General Purposes Committee - Wednesday 14 May 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

General Purposes Committee
Wednesday, 14th May 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Good evening, everybody.
This is a meeting of the Wandsworth General Purposes Committee meeting.
I am going to ask Councillors to introduce themselves and their ward, etc., when they
speak in a discussion.
with perhaps one exception, which is Councillor Ambash,
who you might like to introduce yourself now.
Councillor Jeremy Ambash, West Parkview Ward.
I feel singled out, Chair.
Yes, you are.
Chair, I've done something wrong.
I understand there are restrictions on what you can say tonight, so
I'm not going to invite you to introduce yourself when you speak.
I am Councillor Rex Osborne and I'm chair of the general purposes committee and I'm going to move straight to the
proceedings
and
on my
Agenda I
Have
Apologies first of all I think we have an apology for lateness and I have that confirmed, please
So, Councillor Matt Cornyn, I now move forward.
Jane Jeffries sends apologies for lateness.
Thank you, Councillor Cornyn.
We have officers present who, if they speak, will also introduce themselves during the
course of the meeting.
And my first item on the agenda, therefore, is the minutes of the last meeting, which
is 4th of February.
Can we record those as accurate?
Agreed?
Okay.
Are there any declarations of interest this evening?
Can anybody who has an interest declare it now, please?
Nobody?
Unless the fact that we all receive allowances through the allowance scheme should be deemed
interest but obviously that stands goes without goes as read. Yes as Councillors
we all receive something so that's that's that should be understood. I want
to just make a remark a verbal it's a verbal item informal I suppose at this
stage which is to say at the end of the meeting I will just quickly run through
I suppose for the benefit of the public and the record.
Those task and finish groups that we've had under the auspices of this committee.
And also the visits that we've had to other boroughs under the auspices of this committee.
I'm not going to go into detail, but at least I'm going to mention them.
And just in case anybody has a pressing need to say something about them at the end of the meeting.
That brings me to the first substantial item on the agenda, which is item 4,
proposed revisions to article 7 and consequential amendments to the members allowance scheme.
Could I ask Mr Chaudhry please to introduce the background to this?
Thank you, Chair. My name is Abduz Chadri. I'm the Director of Law and Governance and
author of this report for you.
It's a short report that proposes revisions to the Council's constitution, particularly
Article 7, to introduce Deputy Cabinet members who will assist Cabinet members in the delivery
of the agenda for change and there are some consequential changes to the
members allowance scheme because it's proposed that Deputy Cabinet members are
remunerated and that the current provision for policy champions is
removed from the scheme. So members, as I say, it's a short report. The
introduction is only a couple of paragraphs long so I don't propose to
read that out to you, but what I would draw your attention to is that despite the title
deputy cabinet member, the members appointed to those positions will not be members of
the executive. They are there to assist the executive. They have no role in attending
the meetings of the executive and certainly no role in deciding, making any decisions
that the executive needs to determine.
That's important because that distinction means
that they aren't restricted from having membership
of any overview and scrutiny committee
so that there is that separation,
so that they are able to take membership
if that is necessary.
However, the report sets out that the intent
is to ensure that there is a degree of separation that Deputy Cabinet members on specific projects
that they work upon or areas that are specific to a particular portfolio, they won't sit
on the overview and scrutiny committee that aligns to that.
Additionally, and this is an additional restriction on their appointment that's being proposed,
it's that they won't sit on the general overview and scrutiny committee which deals with call -in
requests as and when they arise. The appointments will be made by the leader as is the current
provision for policy champions. The proposed changes to the constitution members are set
out in paragraph 5 and for those that are following at home, the proposed changes are
set out in bold in the report and the deletions are struck out in that box paragraph.
The consequential changes to the members' allowance scheme will also take place if this
Committee recommends that to Council and Council next week approves it. Those changes are set
out in paragraph 6, members, and you'll see that the difference that there is between
the current provision for policy champions and the provision proposed for Deputy Cabinet
members is also set out there, and the difference is approximately £23 ,000. The legal implications
are set out in the subsequent paragraphs, but in broad terms, members, aside from specific
roles that are set out in the paragraphs quoted in paragraph 8, the reliance here is on the
final sub -paragraph, paragraph I, that members can be remunerated, additionally remunerated
for carrying out such other activities in relation to the discharge of the authorities'
functions as required a member an amount of time and effort equal or greater than it would
be required of them by any of the other activities mentioned above.
So it is a catchall provision that allows authorities to make specific provision that
is relevant and specific to their authority.
So, member, that's a report before you.
I'm happy to assist with any questions that you might have of me.
Thank you, Mr. Chaudhry.
Okay, I'm going to ask for councillors to first of all make comments and ask questions.
A number of you have caught my eye already in the order that I saw them, starting first
with Councillor Apps.
Thank you very much.
I'm Sara Apps.
I'm a member for Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.
Deputy Cabinet members, thank you very much for that really clear outline, Mr Chaudhry.
It's a very welcome proposal to have deputy cabinet members.
We've done so much as a council.
We've delivered so much with access for all, with food waste collections, with a cleaner borough plan, building social homes for rent.
And all of that takes time and resources and focus to really get that over the line.
And I'm really pleased that the deputy cabinet members will be assisting the cabinet members with that process.
And I'm really looking forward to seeing how those deputy cabinet members learn about decision -making
and delivery and really as we learnt from Barnet Council, learning by doing, kind of
having that change and making progress through actually being involved in helping to deliver
those projects.
Obviously I am WIP, which for the people who don't know sort of involves part of that job,
It involves allocating jobs to particular counselors, allocating committee membership.
And obviously we will be very clear that those deputy cabinet members will not sit on committees that relate to their work.
If anything was unexpectedly to come up in relation to their work, then obviously they would recuse themselves in a normal way.
That somebody would, if say they'd been working on a project that then came to committee.
So I think it's very clear that we can have very good lines of defined,
so to make sure that they can do a really good job, help deliver that important work for the residents in our borough.
And then, and also act very, work well as colleagues as they do at the moment with all of us too.
So I think it's an exciting development, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they deliver over the next, so I'm looking at the next six months.
Okay, Councillor Graham.
Thank you, Councillor Peter Graham, Bournsley Commonwater.
So I have a number of concerns about this paper, but I want to start with a preliminary
clarification.
In paragraph 6, it says the schedule of rates at the end of the members' allowance scheme
consequently should be amended as follows.
Can you tell us which members allowance scheme that applies to?
