Transcript

All right. I'm going to start the meeting, everybody. So for everybody present and all those watching, welcome to the meeting. I'm Councillor Osborne. I'm the chair of the General Purposes Committee, which is meeting here this evening. And I'm going to go around every member of the committee, name them and ask them to let us know that they're present. There are some officers present tonight, but I will let them introduce themselves as they're called this evening. So if I go through in alphabetical order of the members of the committee, can I start with Councillor Apps, please? Good evening, Chair. Councillor Ambach. Councillor Jeremy Ambach, West Putney Ward. Good evening, everyone. Councillor Corner. Councillor Matthew Corner from Nine Elms Ward. Councillor Graham, please. Present. Councillor Grimston. Malcolm Grimston, Independent Councillor, West Hill Ward. Councillor Hedges. Councillor Lindsay Hedges from Ballam Ward. Good evening. Councillor Henderson. Councillor Graham Henderson from Hampton Ward. Good evening, everyone. Councillor Ireland. Hello. Angela Ireland, West... Councillor Jeffries. Councillor James Jeffries, Tamsfield Ward. And Councillor Lawless. Present. So there are no apologies received this evening. I'll move on to the next item. First item this evening is the minutes of the meeting. Can I ask, are they a correct record of the previous meeting? Councillor Grimston first caught my eye. Thank you, Chair. I don't get worked about these things at all normally, but I have been misgendered in the minutes and I'm not entirely sure why. I've never ever given the slightest impression I was a they then. Since the second paragraph on the... I'm very grateful for the kind comments. I don't want to be too childish. But I'm not a they. I'm a he. And since this is specifically referring to an individual, not to the concept of an independent member, I'm really just quite interested as to why that sort of rather gratuitous misgendering has been carried out. Are you saying it's not accurate and you want it corrected? I would like it corrected, but this is how it arose in the first place. I don't think there's any explanation. I've no idea. It would be trawling back into into our bureaucratic dregs of our bureaucratic system to discover the reason, I'm afraid. But thank you for raising it and it will be corrected. Councillor Graham. Beyond supporting Councillor Grimston in his request for that to be corrected, there was a point about opposition members asking for a letter to explain the reasons for the decision. Obviously, the reason being that the articles of that constitution require reasons to be put forward for decisions at the point of decision. That was not the case. The previous chair was very kind in recognizing that that was not the case and said she would take it away. We did ask for a letter from the relevant member of the administration just to set out those reasons, which was something that she'd undertaken to look into. I haven't received such a letter. Will one be forthcoming? That's my question. Okay, I can't speak for the previous chair, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking of me. Councillor Apps. Yeah, I was contacted a few days ago by the previous chair who raised it with me. So I'm very happy to send a letter explaining our reasons. I'm grateful for that and have no further issues with minutes in that case. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Graham. So the next item is declaration of interest. Does anybody have any pecuniary or registrable or non-registrable interests that they want to declare this evening? That does not seem to be the case. So can I go in that case straight to the single item on the agenda this evening, which is the paper which is before us? I don't think I've missed anything out. Straight to the paper. Can I ask which officer is okay? Can I ask Mr Choudry, please, to make the initial introduction to this paper? Thank you, Chair. My name is Abjis Choudry. I'm the council's director of law and governance and the monitoring officer. Chair, it's a relatively short report before you. There's a number of proposed changes to the constitutional arrangements for the council, and I hope it's helpful for members if I just introduce the proposed changes. The first change is a change to the arrangements for the use of the common seal of the council, which is in Article 14 of the constitution. It is to facilitate the use of an electronic method for fixing the common seal rather than the physical arrangements that relate to it. There are some consequential changes to the standing orders later on in the report relating to that as well. Article 15 is also proposed to be changed in relation to the role and function of this committee to review the constitution, and the proposed changes are contained within the paper, but in essence it is to remove the function of this committee to be the filter before amendments go to council for final approval. And the proposal within that is that the function to review and keep under review the constitution be to rest with the head of paid service and with the monitoring officer, and the approval of any of those changes will, of course, remain with full council. Additionally, there is a consequential change with regards to the function of the Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the consequential change is to remove the role of finance overview and scrutiny to review the standing orders and the procurement regulations. Additionally, there are some changes to the way in which the council meetings are governed going forward if these changes are agreed. The first of those is to ensure that a greater level of notice is provided to enable answers to be formulated ahead of council meetings, so the suggestion in this report is to move from two days