to it.
Can I just take some comments or questions from Councillor Ireland, please?
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for the report.
I'm very interested in hearing a bit more about public engagement
because I'd like to know more about how you get the widest range of residents involved in this,
particularly residents we don't often hear from
and who are more reliant on council services
than the ones we do hear from.
Do you understand what I mean?
Thank you.
Okay, oh, all right, yeah, Councillor Corner.
Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to join the colleagues
who've spoken already in welcoming this report
and the introduction there.
A note just on one of the pages of the report,
there's like a diagram of various touch points
that will take place under this project that's proposed
to include preparation sessions attended
by the Tyson Finish Group, a couple of workshops,
and a workshop for officers, which would not,
my understanding is, be attended by members
of the Tyson Finish Group, which we now know
will be members of this committee.
Could Mr. Parry just give an overview
of what his recommendation would be
for how those different activities
report to the task and finish grouping?
Can we, as a committee, come to an agreement
that the outputs from all of those activities
will be seen by the task and finish group,
and preferably the formal general purposes committee?
Thank you.
Councillor Apps, please.
Thank you.
So, Councillor Apps again from Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.
Yeah, just very interested in this work.
I'm really looking forward to the engagement.
I'm glad that we're looking to engage with officers as well as having the workshops based
on the GP committee.
I think we'll get enough say in this that it can then go on to the cabinet and to the full council
Which is indeed what we agreed last time. So I think that will be the route it will take
But I'd be very keen to hear more about how we might engage members with decisions earlier on in the process
At the moment, we've got a very much
What you call it an 11th hour sort of scrutiny process, which really doesn't give members much say
So I'd be interested to hear Mr. Parry's views on those.
Okay, I'm going to go over to Mr. Parry, but just on Councillor Graham's seeking some guarantees.
I mean, I think one of the issues, this is a question from me as chair, one of the issues
is the technical term parent committee and what the implications of that might be.
And I'm hoping that Mr. Perry will clear that up when I go to him in a second.
But my understanding is that the guarantee of the membership of this committee being the basis of the working group is fixed.
Even if it's parented, so the establishing committee is this committee,
even though it's parented by say the executive committee and reports to the executive committee.
But clarity on that would be fantastic, thank you.
So if I can hand over to Mr. Parry, if he could respond to some of the comments and
questions that have come from the committee so far.
Of course, thanks, Chair.
First of all, the way we see it is that we need a reference point of councillors, members,
where we can feed back to say, this is how far we've got, this is how we see it, what
you think, can we reflect, can we discuss before we move on. So it's that reference
point I think is important. So therefore we see the task and finish not being the group
that undertake the work but the group that hear the findings in that sense. So we would
like to feed back findings at each stage when we've completed the stage to come together
as the task and finish group rather than as a committee, as a single item if you like,
and discuss what the findings are and what we think might be a reasonable route forward.
I think there was two undertakings there. One is the reference point about having a
session with officers without members. It's just to take the widest sounding. So our job
is to do the inquiry, do the evidence gathering, make sense of it and bring it back to you
as a task of finish group and say we think our opinion looks like this and this is what
the evidence is telling us and this is what we suggest might be the next steps in that.
So it's just building that consensus as we go along really.
The other point, Chair, about engaging the public which I think is one of the most interesting
parts of this review and I think we need to be fairly open minded about it because it's
probably the most difficult bit as well and how do we meaningfully reach residents, give
them greater inclusion and access than perhaps they have now or feel they might have now,
allow them opportunities to participate reasonably where they can and not forgetting all the
the good points about how members are represented, how residents are represented, how they have full
access to members themselves at the moment. This is about giving a wider voice if you like,
and particularly those residents that perhaps don't have the access or resources to be heard.
They're the most difficult people to cater for often, but as we've seen in other places where
people have not been listened to properly, some tragic things can happen
and therefore to give that access, to give that voice is important. So this
might be an opportunity for innovation for Wandsworth for some level perhaps of
trialing and testing what might work, what might be appropriate, but we just
like to explore that. We're going to bring on board a couple of colleagues as well who
are experts in this field to help us to explore those opportunities. I think the other point
was really about working more upstream as members in scrutiny and what we found in the
initial review that we did was that it was very up close to the decision making in terms
scrutiny which gave little opportunity for it to have any value adding function. It was
very much a binary approval or not approved kind of approach rather than one which is
more constructive and one that was more helpful towards the council. So we wondered whether
a more select committee style of scrutiny would be more appropriate. But I just wanted
to explore that with council, with members and see how that might play out. What would
be the pros and cons of that? How would that work? So it's that kind of approach in terms
of setting up straw men, straw models and discussing them based on evidence, based on
findings based on discussions that we have with you and other members and
officers with the council. I think that's covered the questions you had,
Chair. Thank you, Mr. Parry. Can I go to Councillor Grimston saying who and what
you are. Well, for the purposes of this meeting, I'm Councillor Malcolm
Grimston, the independent Councillor for West Hill Ward in Putney Southfields
area. And like colleagues, I welcome the initiative. I think it's a good
initiative on behalf of the new administration, which I welcome.