House Graham this is the current allowance scheme, and I know what you are possibly going to pick up is the
Schedule of rate effective from 1st of April 2024 that is the last scheme that we we have published
Well, that isn't factually correct, is it?
Because on the 11th of December, the Council received a report which had two allowance
schemes, the first at Appendix 2, which was this one, 2024 -25, and the second, published
at Appendix 4, which was for 2025 -2026.
Paragraph 6 says that last year's scheme will be amended and leaves this year's scheme,
which is now in force, unamended, doesn't it?
I'm terribly sorry, Councillor Graham, if I have made that mistake, I will check that
for the moment and if necessary, I will suggest an amendment to that paragraph.
Because there is a further issue with this, which I raised at the time, namely by publishing
a new allowance scheme for, effective from the first of April of this year, for 2025,
2026 and stipulating the rates as to be the same as the scheme for the last
financial year thereby all councilors allowances were frozen that is exactly
the way in which we always phrase councilor's allowances in the past by
publishing a new scheme therefore removing the automatic uplift at the
end of the previous year when when you don't publish a new scheme and you only
have to publish a scheme once every four years.
And so the uplift applies when you
go into the next financial year.
By publishing a new scheme with the same rates,
that's how you can freeze allowances.
So I am very concerned, because I was told,
despite the fact that that is obvious,
and that is how every councilor has always interpreted schemes,
that councilor's allowances had not been frozen.
In fact, they have been.
And now furthermore, we are amending
the scheme for last year, which means that none of this paper
will have any effect.
Okay, is that just, can I just check is that accurate, Mr Chaudry?
Chair, if that is a mistake, if you allow me a few moments, I will double check the
December paper.
If that needs to be, then I will make that amendment and propose that part of the report
is amended and this committee votes on that amendment.
But then within the context...
Is that okay?
I'm absolutely fine for the monitoring officer to look at that.
When he does say, if that is correct, can he confirm that basically everybody's allowances
– chairs, cabinet members, basic councilors' rates – apart from this enormous increase
for those of the deputy cabinet members?
So you have a specific technical question which the monitoring officer is going to check.
Can we move on from this particular discussion and take Councillor Corner who I saw next?
Thank you, Chair. I also have a few questions about this paper and a number of concerns as well that I'd like cleared up,
particularly in relation to the now apparently redundant role of the policy champions and how the deputy cabinet members will fit in with the overall governance structure of the council.
So could I first ask, who are the deputy cabinet members actually deputies to?
Because we're told that there will be one for environment, one for housing and
one for health and they map clearly to existing cabinet member roles. But there
will then be two additional deputy cabinet members, communities and
resident again engagement which would seem to be a much broader role. So
they're not actually deputizing any cabinet member, they just deputizing the
as a whole, can we have that clarified please?
Okay, a specific question, thank you, Councillor Corner.
Is there an answer to that straight away, perhaps from Councillor Apps?
So thank you very much for that question.
We're really excited to have the new roles, resident engagement and also around communities.
Communities is going to look at issues such as refugees and faith communities, so it's
going to be specifically working with one of the cabinet members responsible for that.
And then the residents post is going to be looking at different forms of engagement with
residents because we are a listening council and it's really important that we hear from
our residents and it's important that we give the time to take forward that work.
Okay, I've got, all right, quick follow up and then I've got Councillor Grimston.
Thanks.
It is welcome that the deputy cabinet members will not be able to sit on an OSC that covers
their brief, but in the case of the communities and residents engagement deputy cabinet members,
their roles would actually cover all OSCs, I think that's reasonable interpretation.
So, can it just be confirmed that those deputy cabinet members will not sit on OSCs?
That is a reasonable question.
Councillor Aps.
They are going to work on specific projects but if those projects encompass all committee
areas then obviously that would be the fact but if they only encompass some committee
areas then that obviously would not be the fact.
Just because you are called resident engagement does not mean you will be doing resident engagement
across all departments.
It could be looking at specific areas of work and we will obviously, I have already committed
to the fact that people will not be members of overseas that work directly to their work,
and I stand by that and that's your answer.
Well, thank you, I really do welcome that.
There is just one final point.
You have had one comeback. I can come back to you in a minute if you want, or is it essential?
It's just sensible on the flow of the meeting.
The um will you I really am grateful for that that make that does make sense but
will you confirm that the executive will set out a clear scope for the deputy
cabinet members role so that the decision on which committees that they
sit on which is taken at the annual council just next week can be made with
this restriction on OSC membership in mind.
I do see you Councillor Hedges.
Thank you.
It is just a general sense of discomfort with this.
Last week we just heard that we are among the top five councils in London for overspend
on special educational needs.
There are a number of areas where there are significant overspends on the budget and so
at this particular time when there's such enormous cost of living problems out there,
I think we need an extremely strong reason for any argument that says we should spend
an extra £23 ,000 on ourselves when that money could be going elsewhere.
And what I think the paper is missing is firstly, what are the failings over the last three
years that this is designed to?
So what has been going so badly that we need to spend an extra 23 ,000 pounds putting it
right?
I don't think that is clear in the paper.
I also don't think what's clear is what performance indicators are being introduced or being monitored
in order to see whether this has improved the value the council gives by at least 23 ,000
pounds, a significant sum, as I say.
There's no suggestion in here as to what the performance indicators are that will even
allow us to come to a view as to whether that money was well spent or not, and nor do I
see any sign based on that as to what targets associated with those performance indicators
are there.
I just wonder what will happen if some of us say out there, well, you know, the politics
of this, there's just been a leadership election, you know, how do we defend saying that this
is simply buying off people who may have responded in a particular way to the politics of the
last few weeks?
weeks and I think we do need a very robust answer to that because I think the
Respect and the sense of ones with as being acting selflessly
Is something that we need to be able to defend over this?
Okay. Thank you. Council Grinch. Now take that as a comment which kind of demands a ripoff
So I'm going to leave it for a bit and go to Councillor hedges who's burning to get in
Thank You chair
Councillor hedges here
Councillor in Ballam Ward. I've got two questions. Hopefully you can clarify them
pretty quickly. One is how will the removal of the policy champions impact
ongoing initiatives that they are supporting? For example, Councillor Lee is
the borough of culture champion, Councillor Rigby is the high streets
champion and also yourself, Chair, Councillor Osborne, as the heritage
champion, how will all the good work you've done be passed over?
And then the second question is, how will the introduction of these deputy cabinet members
improve the delivery of the Council's agenda for change?