to five days notice for questions to council. The second change is to align the way in which petitions are presented at full council meetings and to align the response requirements with the petition scheme, which is also containing the constitution. The third change is to regulate the scope of exercising a right of reply. It is to introduce a level of discretion for the mayor where the mayor considers the matter as being adequately debated as to whether or not the right of reply should be exercised. Fourth is to change the way in which adjournment of debates and adjournment of council operates to bring that into line with the practice elsewhere. Our current practice is to allow a small debate within the context of the council meeting pursuant to a request to adjourn the council. Practice in most authorities is to have a provision to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the council without matters unrelated to the matter under discussion to be brought up. Fifth is to change the support requirements for convening special meetings to move away from the current number of members that can requisition a meeting. The numbers will remain the same, but the proposed amendment is to require that support to be from more than one party. And then the final amendment to the standing orders is linked to the amendments in relation to the use of the common seal and to move away from the use exclusively of the fiscal seal. The changes are put before this committee as a starter for wider changes, and these changes sit within the context of the council's democracy review that has been initiated from last year and continues. Members will know that there was a peer review at the start of last year and subsequent to that, this committee, sorry, the council commissioned the centre for governance and scrutiny to engage with members. That engagement has happened and there is some proposals that will come forward in due course with involvement of the centre of governance and scrutiny to look at other changes to the constitution. So that's forthcoming, members. So what you had before you are the initial proposed changes to the constitution. Happy to take questions, Chair. Before I take questions, can I ask, is there anyone from the majority party? Yes. Okay. You happy for me to present the case? Yep. Perfect. Okay. Good to see everybody. I'm Councillor Sara Apps. I'm a member for Shaftesbury and Queenstown, and I'm also chief whip on the council. This is my first time presenting a paper at this or indeed any other council committee meeting. So I look forward to working with you all on the issues ahead, but I wanted to set out as a bit of a newbie. I wanted to set out what some of my experience of being a newly elected council, which I know some of the people on majority and the minority party are and some of my first experiences of being on this council. So so our council AGM in two thousand twenty two was perplexing but joyous occasion, and it brought in my colleague Councillor Ambash as the newly elected mayor. And of course, we were very pleased to hear from the new council leader and the leader of the opposition. The following full council meeting was, to me, a complete mystery. I was used to attending meetings on a regular basis, so I took out my agenda and I started ticking off the items as we went through but quickly became unstuck. We had the minutes fine mess announcements fine declarations of interest. But by then, a colleague was already on their feet, proposing to speak about an entirely different matter matter just after the mess announcements. So after ten minutes or so, we were back onto the agenda. Declarations of interest, sealing of the documents. What on earth was that? By the time we were onto matters brought forward, which turned out to be a council debate, I abandoned the agenda completely for then the WIPs instructions, which was much more informative. But it did occur to me at that time that anybody else watching this would be entirely confused and would not have recourse to that guidance. We have a range of unusual standing orders to be sprung out at the drop of a hat, which are used more as political weapons than to get through and highlight council business and to raise residents' concerns in an effective and clear manner. We want the business of the council to be focused on one thing, delivering the best for the people of Wandsworth. And of course, as part of that, enabling effective scrutiny to support it. Here in this paper, we're making a modest start. We're aiming to create a culture which will allow discussion and agreement to flourish as well as debate. And we're asking council meetings to be slightly better functioning and more transparent. There's a lot more to do on both scores. With petitions, we need to make sure that we deal consistently and in a timely way with petitions, whether they arrive by a member of the public or by a member of the council. Once they've been presented to the council, we can then receive a swift response to them if they fall below the threshold for petitions requiring overview and scrutiny committee reports. On the abolition of adjournment debates, this was one of the aspects of our council business, which feels to me most antiquated and quirky. I was not at all surprised to hear from the Centre for Scrutiny and Governance that not only was this unusual, but to them it was entirely unheard of. I'm really pleased that we're moving forward with a local issues debate which will replace it and which will be on the agenda. On questions to full council, we're coming closer into line with the deadlines set by other councils for their questions. But actually, looking south of the river, you know, Lambeth asks for questions submitted 20 days in advance, Bromley and Merton 10 days, Bexley, the rather more modest seven days