I think while I'm a little bit clearer, and it came out of the discussions both from Mr.
Parry and from Councillor Apps, is that there are some ideas there of what we think needs
to be put right.
And the thing that's been particularly mentioned is the getting our experience of our wards
into the system earlier on with the hope that we're not being as reactive, I think, as we've
been as a council for some years.
But I wonder whether it might be helpful to just have a kind of maybe one -page source
document based on the LGA peer challenge, just setting out clearly what it is that we
think would be helpful for us to address as a council.
So a list of where we don't think things are working effectively in the way we have at
the moment.
Perhaps in there a sense of what improvement would look like.
And something in there about how we'll know if it's got better.
What are we actually going to be measuring in terms of performance management?
What are we actually going to be looking for in the outcomes of the Council to demonstrate
that we're moving in the right direction?
And I think some of those questions legitimately will be those for the task and finish group
when it gets going.
But I think some predate that.
I think some of those issues are kind of setting the agenda for the task and finish group.
So I wonder whether it might be possible to have that source document that we can all
agree with as a starting point before we get deeply into the task and finish group operations.
Okay, that's an interesting contribution and I'm keen that the detail of that is minuted
from this meeting.
Councillor Henderson.
Thank you, chair, Councillor Graham Henderson, Rohan.
First of all, I certainly welcome this.
It is much, much needed.
I think the OG are quite correct and I think even Mr. Parry recognized that current system
is to be polite, unique.
We do actually need to change this great opportunity to do so.
And particularly to create a system which certainly actually values members, gives them
the opportunity of a genuine scrutiny,
and as part of that, be less adversarial.
And very much in relation to that, Mr. Parry,
I think you've already touched upon one area
which you do see is potentially quite difficult,
that is public engagement.
But in order to build consensus
and hopefully to ensure good working practices,
I'm just wondering what you consider to be perhaps
some of the easier things that we can actually do,
hopefully agree on, if you'd like low hanging fruit.
So we can actually build momentum
in terms of taking this review forward.
Thank you.
Before I go back to Mr. Parry,
I'm gonna take Councillor Graham.
And can I say to Councillor Graham,
I'm hoping to move into a more conclusive mood
on this discussion, if we may.
Okay, I will note that I haven't as yet had a view from Mr. Parry on my point about parent
committees.
I just want to clarify the context here, because this came up in the context of the excellent
CFGS document, the review and redrafting of Constitution's guidance for English authorities,
which is indeed paid for by the government, and so it's a strongly authoritative document.
And I pointed out at the last meeting of this committee that it said that task and finish
groups should have a committee of the council as parent committee.
The monitoring officer at that time argued that because the executive was a committee
of the council, it would be appropriate for the executive to be the parent committee of
the task and finish group.
Now, I just want to note the same document from CFGS, this review document, says local
authority executives are not required to be politically balanced.
They are not committees of the council and are not subject to the same rules and laws of ordinary council committees.
So could Mr. Parry confirm, even if he doesn't want to touch on which committee should be the parent committee,
that it is CFGS's clear view that the executive should not be?
Can I take Councillor Corner first and then go to Mr. Parry?
Thank you, Chair. I don't think time scales for the completion of this work are actually
outlined in this report. Could Mr Parry, while he's here, just give us an indication, perhaps
from his experience with doing similar work with other councils, for how long this might
take to both produce the final recommendations and then also to embed them into business
as usual and evaluate the changes.
Councillor Apps?
I wonder what Mr. Parry thinks is going to be the most challenging aspects of taking
this work forward.
I'd be interested in his views on that.
Okay, that's another round of comments and questions, Mr. Parry.
I wonder if you could respond to those.
On Councillor Apps' point, I couldn't possibly comment. I don't know yet. But the question
about task and finish groups, if Wandsworth was operating in a cabinet or executive stroke
scrutiny model as it's normally applied, what would normally happen is the scrutiny committee,
which you do have in your constitution but tend not to call them that, would be the parent
committee. In this case you've got a general purposes committee as the parent committee
of a task and finish group and that's how I would see it. I'm not the, you know, your
monitoring officer may have a different view but the way I saw this working was that this
committee would operate as a task and finish group outside of its normal remit of meeting
as a committee. So the Tuscany Finish Group would meet as a Tuscany Finish Group and the
committee would meet as a committee as appropriate. And I think that fits. I can't see a problem
with that. But I'll pause just in case there is a response, Chair.
Yeah, Mr. Chair is the only other person referenced there. Has anybody else got a view? I'm happy
I'd like to take other, oh, Councillor Cawthon.
Only to say it does seem that based on that recommendation,
it seems like we can just reach a consensus
and agreement here as a committee
that the Tysin Finish Group is the membership
of this committee and that the parent committee
is the general purposes committee.
And that seems to me uncontroversial now.
Okay.
That's all I see, Chair.
That's how you see it, yes, thank you, Mr. Perry.
That's good, yeah.
And in timescale, I think that's a good point.