And also, yeah, I was going to ask about how do you measure and evaluate the deputies,
but Councillor Grimson already asked that question.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you. So, Councillor White, haven't said anything yet.
Yeah, Councillor White, suiting Beckwood. I just wanted to ask about the, I suppose, the slight difference between the champions and the deputies.
So, and that comes on from what I think you two guys were saying as well, that the, I mean, what particular skill, are we looking for people with particular skills, you know, for these type of roles?
And is there a feeling that the need of the cabinet is such that with the amount of work
they've got to do, that having deputies would help with that?
Is that the feeling?
Thank you, Councillor Aps.
Oh yeah, good, okay.
Yeah, so certainly, Councillor White, I would say that we have been a council which has
been very focused on delivery and on changing residents' lives and improving residents'
lives.
And so the focus that we've had and the amount that we've delivered goes over and beyond
what most councils are doing.
And so there is an incredibly kind of high workload for all our great cabinet members.
and congratulations on your new post.
And so we do hope that this will form a really good point of support.
But coming back to Councillor Hedge's point about what happens to that work, well those
cabinet members have been and remain responsible for those areas.
So that legacy from the good work of the champions will continue and they will obviously be responsible
for continuing to deliver on those areas.
But it's had some focused attention.
And high streets remains absolutely a key area for us.
But what we're going to see is we're going to look at some of the challenges,
some of the priorities that we've got that we think are really important to deliver for residents.
And I'm really looking forward to seeing talented colleagues who've got a big future ahead of them in delivering services across this council.
And getting stuck in and delivering on these.
So that is how we, that is why it's important.
That is how it's going to help.
This also creates a sense of kind of building capacity for the future as well, because we
all have more Councillors with a good understanding and knowledge of how decision making works
within the Council.
So it's really important to set these kinds of things up so that we can continue to deliver
as a Council as we have done so far.
Okay, I've got Councillor Grimston next.
I'm sorry, I might be thinking, but I didn't quite get the answer as to what performance
indicators are being measured.
Because the – and performance management is – isn't just a matter of – it's
essential.
And being able to go back and look at a scheme and say, either this worked well, we got what
we wanted out of it, we'll continue, or broadly the right direction, but there's
a few tweaks here and there, or, you know, frankly, this just hasn't worked, so we'll
change our minds about that.
It's not a performance management, it's at the absolute center, or one of the centers,
of what we do as counselors.
We set, by our use of targets, we set our political priorities out, and we then check
whether those political priorities have been there.
And I don't know how, at the end of, say, this year, we're going to be able to say this
scheme added 10 ,000 values that didn't really work, or it added 50 ,000 value, and it was
really good value for money.
And can you give me precisely two examples of two or three of the performance indicators
and the targets that are associated with this,
rather than just saying, oh, it's important that we do this,
which may or may not be true.
Yeah, sure.
Well, the cabinet members will be responsible
for managing this workload,
so I'd expect them to be the ones
who kind of come with the details.
But what I would say is,
how do we measure the value of the opposition leader?
How do we measure the value of cabinet members?
The fact is is that we do need to set objectives,
and we need to have things
which people are delivering against, you know, important targets, but as politicians, we
generally do, we are expected to deliver and the outcome of that is measured in the ballot
box as well, but certainly they will have key objectives that we will be expecting them
to deliver against. So, and that will be something that the cabinet member themselves will be
managing.
You must have a reason for choosing five rather than three or seven, and that's not set out
I don't see anything in here that explains to us why five is the right number, particularly
since it doesn't align with the cabinet in a direct way.
I don't see any explanation in there as to why the Champions Scheme, which was explained
in exactly the same terms as we've just done, so why it was such a brilliant idea, is now
something that we should drop, because it's not a brilliant idea, presumably.
So what has led you to that conclusion?
And without some meat to that, without some substance around that, I accept things are
But you are making a clear proposed change here and changes do need to be defended at
that point.
And I don't see in the paper the explanation as to why it's five, what went wrong with
the champion scheme that it's had to be dropped having been introduced to such great fanfare
and so on.
Okay.
Councillor Corner.
Thank you, Chair.
I do agree with what Councillor Grimston has said.
I mean we do need a lot more clarity over why these deputy roles are being created,
what actual outcomes they're going to drive.
I do welcome the commitment just now from Councillor Apps that the scope of the deputy
cabinet members' roles will be published before the annual council.
It's only a week ahead.
You said that the scope would be set out.
Will it be published?
Is it a quick correction?
I said that the scope would be taken into account when looking at which committees that
members are on. I do think that the scope of the deputy cabinet members should be defined
and published by the council as soon as possible and I think then KPIs can flow from that once
they have had a discussion with the cabinet member about those. Just turning to the champions,
you're absolutely right that just two years ago on this committee we were told that these
were a great new initiative and that they'd be doing extremely valuable work.
And on this side of the table, we all said we need to understand
exactly what kind of outcomes they'll be driving, what projects they'll be working towards.
I do accept that some of the champions have done some valuable work,
including you, Chair, in your history and heritage role.
But there are a number of champions that have never been accountable
in any proper way or given any evidence for any kind of value that they've
they've driven for this council or the communities that we serve.
How will deputy cabinet members be different and will there be an acceptance that the policy champion initiative has basically been a massive failure and a waste of money for this council and for our residents?
I think I have a barrage of similar questions. Is that what you're trying to come in with, Councillor Graham?
I'd like an answer to my initial question. It's preliminary before I get on to my concerns.
Okay, very good.
Hold fire.
I'm going to come to Mr. Chowdhury now.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Crambe, you're right to note the table in paragraph six states, schedule of
rates effective 1st of April 2024, it should have said 2025.
The figures quoted within are the 2025 scheme that was reported to Council in December.
In which case, can you answer the point about the fact that because we have a new scheme,
which has began on the 1st of April, which is now still in force as you're suggesting,
and this will be amended to change that scheme, that those rates for the other allowances
have been stipulated and therefore the uplift, which would otherwise have taken place to
deal with this April, has been postponed until next April and all allowances have been -
question which I was going to ask as chair. Is it alright if, in exactly the same terms,
so what is it that you recommend we do Mr Chowdhury?
Exactly what is set out in the report chair, the only amendment is the date that is on
the table in paragraph 6 which states that it's first of April 2024, it should have said
2025. The figures that are quoted are from the 2025 allowance scheme that was
in agreed, sorry, that was reported to full council in December.