in advance. We're altering from two working days to five working days, which is still extremely generous and balances the needs of the opposition to that of the majority party. I suspect that one of the areas where opposition members may wish to have reassurance is on making changes to the constitution, which will involve them and their active participation and input into the changes being made. We have we are very lucky to have very well many qualified offices in this council who've got experience with many other councils, and they have seen task and finish groups and other arrangements work well. Dare we say it even perhaps better than our traditional but unincreasingly uncommon GP committee arrangements. We'd like to open up a space for more nimble reform with ongoing rather than quarterly discussions and a chance for all of you, all members of this committee and others to contribute to ideas at the start rather than simply scrutinized a pretty much finalized paper. To this mind, after discussions with our chair, Council Osborne and the executive, the executive and I are proposing that we bring forward a task and finish group on questions. We actually at this point wanted to propose further reforms to council questions, but I was very reluctant to do so without getting a range of views from you and others about how this could work. And we also want to look at whether or not we should consider other changes in parallel. How do we make sure that we're hearing about things that are of concern to residents and not just councilors? How do we make sure that we're looking at the council across the piece and not just a full council when we're thinking about how we make sure that we use questions for scrutiny? I'd suggest we make early progress on this, and I know that the chair is willing to take that forward in consultation with the executive. I hope very much that I will increase confidence in these changes and help us to make progress in the way we make constitutional decisions as a council. Thanks very much. Councillor Graham. Thank you. Just before we start, I did have an email from the chief executive, and she said that Mr Evans will be setting out at this evening's meeting detail of what the task and finish and next steps were anticipated to be. Is that the case? Thank you, Councillor Graham. I think we said that we will set out a bit more detail about what the CFGS plans were in terms of their broad areas of investigation going forward. The chief executive said Mr Evans will provide an outline of the next stage of work at the meeting on Monday. So I think it would be helpful to have that outline now, and if it doesn't include the task and finish groups, at least we know where we stand on that in terms of detail or lack of it. A question, yes. Yep, that's fine. Thank you, Councillor Graham. So as the paper indicates, the CFGS have partnered with us on the first stage of the review and you've all seen the output. Indeed, it's appended to the paper, and we've also commissioned them now for to partner with us to support us in the second stage of the democracy review. I think the value they bring in terms of insights, independence and just knowledge of other areas and all the councils they work with, I think is absolutely invaluable and helps us really hold a mirror up to ourselves as we as we go forward. And I think having that independent voice going forward is important. They're very clear in the next steps that it is effectively a whole council endeavour that engages members in exploring and implementing ways to improve the way we take decisions and accountability and member empowerment and resident engagement in the council. So the CFGS in their proposal will look at the key themes coming out of the first stage of the review. They will look at scrutiny arrangements, the purpose committees terms of reference, all the sort of detail you'd expect that they reference in their first stages and their first report that came forward to you. They'll want to look at cabinet and executive and their decision making and developing a model for that and looking at the kind of way the council works as well. And they want to work with members and officers to gain ideas, input ideas through conversations, focus groups, but also as we discussed about the task and finish type process we're talking about. So I don't think I can give the absolute clarity of what that will will look like. I think it really is to get the CFGS kicked off on that work, for us to look at what that task and finish would look like and for the task and finish itself actually to think about how that work moves forward, obviously with relevant input from the executive. Okay. Does that answer your question? Well, in part, but not completely. So, I mean, a task and finish group ordinarily under both LGA and CFGS guidance has a constituent committee of a council to which it sets it up, sets up the terms, sets up a membership, then it goes off and does it work, and then it comes back to that committee before anything else happens. Now, is it envisaged that general purposes will be the committee for these task and finish groups? If so, we'll be having another meeting of general purposes in order to set these groups up because we've talked about one being created, so are these proposals going to come to us? Given that Mr. Chaudry talked about removing the filter of this committee, will we actually be following the CFGS and LGA guidance in having it come back to the constituent committee before it goes to full council? These are all things that are quite unclear, so it would be helpful to know what's envisaged when -- if you read the paper just at first blush, it looks like some technical changes on constitutional change. If you actually look at what might happen or what might be permitted to happen, it could lead