I think it does reference in your committee's report that we're aiming to get this back
to you or the whole thing completed in time for annual council next year.
So that if there are changes to your constitution that could be implemented then, ready for
the new municipal year.
There might be some things which go on beyond that which don't necessarily require constitutional
change but might take a little bit more time in terms of embedding them, such as the implementation
through perhaps some member development work and that sort of thing that might extend it.
But generally speaking I think the focus is try and get this completed by the end of this
municipal year.
Okay, did you want to add anything, Mr Choudry?
You were referenced a couple of times there.
No, Chair, the discussion has moved on from now.
Very good.
Okay, I think you have an answer there about the parenting of the task and finish group.
If not, then clearly we have something that we've got to reflect on there from Mr Parry.
I do have an answer, and I'm very grateful for that answer,
and that is indeed in line with what I hoped
would be the case.
I was just going to suggest that,
and we don't necessarily have to discuss it right now,
but I just wanted to suggest that in that case,
we slightly tweaked the recommendation
and replaced the words the next steps
in the recommendations with the words
establish a task and finish group,
because if we are the parent committee,
we ought to resolve to establish it.
So I think if we replace the words the next steps
with establish a task and finish group. That will be in keeping both with the paper and
the consensus that we now appear to have about who is in charge of the task and finish group.
Councillor Apps. I think it's pretty clear from the report
that the next steps are establishing a task and finish group, so we don't need to, but
thanks for the suggestion. Other committees where they're establishing
task and finish groups are resolving to do so, so it would be consistent. But if we've
got an understanding with the parent committee, we don't necessarily need to do that. I just
I think it would be neater to do so.
Yes, Councillor Graham, please don't jump in all the time like that.
I think we've got, as Councillor Corner says and Councillor Amps,
I think we do have a consensus, which is that this committee will be the parent committee, probably.
And that the next steps will include setting up a task and finish group, and that was always the case.
So, I don't think there's any danger that next steps will exclude the task and finish
group.
You just caveated your statement of it with the word probably.
If we remove the word probably, I'm happy with what the position we've reached.
I'm so English sometimes I speak in tentative all the time.
I had no intention of doing so.
So, this will be the task and finish group.
Okay.
Can I move then from there to the noting of the report and move on to the next item?
Is everyone happy with that?
Yes, okay, very good.
Thank you.
Do you require us to leave now?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Parry.
There is no requirement. If you're interested, you may hang on.
But there is no demand on you to do so. Same with Mr Mullen.
Thank you very much for your assistance this evening.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members.
Also, while I've got the microphone on, I should say I think we now have Councillor Ambasch listening in as well.
So welcome to Councillor Ambasch to this meeting.
He's somewhat indisposed this evening, but he has come on, joined us from the ether.
So if we move on to item two then, which is the discussion about the vote in Patnae during
the general election.

4 Election Count Review (Paper No. 24-279)

I'm not proposing to have the paper introduced.
I'm looking for speed this evening, if possible.
And I want, if possible, therefore, to go straight to the discussion of the report from
Mr Maughan to thank Mr Maughan for the report and say that I think all parties have welcomed
it and find it a useful report and a useful document for us to consider and base decisions
on. As you will know if you saw the press release about the report earlier in this
week, I am commending to the committee that we accept all the recommendations
in the report. So it's an excellent report, it's got good
recommendations which I'm hoping that we will consider positively and I'm going
to invite people to make comments about the report. I'm going to invite people to ask
questions of Mr. Maughan and if I can give my personal thanks to Mr. Maughan for the
excellence and quality of this report that has helped us out a lot as a council.
Councilor Graham.
Thank you.
I concur with your comments.
I also wanted, because members of the public won't be aware that we had a private informal
meeting some time ago in which we put various things onto the table amongst ourselves but
didn't put them out there.
One of the things this report says and which we raised at that meeting and I just wanted
to highlight it. It says there is no doubt that Mr. Smith is clearly extremely experienced
and highly competent. And as opposition councillors, and I'm sure we would join with the administration
ones in saying that although there have been failings, they in no way detract from Mr.
Smith. And we are reassured that he has been taking all of the steps necessary to address
them. And we want to put on record our personal confidence in him, despite the problems that
I also think we ought to put on record our gratitude
to Mr. Morn, who's undertaken this review at no cost
when he was under no obligation to do so,
and that is an act of public service
for which we should definitely express our thanks.
I, like you, agree with all of his recommendations.
I think colleagues of mine will pick up
some of the points within his report,
but we basically agree with everything he's had to say here.
What I did want to ask him was that there are obviously some areas outside the scope
of the terms he was given, what he was given to look into.
One of those would be electoral commission advice, and indeed this is something that
I raised at that previous informal meeting.
The electoral commission basically went from a position in which people were required to
do their sums on paper, and they could use a spreadsheet
as a backup to just saying, use a spreadsheet if you like,
and giving no further instruction
on what those spreadsheets should look like,
what best practice was for them, whether people should
independently verify them, what sort of structure
should be used.
It's just allowed people to switch to spreadsheets.