So can I just on clarification from the chair, can I just check the only error is
one digit and it's the it's the five at the end of 2025 rather than 2024. That
that's the only error is it? Yes, Chair. With respect that isn't the case because
the total or maximum cost should say 25, 26, not 24, 25.
So there are at least two just there.
But more to the point, it is precisely because those figures
for the panel rate, the ones with payable rate, total
maximum cost, and the rest of it are identical to the
previous scheme.
And those are the only two things that do need to be
changed that makes the point about allowances
having been frozen.
And I've put this point twice now in emails
and not got an answer.
I've now put it twice tonight. I'm not going to answer with the monitoring officer
Please confirm that everyone else's allowances for the exception of those who have the great fortune to be deputy cabinet members have been frozen
Is that correct are all the other allowances frozen
The chair what was agreed at December Council was the application of
the
inflationary increase that is stipulated in the in the scheme and
and those increases were applied in 2024 -25,
and that scheme was published as part of the papers.
And the applicable rate that is from 1st of April, 25 to 2026 remains the same
unless there is an inflationary increase that is applied
and the scheme is reported as amended,
but it's not actually amended because the scheme permits
the inflationary rate to be applied.
Subsequent financial year.
I'm gonna come back to you in a second.
Can I, actually because I'm grateful for the point
that you were raising.
Thank goodness we have you here.
I want to take in some comments from Councillor Apps
and then I'm gonna come back to you, Peter.
Just to come back to some of the comments, I understand about the need to manage the performance.
That is going to be an important task for the cabinet members and I think it's something that the cabinet members should be discussing with their deputy cabinet member.
And also potentially with OSCs or with other groups in terms of how we're delivered.
To be honest,
Councillor Grimston, I don't have that detail in front of me, but I can come back to you on that and clarify that.
On the issue about the sort of, are we saying that this means that the champion scheme was not useful?
Of course we are not.
We're actually building on that success.
We're learning from it and we're actually saying these roles are so important and so useful that we actually want to expand the remit so that they can give more support to the cabinet member.
But in no way is this, I mean, as you've said, some of the champions have done incredible work.
I mean, Joe Rigby has been forciferous in kind of helping to clean up the high streets around Balaam and around other town centers.
We've also had Jack, gosh, what's Jack's surname again?
Meocas.
Meocas, who's done incredible work around school streets and
actually working to push through our agenda on making sure that as many schools have school streets as possible.
So actually, what we want to do is build on that work.
It's in no way kind of detracting from the huge successes that I congratulate my colleagues for.
But I did also want to move the amendments, so if we need to make those amendments, and thank you to Councillor Graham, if we need to move those at some point, I don't know if you want me to do that now or later.
Not right away, I want to take Councillor Lawless first.
Thank you. Sean Lawless, Titrowood Ward. I also am a champion for Safer Streets, thanks everyone for remembering.
I just wanted to come back on a little bit on what Councillor Grimson said.
I wouldn't say that it indicates failures.
I think when you look at a Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment who will be working
under Councillor White, I think actually we're never going to get to zero when it comes to
things like fly tipping, right?
But having extra people power to be able to get on top of it and ensure that resources
are being allocated to the right areas is actually a good thing.
And we have done a lot of work as an administration to try and clamp down on some fly -tipping.
We've seen a reduction.
So yeah, I think there can be definite benefits.
Maybe Councillor White can tell us about what his deputy will be doing.
What she's already doing and has been doing for a long while.
Yeah, I mean from my... Sorry.
Actually, I'm in the chair.
Sorry, yeah.
Would you like to make a comment, please, Councillor White?
I'd love to.
Yeah, I think having someone...
Because the thing is, the question I asked about the capacity was the environment brief is quite large.
So having someone who's specifically focusing on one thing.
I was a champion as well and I didn't think you had a lot of pull with the officers.
Whereas with the deputy it will be different although the cabinet member will be overseeing
it.
The deputy member will be expected to be in control of a certain area and therefore have
a little bit more pull.
Although, you know, the final decision will be with the Cabinet member, whether you go
through with certain things.
I think I also asked about skills actually earlier on as well, because, you know, why
would you have particular people as deputies?
Well, Jo's success in Ballum, I think we could all reflect on that.
She was really, really successful in making Ballum a much nicer place.
We expect her now to be rolling that out around the borough, but she has got skills to do that
and has got a history of doing that and a record of doing that.
So I think that's the difference between deputies and a champion.
It's a much more direct role than the champions.
Okay, Councillor Graham, you've been very patient, thank you.
I wonder if Mr Chaudry wanted to comment any further, having had time to reflect.
If not, I'll make some other points.
Mr. Chaudry.
Okay. In which, let me cover what I think happened
on the allowances in December 1st.
What should have happened to get what the administration wanted was
for that 24 -25 scheme to be published as Appendix 2.
The reason it needed to be published at all was
because it wasn't easy to apply an automatic uplift because of the way
that things, events had happened.
I won't go into that.
But effectively, it had to be stipulated,
because it wasn't an easy way to uplift it.
That's all that needed to be done.
We didn't need to produce a new scheme for this financial year,
because that scheme would have rolled over, still been valid,
and the inflationary uplift applied automatically,
now that they would have purchase again in this year.
This is actually, I think, in paragraph six, correct.
the prop, if you wish to give every Councillor an inflationary uplift this year rather than freeze them.
The problem is the existence of the other scheme.
If we are now amending this to amend the new scheme for this year rather than withdraw the scheme for this year
and amend the scheme for last year, then we have frozen allowances for everybody with the exception of those who are having this amendment.
That is the position as I understand it.
Now, this should never have got this far because I've pushed this point so many times by email
and not had adequate answers, not had an adequate answer tonight.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that we've gone into this meeting without this point being
clear.
And I would say as a point of gratitude actually that we're here at all to discuss this given
the changes that the administration made to the Constitution means they can bypass general
purposes.
It is precisely because general purposes was bypassed in December that these points about
the schemes which occurred to me the moment I saw them could not be aired and that we
had to go to full council without any ability to clarify these matters and I raised it there
as unsatisfactory and said then that it was a problem but because there was no committee
meeting it couldn't be dealt with, at least by there being a committee meeting tonight
despite the fact that there was no obligation on the administration to bring it.
We've been able to clarify that there is a problem, even if the scope of it has not been reached.
Now, I'm clearly not going to get a further point on that.
I would suggest to the administration, if they don't wish to freeze everybody's allowances,
what they actually tell full council to do is withdraw this year's scheme and amend last year's scheme,
and then they can apply the inflationary uplift at the moment we have the local government pay settlement.