to whole swathes of the committee structure that we have, the rules that we have, everything else going straight to full council without debate and being voted through without any line-by-line scrutiny. Now, it sounds like that's not the intention of the executive, and I'm grateful that that appears to have been indicated, but that is the quandary we're in, so it would be very helpful to have some understanding of what the next steps actually involve in detail. Okay. Is that -- Mr. Chaudry, you want to say something? Yes, if I might start, at least, Chair. So, Councillor Graham, I referred to paragraph 10 of the report where we set out that changing the arrangements for monitoring and reviewing of the operation of the constitution won't mean that members won't be engaged in development of the proposals for change. You know, there is reference to task and finish groups operating in other councils, and the intent is for that to operate here. You've heard Councillor Apps as they started to mention that the executive intends to commission a task and finish group, so that will be the parent committee that the task and finish group will report to, and the executive is a committee just like every other committee of the council. And that will report to it, and if it's part of that, it's acknowledged in paragraph 10 that the membership of those groups will be in consultation with the chair and will include membership of -- could include membership of this committee, as well as the political balance of the council. So that's the intent, and the initial task and finish group, as Councillor Apps has indicated, will commence on the instruction of the executive. I'm rather concerned about that, honestly. No, I'm going to take Councillor Ambash, who has had his hand up for a little while. I'm glad we've started talking about the Centre of Governance and Scrutiny Report, because I think it was a really helpful report. It's given their analysis, but it's also fed back our own analysis from the in-depth interviews with officers and with councillors, and I think it gives us a very good bedrock of some quite thorny issues. The Chief Whip has said we'll need to take some time to chew through them, but I think the paper is a good start in some of the kind of clearing up issues to do with how we might be more efficient as a council, and I support the recommendations strongly. I had one question to ask for Councillor -- for Mr Chaudhry, and that was when I was Mayor, I struggled with Standing Order 27 and 28, adjournment of debate and adjournment of the council meeting. They're two rather different things I was briefed, I think, by Mr Chaudhry. One led to a debate of a particular issue that was often unrelated, as the Chief Whip was saying, to whatever was on the council agenda, and made the meeting very disjointed, and the other was adjourning the council to a future meeting. But on the first, could Mr Chaudhry explain a bit how the pages 11 and 12, the bit in the box, how that changes the adjournment debate so that we somehow don't get into dealing with two debates at the same time and getting muddled? Because I found the changes that are suggested there as a non-legal person quite hard to understand. Just on a point of order, and this is an attempt to be helpful, I think it might be helpful for us to talk about the report in general and the CFGS work in general and the next steps in general before we then move on to each of the proposals, because we have something to say on all of the proposed changes. So probably taking those in turn later, but dealing with the generalities now, would be a better way to structure debate. Otherwise, we're going to end up going backwards and forwards and all over the place. I've asked about adjournment debates, just to be clear. Let's get an answer to the specific question on adjournment debates, and I take your point, Councillor Gray. So, Councillor Ambersham, yes, the current arrangements are under standing order 27. The debate can be adjourned. Under standing order 28, the Council can be adjourned. And reformer, 27 was rarely used, certainly in the three years that I've been at this Council only once. I think, Councillor Grimston, you were the only person that, rightly, when matters were reaching a point so that useful debate wasn't possible, that you suggested a period of reflection of a minute or two to allow tempers to quieten. So that was the intent behind standing order 27. Standing order 28 is the motion, sorry, the Council procedure rule that is most relied upon to bring forward debates on matters that might not be related to the item under discussion. And that is, you know, as Councillor Ambs has said, the differences in this Council, certainly as far as I have been able to establish through my own contacts amongst the monitoring officer group that I'm in contact with, as well as examining a number of constitutions across London is unique. Nevertheless, both provisions exist in other councils and they do serve genuine purposes. So standing order 27, to adjourn a debate, it may be as on the instance of Councillor Grimston raised it, it was necessary to take a break. Or it may be that a debate has gone as far as possible and there is an issue that needs to be clarified before the debate can continue. So it does serve a purpose and that is why it exists in constitutions in all local authorities that I'm aware of. Standing order 28, which is relating to adjourning the Council, that again is a useful provision, in fact a necessary provision, there may be an emergency that we need to adjourn the Council for, or also simply it's not possible to continue because, for example, there is a disturbance that is not possible to resolve during the course of the Council meeting. And so the changes that are proposed in paragraph 20 of this paper, page 11 