And we now have a situation in which, just within the SSA,
not only was there a spreadsheet error here,
under a different electoral services team,
there was a spreadsheet error in Richmond Park,
which was indeed only discovered because they went back
and looked after the mistake had been found here.
I suspect that up and down the country,
if actually spreadsheets were investigated,
there would be more errors still,
which simply aren't being seen
because they are only accessible to one or two people.
So I'd like to ask Mr. Maughan whether he thinks
that the Electoral Commission guidance on these matters is inadequate and that this
Council and possibly others should be pushing them to provide much better and tighter guidance
or just telling councils to go back to doing it on paper and using spreadsheets as a backup.
Thank you, Councillor Graham. I'll take some more comments. Councillor Lawless.
Thank you. I had a question for Mr Smith and I was going to ask on recommendation point
6, it says that during the count, officers should ensure they share figures with candidates
and agents at various stages. And Mr Smith will know me as an agent for one of our MPs
during some elections. And I would really like figures because I'm always chasing you
and like anyway for them. Do you know what that might look like and maybe what
that could be and how it might help the process?
Okay, Councillor Coroner. Thank you, Chair. My focus is not so much going to be on
the minutiae of what columns of a spreadsheet were or were not added up
correctly at three o 'clock in the morning, but more on the culture of the
and how these events were responded to.
Mr. Maughan says on page 24 of his report,
or rather page 14 of the report,
page 24 of the meeting pack,
that a press release should have accompanied
the original cons as press interest was,
in his view, inevitable,
while officers view was that they were overtaken by events,
which was presumably an explanation
for why this didn't happen.
There was never any press release from the council acknowledging what happened during the election count.
And there wasn't a press release on the subject as a whole until last week when the council issued a press release to say that an independent review had been commissioned and completed.
Is Mr. Morn's view that it would be prudent for the council to undertake a review of the
operations within the press office and communications department in terms of responding to these
events?
Because it seems to me that, and while I appreciate many of the offices won't be public relations
professionals that a public relations team would be, you know, would almost always advise
in this event or an event like this that information should be published as soon as possible so
that you get all the information out there and reduce the risk of reputational damage
to the Council.
Councilor Grimston.
Point of order.
I'm very welcoming of some of your innovations as chair, Councilor Osborne, but it's a time
on a practice in public meetings if you wish to avoid follow -up questions, to ask for groups
of questions in three or four to prevent those people then coming back.
It is not the custom or practice of this committee.
Could we not just have questions, answers, potential follow -ups and then move on to the
next question, as is the norm and has been our norm in every other committee's norm.
Well, actually, I'm in the chair.
I'm going to decide how I'm going to do it.
And what I'd like to do is to try and avoid a constant to -ing and fro -ing between two
people in a committee.
I quite like to get a group of comments.
And by the way, I have said one of my innovations is that I don't particularly want people to
ask questions.
I am very happy for people to make comments rather than ask questions so that they can
take part in a debate.
And I'm certainly going to go to Mr Maughan for a response to all these things, but I
would like to take a round of comments and questions first.
Thank you, Chair.
Just sort of following on from what Councillor Cornish just talked about.
I think we all know that whenever anything goes wrong, the crucial issue is how you deal
with it in the first few hours.
Because if you don't deal with the first few hours
and set a narrative out there, somebody else
is going to set a narrative out there,
and it need not necessarily be either as accurate
as the one you put out or as helpful as the one you put out.
So I think that I recognize this wasn't really a council
pigeon.
It was, in a sense, that it was the three
parliamentary constituencies.
Nonetheless, I think that at the point where something
went on the council website, I do find it extraordinary
At that point, nothing was put around to members.
And it did, you know, Councillor Graham with his normal eagle -eyed approach to these things,
was actually, if I can put it this way without being rude,
was given a bit of leeway to perhaps make more of it than would have been the case
had it been dealt with more clearly, more rapidly.
And so from a, you know, and it goes back from a reputational point of view for the Council,
I think there are issues there.
And just a little plea as well, there are more than two groups on the Council.
I recognize that we've had two comments today about how the chip would talk to the opposition
whip in the first paper that we talked about.
There's now a reference here that the opposition leader of the opposition should have been
contacted.
At any point, there may be extra groupings or individuals on the council.
And I think I found with this, we shouldn't exaggerate the effect this has had on the
public habit.
I don't think the public is engaged with this.
It certainly hasn't been mentioned to me since the first two or three days afterwards.
But nonetheless, we are often in the front line of people in our wards coming to us asking what's going on.
And if we don't know, then we're not in a position to put the council's position to do that.
So for me, that actually was probably the main issue that came out of it.
And the report is very, very good reading, and I absolutely concur with all the positive comments that have been made about it.
If I felt there was a weakness in there, I felt that this could have been driven a bit more clearly,
that the main lesson maybe from this is how we manage those first few minutes, first few hours,
of anything once we've recognised it's going wrong, so that we get on top of the agenda
rather than always having to respond to somebody else's agenda.
Councillor Apps.
I thought I'd be in the next round.