Turning to what we have here, my biggest concern looking at this is the Wandsworth payable rate.
Because if you go through the schemes, you'll see that no one is getting the full amount,
or no one has been getting the full amount.
Indeed, many people are getting far less than the full amount.
An OSC chair under the London Council's recommended rate should be being paid something between 15 ,000 and 31 ,000 pounds.
they're getting 11 ,600 below the band.
The chair of audit has the same band as the policy champions had,
which is 3 ,000 to 9 ,000 on the recommended level.
They're getting 2 ,991 as the chair of audit.
How is it that the deputy cabinet members,
instead of being paid somewhere in the middle of that band,
are getting 100 percent, the maximum possible amount?
Why is it that no one else should get the maximum possible allowance and only them?
Why is it that some people are getting below the recommended amount and yet they're getting right at the top?
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
There is no rationale in this paper and we are left to draw our own conclusions as to the motivation on the part of the administration and those conclusions are not attractive.
Okay, Councillor Graham, your comments are in two parts.
First part about the technicalities that you've drawn our attention to, and then a more general
part.
The more general part I'm going to come back to in a minute.
I want to deal with the technicality first, and I have seen you, Councillor Coroner, and
I will come to you eventually.
Please be patient.
So, first of all, Mr Chaudry, can I just ask again, is there an amendment which, and I
think perhaps Councillor Apps is also on the same page on this, an amendment which puts
right the error in the paper before us.
Yes, Chair, thank you. So Councillor Graham's point, I've heard carefully. If I can explain
to members what was put before December Council was a report to notify that the inflationary
increase that is envisaged in the scheme for every year but so happened for 2024 -2025 was
applied for 2024 -2025 and that was notified to Council to apply the inflationary increase
to be effective from the 1st of April 2024.
As part of that paper, what was also included was the scheme which took into account that
inflationary increase that would be applicable from the 1st of April 2025.
So the error that is in the report is where it refers to in the table 2024 -25.
It should say 2025 -26.
And where it says 1st of April 2024, it should just say 2025.
The figures that are contained are from the scheme that is currently applicable.
Okay.
Okay, so what is the amendment, therefore, that we need to have on the table before us
to put the document right along the lines as described by Councillor Graham, actually?
Well, Chair, the amendment that needs to be made is on paragraph 6 on the table that starts
stating, starts and states, once with Borough Council members' allowance scheme, schedule
of rates effective from 1st of April 2024. That should read 1st of April 2025. And then
in the columns that immediately are below that, total maximum cost under the scheme
2024 -2025 should be changed to 2025 -2026. That is, those are the only two changes.
Can I come in on this? Okay.
wants to have an inflationary uplift to all allowances.
That is only the right thing to do
if the administration wants to freeze allowances for everybody
apart from deputy cabinet members.
Because by changing last year's scheme and withdrawing,
and it would take the council now to withdraw the scheme
for this financial year, the inflationary uplift
will automatically take place at the previous scheme.
It is only necessary to publish a scheme once every four years.
If you publish another scheme for the next year and you put the same rates in it, you freeze allowances.
That is precisely how this council and other councils went about freezing allowances,
given that by law they have to put in schemes that have an inflationary uplift.
The only way to freeze council's allowances is by stipulating the following year that the rates will be the same as the previous year,
and publishing a new scheme rather than uprating the old scheme.
So what Mr. Chaudry has said makes absolutely no sense to me.
It is not consistent with the practice of this council in the past or other councils up and down the country.
And if this amendment is made in this way, you will be in the position of freezing all those allowances that you argued it was so important to increase.
Freezing those and yet giving deputy cabinet members this nine ground payout at 100 % of the absolute top end of the recommended rate.
when some people are getting allowances that are below the bottom end of the recommended rate.
I'm so glad that I have to be neutral in the chair.
The, if that, can I just check,
Councillor Apps, you want to come in on something?
Or I was going to check, yeah, I just wanted to check with Mr Choudry.
I'm assuming you disagree with what Councillor Graham is saying, or is he correct?
So, Chair, with respect, I do disagree with Councillor Graham.
What was agreed by Council, or what was reported to Council, sorry, not agreed, because it
is a report rather than for a decision.
So allow me to just remind myself of the recommendations that went before Council.
Council was asked to note on the 11th of December to note the increase of the basic and special
responsibility allowance in line with the local government payer were all backdated
to 1st of April 2024. And the Council were then also asked to note the members' allowance
scheme for 2025 -26 as set out in Appendix 4. So that, it is those rates that are quoted
in the report. The only amendment is that the date should be 2025 -26.
Okay and does anybody have that amendment to hand? Is that what you were trying to say
to me, Councillor Axe, you do have that amendment to hand.
OK.
Yeah, so you're still disagreeing with me,
are you, Councillor Grahame?
Because again, the appendix.
Just a second.
I don't know how to resolve this.
You two are saying two diametrically opposed things,
and we have to get through this somehow and take a decision
and go forward.
I would suggest, Chair, that one way to resolve this
would have been for my emails to have been answered.
It's no good to me now in this position.
Thank you very much.
I understand the point you're making,
but that's no use to me now.
I need to move this committee meeting forward.
I do understand that.
I just wanted to correct one point.
The very fact that Mr. Chaudry has described a new allowance
scheme as a paper for information and not
a decision of the council is part of the problem.
To produce a new scheme, which is something you only
have to do once every four years,
You are taking a decision.
You do not need to publish a new scheme with a new taking effect date to imply an inflationary
uplift when it's done automatically.
And I come back to it, if Mr. Choudry was correct, it would be impossible to freeze
Councillor's allowances.
Councillor Apps.
I thank Councillor Graham for his attention to this.
But what I would like to say is that I take legal and constitutional advice from our monitoring
officer and not from other councillors. So I'm going to accept
Councillor, sorry Mr. Abdes' chowdries, oh good god, good god, Mr. Chowdhury's
advice, sorry, bad night for names, and propose those amendments from
2024 to 2025 and then from changing the 2024 to 2025 -26 and I think those are
the amendments that are needed and if somebody wants to second that then we can make that
amendment.
I also add by the way that in fact to not do as Councillor App suggests is a serious
transgression so quite right we take the advice that we're given.
Okay so was there a seconder for that amendment yes Councillor White.
Can I see all those in, no hang on a second.
I'm going to take the, do you want me to take the amendment now or take it at the end?
I'm anxious to get it out of the way actually.