and 12, are intended to align the practice of this Council with the practice elsewhere and to retain the useful function the adjournment motions serve. Thank you. Now as I go forward I'm going to prioritise general points. That doesn't mean I'm going to rule out specific questions but if possible try and keep your remarks to begin with the general points. I'm also going to prioritise people who have not yet spoken. So if I may, I'm going to take Councillor Grimston next. Thank you, Chair. It's nice to be here with members of the, fellow members of the Trevelyan Road Mafia. I think first I'd say is congratulate the administration and the officers for carrying out this initiative, which I think has already led to some very useful things. And also congratulate Councillor Apps for presenting the paper, if I might say so clearly and lucidly. But one of the recommendations clearly in the report was that members should and lead members should present reports more. And I'm very glad to see and congratulate Councillor Apps for putting that into practice. If I could just offer a few thoughts from the other end of the age timetable from Councillor Apps, that with the due deference to my dear friend Councillor Angela over there, I'm probably the oldest and the longest serving member here. Traditionally I think Wandsworth has been known as being very good at service delivery. We tended to develop a set of services, look around for people to deliver them at, and then deliver them at people quite effectively. And we were always very good at getting top marks in the old comprehensive performance assessment way before they turned many people here. What we weren't very good at though was being proactive and noticing changes in the environment and responding to those changes as they developed. We developed a culture where scrutiny just looks at this cycle's paper, the leaders group just looks at this cycle's paper, group meetings as I remember them tend to look at this cycle's paper, executive doesn't look at anything at all. And occasionally in councils you get meetings, debates on future looking. But of course that's neither the place for detailed discussion of such things nor indeed is there enough of them. So as a result I think we tended to be rather reactive rather than proactive, we tended to be rather insular rather than outward looking. And I think the children's services issue was just a very clear example of where that took us. The environment out there was changing, we could have been doing peer work, we could have been talking as members, officers have always had a different culture, but as members we could have been talking to other councils. We didn't, we set our stall against that and we got seriously caught out and we had failing children's services, one of the things that any council would be most willing to deal with. So I hope that the wider picture in all that we're doing through the report and how we take it forward will be to me looking at how we change that, away from being so focused on now and then and more focused on what's yet to come and particularly what we can do about it that will help to shape the future in a way that will be to the benefit of all of our residents. And I think if we lose, one of the things with that is using our collective wisdom as members. There was one moment just after the pandemic began when we had a collective Zoom meeting, which most councillors took part in, where completely out of the public eye, completely out of party politics, we just shared what we were seeing in our wards was emerging as the pandemic emerged. And the thing that always stuck in my mind, I think it was actually Councillor Dickey that just said one of the things that were really worrying him was several children who didn't have computers at home and who were now not in school and were being very severely disadvantaged. The cabinet member for education at the time took it up and ran with it. And what came out of that was a programme of local businesses donating computers, which went directly into those homes. A superb idea that I mean, I guess any of us would say we should have thought of that. But it was getting together in that informal context where this very, very good idea that came out that then on a cross-party basis was brought forward to the very significant benefit of some very needy ones with residents. It's never happened since. We have never had a similar thing where we just get together in a room with no real agenda where we can just throw ideas out where we can bounce ideas off each other. I'm saying this isn't meant to criticism of anybody. I've not had a single discussion. I've not been approached once by any of the new champions on any of the areas, for example, just saying, you know, you've been a council for 30 years now. What's going on in your world? Is there anything here of interest? And we don't have that culture there. And I hope we will really focus as we go forward on how we unlock this experience that as a group we have right the way across the borough. Inevitably, the borough tends not to be equal politically. It's nature of the nature of things. But as members, we are. We have tendrils into all of the areas of the borough. And I just don't think we use that at all at the moment. So it's creating the space where we can have a kind of discussion like we're having at the moment without the red light going on and it's all having to be shut up very, very rapidly. And I think the concept of task and finish group is going to be central to that. I hope it is where I'm distressed to hear that that's all going to be done by party political balance and everything, because with the task and finish groups, which are so far away from policy, they're not going to become party political. I would hope where simply the best people, the most