Mr. Maughan quite rightly pointed out the fact that there could be possible other problems
with elections, there could be problems with postal votes, there could be problems with
bringing the boxes back, there's all sorts of things that can go wrong.
And what I want to know is, are we doing a review of those?
And in that fact a continual review, it should be happening at every election before, during,
after.
And is there a risk register for elections where we're identifying possible risks and
making sure that we have got mitigations to prevent them.
Time to come to you again, Mr Maughan, I think.
I hope everyone can hear me quite clearly as I am contacting you from home.
I think I have to thank you firstly for the positive comments about the report.
I am more than happy to do it for you and to come and try and help, I think, and hopefully
I'm going to put some fresh eyes on it.
I've taken some notes of the questions.
There are a few of them there.
I think the first one was from Councillor Graham,
which was really around the advice
from the Electoral Commission.
I suspect Councillor Graham and members generally,
I suspect that the Electoral Commission
would never tell one not to use spreadsheets.
I'm not terribly technical myself,
but as far as I can see,
spreadsheets are really a series of calculations, a series of, if you like,
one could use a calculator. I think what they would tell you, and I think the
report says and suggests as well, is you don't rely entirely on them. I think it's
not a matter of not using them, it's a matter of entirely relying on them and
how you check them and how you use them on the night and how you question their
creation and how you validate that they're functioning before.
I suspect that is what the electoral commission would say,
something along those lines, rather than perhaps not use them
and go back to pen and paper.
I think best practice is always to have some sort of backup.
And it's something I've always used.
Probably perhaps I'm a slight technophobe,
but I always like to have my own sums in front of me
as well as relying on the computer,
albeit I have to admit the computer
is a heck of a lot faster.
And I'm pleased to have that there
to check my maths, frankly.
So I think it's a bit of both really,
but I don't think they'll ever,
it's not usually their style to be that dictatorial
on something like that.
I think it was Councillor Cornyn was asking about
the press release and a lot of PR team would do
and Councillor Grimson indicated similarly around, you know, the first few minutes, etc.
I said in the report, and I think it's important to say again, it's very easy to look at these
things sometimes with the benefit of hindsight. One can slip into that and become terribly wise
after the event and, you know, perhaps look like some sort of PR genius that one really isn't.
What I've said in the report, and I would say again now, however, is that it seems to me that when you discover it, there were two things at play here.
One was perhaps a slight overemphasis on the fact that technically this is a matter, you know, for the agents.
Technically, this is something for the candidates. And we'll go through that routine of telling them.
And I think that was a mistake.
And in addition, I think it was also,
as I said in the paper,
I think it was underestimated the amount of interest
that would be out there.
And it seems to me that one needs to go out very quickly
to all interested parties when something like this happens
and explain this as the council can.
And I use the word council advisedly
because effectively the media will just see this
as a council, as a bit of council business, they do, they never distinguish really between
the attorney officers and any sort of technical way to go out very fully, very clearly early
on and explain what had happened, reassure about other elections, because frankly, a
mistake like this doesn't tell you anything about what's happened elsewhere. It tells
you simply that a mistake was made on this evening, on this one election, on this one
poll say that but also say which was clearly the my experience of dealing with officers was clearly
that that that was their approach that they were going to openly look at this and clearly look at
it and have someone independent come in and ask the difficult questions and and say some probably
quite uncomfortable things in a report because that's how we're going to approach it and if you
can get that message out early as an authority it seems to me a good thing it seems to me a reassuring
and if people are worried, and I think most of the worries around, I've seen things in correspondence, was this a recount, etc., were misplaced, but they can be dealt with quickly and effectively.
In relation to Councillor App's question about other things going wrong, the risk registers, everything I've seen while I've been looking into this suggests that other things did not go wrong.
I mentioned in the report that the actual balance of the figures from the first to the
second stage, there was a differential of 14.
That tells me this was a very accurate count.
Ironically, given what happened, but it was an accurate count.
There was no indication of anything going wrong.
I let others comment on whether or not a risk register was kept, but I strongly suspect
one was because that is a fundamental request of the Electoral Commission in how you operate
elections these days.
I think I've tried my best to deal with everything.
I hope I have.
Okay.
So I've got Councillor Henderson next.
Your question wasn't answered.
You were asking a question of Mr Smith.
Yes, you were.
Okay, go on.
So, Councillor Lawless first.
So, Andrew Smith, Head of Electoral Services and Elections.
Thank you, Councillor Graham, for your kind words.
Thank you, Councillor Lawless, for your question.
Yeah, I mean, I think in some ways Mr Maughan is probably best placed to answer what he
meant by that recommendation about sharing details.
At the bare minimum, he would no doubt be talking about the verification overall of
the particular electoral area, so on a parliamentary basis, parliamentary constituency basis.
The verification statement is always available upon request.
And what yourself, you know, with your agent's hats on, and I know that Councillor Graham
has asked for this, and you may want more information than that, for example, a running
total of boxes as they're verified, frankly, that really feels like that would be a matter
for the future returning officer to decide.