Okay, let's take it now.
All those in favor of that amendment, please.
Those against?
One, okay.
Any abstentions?
A large number.
I make it seven, actually.
Oh, no, six.
Cue for your patience and forbearance, everybody.
That means we've got through a particular hurdle in the meeting.
Now, okay, your second part of your intervention,
Councillor Graham, was a more political point.
I'd like to see a discussion on that now, if people can remember what it was.
No, no, I don't.
You've recapped it as you were doing it, if I remember rightly.
So, yes, Councillor White, did you put your hand in the edges there?
I did, no, no.
Okay, very good.
All right, so okay, now we come to Councillor Corner then who has been waiting for a while.
Thank you, Chair. I do really think we need to hear a good and substantive rationale for the amount of money these people are being paid in relation to the recommended pay scales,
because it is well out of whack with every other role on the Council, which does not seem appropriate or proportionate.
I do understand the argument that paying people more might, to pursue the administration's
agenda, might result in that agenda being implemented more effectively. But actually
what's also happening alongside this, to Councillor White's point about getting more people on
board to help with the agenda of the executive, what is actually happening is the headcount
is being reduced because there were eight policy champions and there are now five deputy cabinet
members so we're actually reducing the number of people who are charged with pursuing the
executive's agenda or like supporting cabinet members however you want to put it so
it seems to me we're actually paying more on the Councillor's Allowance for less resource going into
the delivery of the executives policies which we're told is is so important and
and we need more resource behind it so it would be good to get some kind of
rationale for that I'm not sure what it could be based on the paper okay I'm
looking around for people who haven't spoken yet this evening see if anybody
else wants to come in no okay councillor apps oh do you want to give ground
Councillor Hedges, go on.
Sorry, did we say that the allowance for the cabinet members is in line with other similar
sized councils?
Sorry if you said that earlier and I missed it.
Councillor Ireland, while I'm seeing if anyone's got a point.
Just a point of clarity, resource doesn't just depend on the number of people.
Surely it depends on the amount of time spent on the job.
So fewer people doesn't necessarily mean less time spent, I think.
That's the intention.
Okay, nobody else wanting to come in on this?
So you can confirm that deputy cabinet members will be expected to spend more time on their
roles than policy champions were.
To what extent is that the case?
Is there a confirmation of that or are we drawing to a close?
Okay it looks.
Yes.
They should be able to.
They should be public.
They should comment on that.
OK.
Or make the challenges, et cetera.
Possibly.
I'm looking for the administration.
Yes, Councillor Ireland.
Just to say that, again, sorry, thank you so much.
Just looking at the outlying job descriptions,
and I don't have the detail, it's
clear that there is a higher level of responsibility
intended for these roles. Now I do know this will be developed along with the KPIs, with
the cabinet members, so I'm just going on what the information I've got here. But it's
clear to me, just from what's written here, that it's a high level of responsibility.
So yes, that might have some bearing on the allowance.
I'm thinking we're moving towards a vote on this. There's not a huge number of people
trying to come in on it.
We'll take Councillor White first.
Yeah, I mean further clarity, having a deputy work for me and also having been a champion.
For a champion, I would go to a meeting once every two months maybe, I think it was once
every three months even, you know.
And you know, we talk about the ideas I come up with and generally they'll be rejected
and you know, you just go on.
Whereas with the deputy, it's something completely different.
I mean, I am talking to Councillor Rigby almost on a daily basis.
And some of the ideas she come up with, some of the ideas we worked upon will become policy
and will become part of what we're doing within the environment.
So it is a different role altogether.
From my point of view, I'm not sure from your point of view whether being a champion
was any different, Councillor Lourdes.
Councillor Apps.
Yep, so I'm liking some of the ideas that I hear from the opposition, you know, clearly they want to have some guidance for councillors
on how much they should spend per week, per month, per year on being a councillor.
Perhaps there should be guidance for the opposition leader on how much time they should spend,
and the opposition whip and others who receive allowances.
I'm not against that.
I think it's part of a bigger conversation about how we run councils.
But I don't see why we would single out one particular post holders when those don't,
you know, are not provided for cabinet members for councillors.
You know, how many hours do councillors spend on casework?
It varies a great deal.
So I think that we should certainly be consistent with how we apply that.
What I would say is that, and another point is actually that the opposition leader officially in this council,
although they've chosen to vary it in various ways to make sure that they support other roles,
is actually sort of at the top end of the London Council's guidance around opposition leaders.
So actually, it's not true that all the posts are consistent in that way.
So I do think actually it varies a good deal.
The important thing is that we are mindful of the London Council's guidance and that we make sure that we fit within that.
The other thing I would say is that we have a particular attitude in our side,
which we know and we've debated that we think it's really important that people from all backgrounds are able to come forward and be councillors.
and be able to contribute fully in the Council's business and that they're not held back because of financial problems and financial inclusion.
And that's a really important principle for us. And so we stand by actually giving people reasonable allowances in order to enable them to do their work.
I think that is the proper thing to do and I think that's the right thing to do.
Councillor Jeffries, keen to hear you.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor James Jeffries, Thamesfield Ward.
I appreciate some of the clarification that we've received this evening that has been
helpful.
I suppose my query was more around the timings of this.
We've heard in many ways that the roles are quite similar.
So what changed?
Why now?
And was there a specific trigger for these changes coming forward to general purposes?
Councilor Graham, you wanted to come in?
Yes, because I just heard, or I thought I heard, Councillor Apsley, that it was important
that people were paid within the recommended rates provided by the independent panel.
The independent panel recommends an OSC chair
is paid between 15 ,000 and 31 ,000 pounds.
The ones with payable rate is 11 ,600 outside and below that.
So if it's important to follow the independent panel's
recommendations and stay within that band,
why are all of the OSC chairs and the chair of audit,
was another example, outside that band and below it.
That is a point you have made previously.
It may be a point that doesn't necessarily get an answer or require one.
I think it does require an answer, yes.
It may not get one, but that would show that there is no defence to offer for what the
Administration is doing.
Councillor Corner, come on.
Only to back up Councillor Graham's point, we've got no justification for the pay of
deputy cabinet members.
It's completely inconsistent with some of the other roles and I actually have a lot
of sympathy with her argument that we shouldn't allow pay to be a barrier to people being
involved coming forward as councillors and contributing at the senior levels of the council.
So why don't we amend the pay for the other roles which is low at the moment compared
to what's recommended and bring everyone into line.
Okay, so are we then moving to a vote on this?