interested people would get chosen. So I hope that's something we could look at. But just to then says, I think I hope that sort of broad view will be the prison through which we view any proposals like the specific ones this evening or any others going forward is how do we open ourselves up? How do we make better use of our members? How do we get better use of spotting what's coming at us down the road and shaping it rather than waiting as we do with children's services for us to hit us and then facing all sorts of more difficult programs in putting that right. And I would say one thing from that, I think, is that as the as we try new ways of doing things, it's going to be particularly important. Those members were centrally involved in how that might affect our Constitution, where how any changes may occur in the Constitution and how we might shape things, having tried them out to see whether they work or not. So in that not getting too much into detail of particular items. But I don't my own view very strongly is this is actually the moment when we should have to be having more member reflection of what the constitutional changes might be. With all due respect to officers, one of the things we tend to do as a council, we do it in the induction program, is we kind of only get officers' views of what being a member is like. And that's valuable. And officers have, obviously, a central role to play in what we're doing. But when you interact, yeah, being a member is not like what anybody who's not a member would think it was going to be until you actually started being a member. And we're the only ones, I think, really, who will and I don't exaggerate that, but we will have a special perspective on how these constitutional changes may affect the way we're doing things. They may help. And I think to, in effect, write out that or bypass that towards going straight to full council at this stage in particular, my view would be a mistake. But I do say a full congratulations to the administration. I think this is a really great move forward. And I hope that we will all work together to get the best out of it. Still looking for those sort of general comments, could I come to Councillor Corner, please? Thank you, Councillor Osborne, and thank you for the discussion so far on the paper and for your presentation, Councillor Apps. I think it's really important, as Councillor Graham alluded to, that we do discuss this CFGS report in more detail and with a focus specifically on that paper. Before we go into making sweeping changes, we need to consider the themes of this report. Well, I was really excited when I heard that this governance review is taking place. I have no doubt, even as a member and newly elected two years ago, that there can be some changes that are made. But it does seem we've put the cart before the horse in this work. We've got this report. We haven't considered the key themes of it. We haven't had meaningful consultation with the entire Council. And of course, as General Purposes Committee, we should be considering how the entire Council can work better. And we should be involving and including colleagues who are not on this committee in the discussions about how we can improve things. So I would urge Councillor Osborne and you to facilitate wider debate on this paper. If that can't happen tonight, then it does need to happen at some point. I believe. OK, thank you. Well, sorry. I'm finished. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I thought you'd finished. Thank you. I do have one question on this, which is can the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny paper be considered as a separate item so we can reach those conclusions at the next meeting? All right. Thank you for your question. I've got Councillor Ireland wanted to come in. You can make if you've got a specific question to ask. Mr Choudry. Yeah, we have quantified the number of average number of contracts and deeds that are sealed with the manual process so far. I'd be hesitant to put a figure on it, Councillor Ireland, simply because the legal process of executing the deeds and contracts will remain. What will change will be the currying to and fro to to my office where the seal is is kept for physical seal to be placed and then signatures to be placed. But there will be some efficiency savings. Certainly, without volume of contracts and deeds being processed every year, there will certainly be some some savings. Very quickly. Councillor Ireland. Thank you. You mentioned it's a resource hungry and expensive process. You're talking about the whole process, not just the seals sealing. Yes. No, Councillor and I'm talking about the process of sealing. If a contract is signed by two parties, the lawyers on both parties prepare their contracts. The first party attaches their seal and signature, and then that is then forwarded to our lawyers who then check through that the execution on their side is proper. Then it comes to our administration admin team who will attach the seal and then one of the authorised signatories of the council will need to be present in order to test that the seal has been fixed to literally witnessing and signing to say that the seal has been attached. So it isn't the whole process. It is that execution that will improve if we have the electronic process. You know what? This might be my fault. If you don't know how much it costs, how can you say it's expensive? I'm not trying to be flippant. Honestly, I'll rude. It might be. I don't understand what you're saying. It's a physical process. So if I can describe it. So at the moment, we have basically documents being couriered and posted in order for the physical seal to be attached. An electronic process will simply be once a side has agreed, they use a service like DocuSign, sign it, and then an email comes