And I guess one of the things I would say is whilst obviously I think, you know, people
that have seen the Council will accept that they are as transparent as we can make them,
what we wouldn't want to do is add any additional risk into our processes by overcomplicating
them.
But as I say, I think that is a matter for the next returning officer.
But we can obviously have that conversation and talk about the desire which I think all
sides would like, because I know it's helpful for yourselves.
And if it aids that transparency, but as I say, it's not really my gift to say yes or
no to that.
But I think it's a conversation that needs to be had, yeah.
Apologies for overlooking you, Councillor Lawless.
Councillor Henderson.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
As a Putney Councillor, I would just simply like to register on behalf of not only myself
but quite a number of other people.
Extreme disappointment that this situation should have arisen.
And of course the error was actually pointed out by the Putney Labour agent, Flo Anderson's
agent.
In terms of the publicity following the discovery, the chief executive certainly has said that
the issue wasn't actually handled that particularly well.
although Mr. Parry has pointed out,
you know, one can always have the benefit of hindsight.
What I actually find, I mean, I'm trying to endorse
all the recommendations that are quite necessary
in addressing what I think is a much more systemic problem,
which I think has existed for quite some time.
Spreadsheets have been used for very, very many years,
indeed, but I think this report is also very useful
in clarifying certain roles.
I mean, I must admit, as an elected member,
I would be very wary about getting involved
in questioning election results.
I mean, I suspect that if we did do that,
then we would be open to criticism.
So I think it is actually very useful that Mr. Parry is,
I think we have to address this issue.
Hopefully now we can establish a system which is considerably more robust and we can move
forward together on a constructive basis.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Henderson.
Councillor Graham.
Yes.
I mean, I think the AROs have their own professional reasons
for not wishing to be too rude about the Electoral Commission
in public.
I think between the lines, Mr. Maugham
was basically saying that the Electoral Commission guidance
could be better.
And I think that that's something, for those of us
who are not the AROs and are counselors,
I think we should be pushing for us to take this up.
Because really, this is there but for the grace of God,
just about every count in the country,
I think in terms of if we've discovered two areas here across two councils,
how many others are there where things are less well run and where they haven't been picked up on?
So I think that has to be something in addition to the recommendations.
I think it has to be something that this council does is push the electoral commission to come up with clearer guidance.
I wanted to ask Mr. Maughan another question that follows from that and follows from what
Councilor Lawless was talking about with Mr. Smith, which is that he had a line which the
only person who could have spotted this error was Mr. Smith himself.
And I think that's very telling.
However, even if we just endorsed these recommendations, it would still be the case that without information
being shared, as Councilor Smith is talking about, the only people who could spot an error
in the spreadsheet would be council officers and those administering the count.
And the point is that agents and counting agents should be able to independently scrutinize
and satisfy themselves of the accuracy of every part of the process.
Now, I mentioned this before to some people, but the members of the public listening weren't
to know.
I was in Peterborough for the election, and in Peterborough, first of all, in terms of
the ballot boxes and verification, I handed over my sheet with the list of ballot box
numbers and the electoral services team there very kindly filled in the verified total for
each one by pen and handed it back to me so I could make sure my spreadsheet was accurate.
And then again, we were given the table count figures for each of the tables so that had
there been any error on the spreadsheet that was being run centrally, I would have picked
it up based on my spreadsheet, the Labour Party team sitting on the other side of the
count menu would have picked it up based on their spreadsheet, and it wouldn't have happened.
So could Mr. Moore perhaps comment just about that transparency about providing all of the
figures to the counting agents so that they can check themselves and therefore everything
is transparent and everything can be scrutinized rather than some things being kept within
those running accounts and unable to be seen by those whose job it is to check it's being
done correctly?
Councillor Lawless, did you want to come back in on something? Were you signalling me? You
had a question. Go on then.
Cheers. So I was going to ask just for some clarification. So we know when the Labour
Party or the Labour agent got in touch with Mr Smith, can Mr Smith tell us at what point
in this process, and there's a timeline in point nine,
the report on page 22, 23.
At what point did the Conservative Party
get in touch with some questions?
And my second question, just for the benefit
of people watching, did any votes go missing?
Mr. Smith, yeah.
Okay, thank you.
So I, the timeline question was,
was, do you want me to repeat, when I heard from the labor
aides, is that what you're asking for clarification?
I think Councilor Graham and the conservative agent,
after we told the agents about it,
got in touch within a day or so.
I don't recall exactly, but pretty much once, obviously,
it was out anyway.
We'd contacted the agents.
They did get in touch after that, yeah.
What was the other point?
Sorry, I forgot.
No votes.
I mean, as Mr. Maughan has already explained, everything was properly counted and allocated.
It was just a formula error and failed to pick up on the declaration all the properly
counted votes.
I'm going to go back to Mr. Maughan, but I'd like to ask a question of Councillor Graham
first.
and it's a question which I'd like an answer from Mr. Maughan on as well.
Councillor Graham is eloquent on the subject of the Electoral Commission
and I'm looking at a way in which I can ensure that this committee will reinforce
the recommendations of Mr. Maughan's report and make sure that a marker is put down
about those recommendations with the Electoral Commission.