No, hang on, hang on. I'm only asking are we moving to a vote on this?
I mean we will have to eventually have a vote on it.
I'm trying to give you your full head so that you can
you can make all your points but sooner or later we're going to have
to come to a conclusion on this.
So I'm going to take just a few more contributions.
I think Councillor Graham was next, actually.
Yes.
So I'm looking at this, and I can see absolutely no rationale
or consistency for what is known as the Wandsworth Payable Rate.
We are obliged, when we take decisions, to provide reasons.
That is an obligation on us.
This is a paper from the monitoring officer who is obliged to draft papers that provide reasons.
I can't see a reason for why the Wamsworth payable rate varies so extraordinarily between different roles.
Can he provide a rationale or a reason for it being 9 ,000 pounds right at the top for
a deputy cabinet member, but below the bottom for an OSC chair?
Okay, I'm not sure that's a fair question, but carry on.
Carry on, Councillor Corner.
Councillor Corner.
I have nothing more to say other than that it's outrageous that we're not getting answers
to these fair questions that could be completely predicted by members opposite.
Let's just have answers about the inconsistencies in the pay scheme, which is important for
the reasons that Councillor Act set out.
Okay.
Okay, okay.
Do you want to come in?
Yes, I was just hoping I could get an answer to my question a few moments ago.
What was the trigger?
Why these changes now?
My only point is that, I mean, as a general rule, the question should be directed at counselors
and not at officers.
I'm asking the officer for whether he believes his paper is consistent with the duty to provide
reasons for decisions.
And that is a fair question.
And if you're blocking that, as opposed to allowing him to
answer, I'd like to know.
I'm not blocking it.
Let's go over to Councillor Apps.
Thank you very much for your questions.
I would say that some of the payable rates
are fairly historic.
They're actually a legacy from the previous administration.
And if you want to come forward with proposals for overall
amending the scheme, I'd be very happy to sit down and talk
to you about that and see how you want to take that forward.
But this is the scheme that we've got.
It's the scheme that we've largely inherited from you.
And perhaps you would like to propose a more fundamental rethink of the whole thing.
Would be really interested to have that conversation.
On Councilor Jeffrey's point, we are an incredibly ambitious council.
We're delivering an incredible amount across the borough on our key priorities.
We're always looking ways to improve the delivery that we're making to residents.
and that's why this has come forward,
because we've seen that we need additional capacity
to support the cabinet members in some of their key areas,
and the deputy cabinet members are going to be
absolutely key in helping to deliver that.
So thank you for that question.
Okay, Mr. Chaudhry, basic answer to the question?
So yes, Chair, thank you.
I haven't got the specific answers with regards
to the reference to the remainder of the scheme.
What I would say to members in considering the level of allowance that is proposed for
Deputy Cabinet members, there is a description and the amendments to Article 7 of the Constitution,
a description of the role that they will and the duties that they will discharge, which
are different in some respects from the role of policy champions. And the Council can and
should take account of the independent panel's report in determining remuneration. There
is a range set out within that report and that is quoted within our scheme. But it isn't
to follow it in every instance. The circumstances differ from one authority
to another and the allowance proposed for other roles that receive a special
responsibility allowance was considered at the time they were
set as is being considered for deputy cabinet members and that is the proposal
before you. You are able to determine whether that is reasonable and vote in
in favour or against it, members?
Councillor Grimston hasn't said anything for a while.
Yeah, thank you. This is not
satisfactory, I'm afraid, from my point of view.
The comparison for the deputy cabinet members and the allowance is not
the champions, this is deputy cabinet members in other councils around London.
And we need, and it's all very interesting, we don't really need to answer these
questions because
they're just figures that we've chosen.
But there does need to be an answer as to why in Wandsworth we regard the role of the
Oviun Scrutiny Chairs as being so much less valuable than the London average.
So our Oviun Scrutiny Chairs do considerably less work than their comparison across London
and therefore we pay them underneath the allowance for that.
Whereas our cabinet, deputy cabinet members, will be the very, very best in London and
deserve the highest pay.
Now that may be true, I don't know.
I don't know how we know that when nobody's actually fulfilled these roles yet, as to
how we know they're going to be the very, very best in London and deserving the very
top of the pay.
But at least we need an explanation as to why our overview and scrutiny chairman are
so much less valuable that they don't deserve the minimum on this, while the deputy cabinet
members are so important that they get right at the top.
And I suspect that question's going to be ducked, but it won't be ducked forever.
There will be people who ask this.
And it is interesting, isn't it, that the total number of posts is being reduced.
And you do wonder, I'd be interested as to whether it is that some of the champions just weren't up to the job and that's why their roles have been cut.
Or have they blotted their copy book in some other way over the last two or three weeks?
Can I check, Councillor Grincham, are you proposing a review or an overhaul or something, as Councillor Apps was?
Well, I'd certainly, if such a review were to give us the answer as to why our overview
and scrutiny committee chairs are so much less valuable than the London average, while
our deputies are so much more, are right at the top, if we can get an answer to that question,
because I'm interested, I'm interested as to why the administration does think the overview
and scrutiny chairs are doing such a bad job, that they don't deserve even the minimum that's
put forward by London.
I think that's an interesting question.
Just checking what you were saying. It sounded similar to what Councillor Aps was saying, but it's not. It's something different.
It is an interesting question, Councillor Grimston.
Although, what I would say is you should really pose it to the previous administration, because we haven't had a major overhaul overall of our allowances.
We haven't had an overall allowances of the cabinet members, for example, and the OSE chairs.
And we do have quite a number of OSCE chairs.
There's different structures of overview
and scrutiny arrangements in different councils.
So certainly that's a perfectly valid question.
But as you know, we haven't had a major overhaul
of our overall expenses.
It's not something, or allowances,
our special responsibility allowances,
it's not something we've done this term.
And I'm interested that the opposition are very interested
in having a rebalance of the allowances overall.
and that's certainly something that if they want to discuss it with us we're very open to that discussion.
Well hang on, you introduced eight new allowances and you introduced a new cabinet post.
It's not true, there haven't been significant reforms. There's been very significant reforms.
Thank you, thank you Councillor Grimston.
Councillor White, we really must move to a conclusion on this discussion.
I know it may be frustrating if you're not getting your way in your answers,
But we do have to move to a decision eventually we've been at this for about an hour and 15 minutes already
So I mean we may go on longer, but I'm keen that we we think about drawing
into a more conclusive mood if we can a
Thank you
So I'd like to ask Councillor apps when it was that she first discussed
With members of her group the possibility of them receiving a new nine thousand pounds
And was it before or after the re -election of Councillor Hogg as Labour group leader?