I'm thinking if we minute what you've said about the Electoral Commission carefully and
add that to a letter or something like that to the Electoral Commission, that will deal
with I think your concern about the Electoral Commission.
If you answer yes or no or something like that.
And also I'd like advice from Mr. Maughan whether that's a way of pursuing the Electoral
Commission item.
I think the idea of a letter is an excellent suggestion.
I can care with that. We thought about bringing amendments to try and push this point, but
we decided that on the grounds that amendments can sometimes be less than helpful to achieving
consensus, we wouldn't. So I'm grateful for that. I just want to also briefly come back on
Councillor Lawless's point about missing, because I think there's a slight semantics here.
There were votes missing from the totals. So votes were missing. They were missing from the
totals. They were not physically missing in the venue. That's a semantic debate.
Okay, go on, Councillor Lawless, yes, semantic debate.
Thank you, cheers.
So it's interesting that Councillor Graham says that because a Conservative Party press
release went out saying that votes had gone missing and as a result of their press release,
national news outlets ran stories that said that votes had been lost and that is like
from the Donald Trump playbook.
And I think what's transpired here by this timeline is clear that instead of asking for
the details and working out properly, they just fired off some press releases.
So one of those press releases also contained quotes from opposition councillors, which
helped fuel the story.
And I think one point of reflection, which I hope Councillor Graham will come towards,
is that maybe instead of firing the gun, you should have taken a step back, understood
some of the details behind it and then we wouldn't get into scare tactics with people.
Well, Councillor Osborne, I have to respond to that if you allow me to, given I've just
been accused of several things.
I was, let me think about that. I want to go to Mr Maughan first about the Electoral Commission.
Yes, thank you, Chair. I think there's two main things there. On the Electoral Commission,
I have myself written to the Electoral Commission in the past urging them to do certain things. So
I think it's an absolutely open door for the committee
if they feel appropriate to write to them
and suggest that, given their experience
or given the experience in Wandsworth with the election,
that you suggest that they look again at the guidance.
I'm sure they would absolutely welcome that.
As I said, I think how,
my biggest beef with all of this really frankly
is around the complexity of the underlying legislation
that means that different elections are dealt with
slightly different ways and it means that the Electoral Commission themselves have to issue
numerous different variations to honor theme and as I said my experience is they tend not to be
absolutely definitive as you must do it this way. So you have a situation and it's for you
as politicians to comment on this that you have numerous hundreds of authorities around the country
running elections in slightly different ways.
And I think that that is an interesting question
that could at some point be raised with them
as to whether or not they think this is, you know,
sensible or something that should be ongoing.
I think the other point was really around transparency.
And I think it's worth, if I may just,
I think the main point I'm making in the report is,
is about sharing figures more.
It's not a matter of ones with not being open,
but actually being more proactive in telling agents
that certain stages are finished,
that this is the numbers that we've got,
and this is how accurate it's been.
I think that's a transparency issue as much as anything.
I think the sort of, if I can use the old phrase,
armchair auditor sort of thing,
although none of you, of course, in those rooms
are in an armchair, you're running around
as exhausted as we are, but having other people
have an idea of figures is not a bad thing.
But the main point here, and the most significant thing here,
and I think the comparison to how we dealt with it
in Camden is absolutely stark,
is around the resource allocation,
is around the numbers of individuals
who are being asked to produce a result.
And it seemed to me that in the Putney election,
the Putney constituency, one individual was given that job.
And that would not be something I would have done at Camden,
nor something I have done over the last 20 years.
I think that is the most significant issue around resources
and around producing the result.
Sharing with agents and sharing with candidates,
I think is important,
but I think the resource allocation to elections going forward is more important.
Thank you.
OK.
I am hoping to move into a more conclusive mood again on this subject.
OK, but just a brief comeback from Councillor Gress.
I think it is merited in the circumstances.
What I did was write an email asking why on earth councillors had not been informed, including
Councilor Lawless hadn't been informed, and why there was no press release from the Council.
Now, if Councilor Lawless is worried about the impact that others putting out press releases
on something that the Council hasn't told the world about may have and how they've been
misinterpreted, it just reinforces the point that the Council leader could have insisted
on a press release, didn't, and actually the lack of a press release from the Council,
or even in the days afterwards, was one of the key reasons
that people were concerned.
Likewise, the fact that the council was not
responding on social media even left it
to the electoral commission to do so on their behalf.
This point has been made.
Thank you, Councillor Graham.
Can I move to the end of this debate then?
One technical question I have, which
I did raise with the monitoring officer beforehand.
Well, it's a legal.
Now, very quickly, a technical question.
I raised it both in the July meeting and also in the pre -meet.
I still haven't an answer on it.
The report is clear that the declaration itself cannot be changed, yet what actually happened
was that the way the results were changed online was that a new document declaring itself
as the official declaration of the count was put up.
The previous official declaration, which had been signed by the chief executive, was removed
from the website, and that is no longer in circulation.