Councillor White.
I'd like Councillor Apps to answer that question.
Well, we're in the middle of a discussion about a specific paper.
Yes, anyone can decline a question in a meeting if they want to.
Councillor White.
It's quite interesting because I was the chair as well and I would have been worth every
inch of the upper limit of that chairs allowance.
But I was quite happy to inherit what the previous administration was paying chairs,
so that was fine.
I think some of the, I get the undertone from the other side, but I think every administration
has a right to have a look at how things are going, how the cabinet is being supported,
what sort of work the cabinet are doing.
I have only been a member of the Cabinet for a short period of time,
but I do recognise the really, really hard work that the Cabinet members do.
And I think having assistants and deputies to help them in that work
and to add to that capacity I think is very, very important.
I think that having, as I said before, having looked at the way the Champions worked
for the previous three years, I don't know,
but it's probably felt that they weren't supporting in a way that we really needed.
They were doing a good job, but they weren't there for what we needed them to do.
Whereas, as I said, now for the third time, as far as the deputy is going to work,
they are going to be working very, very hard and supporting the cabinet members in a very, very real way.
It's quite different and as I say every every administration has the right to have a look at what they're doing and say well
Can we do it better and this might not work who knows but and then we might reassess it again?
Councillor apps
Yeah, I wanted to be very clear with you that
We don't regard you know running this borough as a game
We don't regard it as something to have cheap shots about.
We are absolutely focused on delivering for our residents.
And that's what we're doing.
And that's why we're introducing deputy cabinet members
to support the cabinet members in their work.
And it's absolutely crucial.
And I see absolutely no reason to have a comeback on this.
Because it's absolutely unnecessary given I've been very clear
about the remit of their work, about the fact that they're needed
in order to deliver on our key areas of priorities.
and quite frankly that's all I really have to say on it.
Thank you.
I mean.
I just wanted to sum up if I can.
And then you can.
Hang on a second.
Hang on a second.
Councillor Graham, I think seeing as the objections
are mainly ranged on your side of the table,
I'm going to allow you the last word.
But before you do, I'm going to say this.
I'm going to, no, Councillor Ambasch, I'm afraid, too late.
I'm going to move to a vote after Councillor Graham.
But there has been a debate this evening on this subject.
It has been, I think, a sincere and eloquent debate from all sides.
And I understand that feelings are running high on some of this, but we do have to come to a conclusion.
Before I go to Councillor Graham, is this a point of order or something, Councillor Ambasch?
I did not want to interrupt the debate, but I just wanted to explain my own position very,
very briefly.
Go on then.
And that is, I've unusually not taken part in the debate.
It's not because I'm not interested.
It's because I'm likely to chair the council meeting next week as the majority group nomination
for mayor, and this matter is likely to be considered.
and therefore don't accept my lack of involvement in the debate as a lack of interest.
It's because I think it's not appropriate for me to be involved in the debate and in the decision making.
I just really wanted to make that clear.
I've tried not to come in earlier because I didn't want to disrupt what I think has been a very good and a fairly rigorous debate, very well chaired by you.
Thank you for your integrity, Councillor Ambash.
Last word, Councillor Graham.
Thank you and I appreciate that.
And I also, on our side, as we've noted, we welcome Councillor Ambash returning to his
role as Mayor and we found him to be a very fair and reasonable chair of our meetings
and we're glad that he's back.
I wanted to say...
I am
It's true it's true
I don't mind heckling. I don't mind heckling
First of all I would I would reiterate what I said earlier that I think that a fundamental mistake has been made
Between having two members allowance schemes published and I would urge
Those involved to look again at that I appreciate your position and others that you're being given legal advice
and you do not wish to go against it. I think that's completely understandable
from your perspective. However, at the very least I think you would accept that
there are some questions there that perhaps have not been fully addressed.
There is an opportunity for the administration to put that right in the
way that I suggested and I hope that they will consider doing so. Otherwise
they were only going to heighten the contrast between the treatment of other
Councillors and these new Deputy Cabinet Members.
I don't think it is reasonable, I don't think members of the public watching this
will think it is at all reasonable for there to be absolutely no rationale or consistency
on how we are paying people and to introduce the most egregious, the most out of line with
other allowances through this paper.
The Deputy Cabinet members are the only people being paid at the top of the recommended rate.
We have others paying below the bottom.
It is simply unacceptable to not even provide some sort of reason or rationale for that.
And frankly, it verges on the unlawful given the duty to provide reasons for decisions.
Perhaps the paper can be amended so that when the Council decides on this, they have those
reasons.
And my final point is simply that I think Councillor Apps described me as making a cheap
shot.
I don't think the public will regard the £23 ,000 being thrown at these new allowances as cheap,
and I think they will find the timing a rather expensive bribe for the administration to
carry on.
Thank you, Councillor Graham for that powerful last word.
Chair, do you not want to ask people to be respectful of councillors and their motivations?
I expect all councillors to be respectful towards all other councillors.
Is there anybody here who isn't?
No, all right.
That's the way it's going to be in this committee when I chair it.
Is that understood?
Good, okay.
So in that case, I'm going to move to a vote on this paper,
which was 25 -160.
Can I see all those in favor of that proposal, please?
Okay, all those against?
What have we got?
Five five.
Chair's casting vote.
Making the paper go through.
Thank you.
Okay.
Sorry.
What's this about, Councillor Ambasch?
Oh, sorry, I didn't ask for abstentions.
Would you like to abstain, Councillor Ambasch?
Thanks.
Okay.
I said at the beginning that I would make some remarks about some of the activities
that have been taking place in between the formal meetings of general purposes, partly
so the public know and it's a matter on the record.
We have had some task and finish groups more informal than this, by and large good -natured
meetings between the different parties about various aspects of democracy review, looking
at matters such as public engagement and scrutiny, and getting reports from conferences and meetings
around the country.
And indeed, we've also embarked upon a program of visiting other boroughs in London to learn
from their experience, notably, and please mark my gratitude to them for their generosity,
notably Lewisham and earlier this week, Barnett, who have been very helpful and inspiring in
this process of examination that we're going through at the moment.
So I put that on the record.
If anybody wants to endorse or question any of that, I wanted to make sure that you have
an opportunity to do that this evening.
All right, in that case,
thank you for your participation this evening.
Meeting closed.