Now, it seems to me, both in the report and my subsequent examination of this issue, that
actually that second document should in no way have replaced the first and that it shouldn't
have been called what it was.
Could we have confirmation that that was a legal mistake and that the original document
will be put back up along with a note to say that what the correct result should have been?
Mr. Choudry first, I think, on this.
Thank you, Councillor Graham.
Following our discussion yesterday, I looked carefully at the material that's produced
on the website.
There's three pieces of information.
There is a landing page which describes what the error was and immediately below details
the results that were as declared on the night.
At the bottom of that page there are three PDF documents that are provided, including
a PDF document that shows the declaration for the Putney count, which is the corrective
totals.
And then at the top of the page there is also a live link that takes the observer to a breakdown
of the figures relying on the corrected totals. What I undertake to do, Councillor Graham,
is that that PDF that appears at the bottom of that page should be the document relied
upon for the declaration on the evening. That should be the document that should be replaced.
But the information, both sets of information, are actually on the website, so I will ensure
that is replaced.
Okay, okay, okay, okay.
I do want to respond to this because it's an important point.
Councillor Graham, you're going to get change in clarification.
Well, hang on, Councillor Osbourne, you've got to allow...
No, no, it goes beyond that, Councillor Osbourne.
It goes beyond that, Councillor.
Councillor Aps first and then I'll come back to you.
It would be much easier to deal with issues and then move on.
It doesn't need to take that long.
Thank you. I want to say from our point of view,
It has been a disappointing episode but if with the work that has been put in and thanks
to Mr. Maughan for his report and thanks to the officers who have turned their attention
to trying to resolve these issues that we can look forward to safer and more secure
elections in future and that we will have a system which will be robust and resilient
and will actually hopefully identify issues before they happen.
So before we move on I just wanted to put that on record.
Thank you.
Now, Councillor Graham, you're going to get a change to the website and a clarification.
I can't see what else you might want there.
It is an important point because the way in which the results were initially changed online,
which not only were not flagged and not explained, were actually through an unlawful statement.
And that is not something, I'm not sure that's something that Mr Moore was actually informed
about, but that is in itself worrying that not only did it go unheralded, not only was
it no one in terms of the council members informed, but the very means, the document
by which it was used to do it was unlawful, replaced the statement that was the lawful
statement and indeed has been online until now despite me raising this in July.
So that is a concern.
Okay, but my understanding from Mr. Chaudry just now is that that would not be correct.
So, anyway, I'm not sure that we can get into a to and fro on whether it's connected.
It will be changed and it will be clarified.
And I think we, and I think you've got a guarantee on that and we need to move forward.
Can I make one, this is a statement but I think there might be some sympathy from it
on your side and I do think it's an important point.
Throughout this document that there is some reflection on the traditional role of the
the Wandsworth chief executive as the acting returning officer and the way in which that
role has been interpreted.
And it's not a criticism as such because that has been the convention here.
However, we are about to appoint a new chief executive, and I think what part of this is
leading to from Mr. Maughan is the view that actually that convention whereby the ARO is
very much, not that they're hands off, but that where they're being hands off, actually
they should be hands off because they have assured themselves that things are being done
right.
They've not just said, are things okay, had the response yes, and moved on.
And I think without trying to – and I suggest that our ARO as chief executive should be
interfering with the process or getting in the way or trying to manage the process as
such, I think there is a need highlighted by this report for a slightly more active
role for our ARO in which they assure themselves that things are being done correctly rather
than taking that on trust.
And I think, I hope that that's something that we can agree on as counselors and something
that we will convey to our new chief executive when appointed.
All right.
Just, yes, Counselor Lawless, actually, I think first.
I was just going to say, I think we have discussed this a lot.
Make the same point.
Mr Maughan's report will be compulsory reading required text for the new chief executive.
Has everyone agreed on that?
Yes, okay.
Mr Maughan, do you have any comments on that last point?
I think I said it already in the report.
I think for me elections have changed, they are changing.
Whilst the counts remain stubbornly traditional as a result of the legislative, you know,
I mentioned the moving of huge numbers of pieces of paper in the middle of the night
and one wonders about the reform of that.
Certainly the build up to the count and the demands on election staff have become greater and greater.
And I do ultimately think it is the returning officer's obligation to satisfy themselves completely,
that the resources have been allocated, that there is sufficient there, and that an election will be delivered.
And that's irrespective of the brilliance or otherwise of the election manager.
Those two things need to almost be separated in one's mind, I think, because, A, election managers sometimes become ill,
but B, we're all human.
So I think it's a key factor.
And the final point I'd make is ultimately, of course,
if a petition comes, a challenging election,
it comes against the returning officer.
Okay, thank you very much for that, Mr. Moore.
I'm going to move then to the final point on this paper,
which is first of all,
we're asked to note the independent review.
Does everyone agree that we note the independent review?
Thank you.
And we're also asked to accept the recommendations as set out in paragraph 10.
Does everyone accept the recommendations in paragraph 10?
In that case, I move on from the paper.
Is there anything I've forgotten?
No?
Okay.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Meeting closed.