across to the other side to say we signed it, you sign your end, and a signature is attached. So we've taken out the administration in that middle process. I'm going to come to you. There have been several instances where people have thrown up particular questions, I think, about the discussion on the democracy review process and so on. Can I just ask Councillor Apps to just answer some of those points and then I'll come back to those of you that I hadn't taken yet. Thanks very much. I think there's been some really interesting points so far and certainly, you know, good points to reflect on. I was very interested in Councillor Grimston's proposition that task and finish groups not be politically part of political based. I think that is something that maybe we should work on. I think there's going to be a trust building exercise as we get into this process, and it may be something that develops. I've also heard very clearly the strong interest in the Centre for Scrutiny and Governance and I agree with Councillor Corners proposition that we look at this later as a group of Councillors. We've been partly through that process. Each of the groups has had a discussion with Centre for Scrutiny and Governance. Reports have been circulated. They are not here tonight. They will be here at later instances, so let's make sure that we make good time for that discussion. In terms of this paper, it's a case of preparing the ground for the changes that we need to make. I would go so far as to saying GP Committee has not always been an exemplar committee. Sometimes there's been more heat than light. I want to be very clear that what we want to see is more discussion, more consultation, more opportunities for members' input and more opportunities for members' input at an earlier stage, and I think that is best achieved outside this committee, so that's why we're moving forward with this in this way. So absolutely we'll come back to you on the Centre for Scrutiny and Governance and let's make sure that happens. Thank you. Councillor Hedges. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Apps for that. I just wanted to go back to paragraph 9 where we talk about the approval of changes for the constitution going to rest with full council. Now, I know Councillor Grimston has talked about his history of being on the council, but sadly I only have a couple of years to talk about, but in those couple of years, for council, the agenda has been pretty jam packed. So I guess the question here is if what you're proposing or what the CFGS is proposing in the document at the back, significant changes to the constitution, i.e. reducing down committees from the current figure down to something like 4, which again, just to reiterate, is significant, how do you expect for council to give us enough time to scrutinise and make proper decision making on that? Because it seems to me that this is going to be an impossible task. Let's take a few more comments, I think. We'll come back to some of these points I think later on. Councillor Henderson. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, my apologies, I'm waiting for a procedure on my voice. Thank you, Chair. First of all, can I say I have extremely wide experience in terms of committees, constitutions, and I have to say, I mean, certainly Councillor Abbs's experience when she first became a Councillor was very similar to mine. I never come across an organisation that operates like it does at present. It is bizarre, completely totally bizarre, and it's quite clear from the report from CFGS that we are complete and total outliers. So it makes sense to change things. It certainly makes sense to streamline things. If we can actually work towards a structure which is far less adversarial than excellent, clearly politics will always play a major role in any local authority. But the current system actually basically incurs adversarial comment. And so we should be looking at an opportunity to reduce that. We should be looking at opportunities for much more real scrutiny by members and members at a much earlier stage. I mean, many of the reports that we actually receive in committee, you know, concern things where, frankly, about 90 per cent of the work is being done already. For example, in the health committee, we have a whole number of reports concerning procurement. And in reality, the committee doesn't actually have very much choice. They can make comments on some of the detail. But in reality, they're not actually making any fundamental choice. And as a consequence, the scrutiny is purely piecemeal and frankly does not exist. The scrutiny committees are not genuine scrutiny committees. They certainly need to be. So these initial changes, which I have to say I think are incredibly modest, I probably would have gone a lot further. I would have preferred to have gone a lot further. The initial constitutional changes, which are before this committee, I think are extremely modest. It was certainly a result of some of the bislubs or procedures that exist in the debate on council, whereby German debates can be raised in the middle of any other debate or any other item of business. But I actually saw the report from CFGS, certainly for the purposes of this committee, as being background information, setting the scene on what is going to happen in the future. I think Councillor Apps has given a clear undertaking that there will be plenty of opportunity for all members to contribute to that debate and to how the recommendations contained in CFGS are taken forward, if indeed at all. We may not agree with all of them, but that is very much for the future. The constitutional changes was actually set up for decision by this committee, which is technically a recommendation, I think, incredibly modest, and I think they are fairly awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just had a specific question, if I may, surrounding the changes to the standing orders for adjournment debates, and I think most importantly placing it under the discretion of the chair to accept the motion. I hope the administration will appreciate the concern that a relevant but challenging motion may not make it through on that basis. So I was wondering will there be guidance perhaps agreed on across party basis as to how that discretion should be used, and I'm really not being flippant, but I think there is an important point there around protecting the interests of future minority parties in being able to raise, of course, related to ones with Council, their ability to raise issues using that vehicle. Councillor Lawless. Thank you, Chair. Like Councillor Apps, my second meeting was heavily disrupted by certain events that took place. I think it was really distasteful as well, and residents don't want to see that sort of stuff from their elected representative. I agree with Councillor Henderson that I think this is modest and could definitely go further. So I want to ask, was any thought given to the reform of points of personal explanation? Okay. I'm going to, I think, take Councillor Graham and then I'm going to come to Mr Chowdhury because I think there's a list of things that we need a few answers on. So Councillor Graham first, though. I'll now make the general reflections I was hoping to make at the beginning, but I was obviously trying to seek clarity on what was proposed. I should state that as the opposition, we are not opposed to changing the constitution or changing the standing orders. For as long as I've been on this Council, I've thought that the way the standing orders are put together are highly confusing, the language is arcane, and there are definitely ways to do things better. We are not opposed to changes to the way committees handle business or indeed what those committees are, though obviously we want to see the detail of that. We do think there are advantages and strengths in the model that we've had, which is indeed why the opposition for so many years supported the structure that we had as the opposition. But fundamentally also, we recognise that Labour Councillors have a majority on this Council. If they wish to change the procedures of this Council, regardless of whether we support that or not, they're within their rights to do so. What we're within our rights to do or should be is to scrutinise those changes and to make sure that they are explained and to make sure that they are adequately debated. And this is where I have severe concerns, which unfortunately have been deepened by what I've just heard. So we've had a review by CFGS that was supposed to run in parallel to a working group set up from this committee. That working group was never established. We now have a position where CFGS have brought forward a report. There are many things in that report that might be described as, you know, initial things to implement. For example, they talk about a quick fix to the overuse of SO83A procedures, which would involve changing the cabinet responsibilities, but that hasn't been brought forward. That's something that's in the report. They talk about the fact that the leader is not regularly exposed to scrutiny and open accountability is difficult to identify. Well, that's something that might have been addressed, something we tried to address with the evidence session that we put down for our last special meeting. They talk about the fact that the way we deal with papers, which is something that happened under us as well as now, in which officers' names appear on papers and recommendations, this confusion as to who owns them, should be clearly owned by members of the executive. That's something that could have been implemented. In fact, that's something that could be implemented without even needing to come to this committee. None of those things have happened. Instead, this report sets out a series of changes that do not follow from what CFGS had recommended, have not been discussed with CFGS, and many of which run contrary to CFGS and LGA guidance. And they absolutely do, and we'll take you through that when we get onto the proposals in turn, and I can quote exactly how that is the case. Furthermore, we need to look -- why do we have a constitution? You know, what's it there for? It's there to prevent the abuse of power, and it's there to provide structures whereby the executive can be held to account. And whatever you may think of how the conservative administrations of the past went about its business, we were always made sure that we could be held to account, and opposition members had the rights and ability to do so. What we now see is a situation in which, completely contrary to what the CFGS paper on how to review constitutions says, task and finish groups will be set up under the parent committee of the executive. The executive is the power. The executive is a committee on which no opposition or backbench members sit. Now, the constitution is owned by all of us as counselors. It is completely inappropriate for that committee to be the filter on how the rules of the game that it has to follow are changed. It's like saying that we're going to revise things in the House of Commons, and instead of having public bill committees, we'll give them to a subcommittee of the cabinet. That is the abuse of the separation of powers that you would put forward if you allow that to happen. It is completely contrary to guidance. The executive would dictate the terms of those task and finish groups. It would dictate the membership of those task and finish groups, and it would say whether they had succeeded or failed without any wider input or line-by-line scrutiny by an actual committee of this council, utterly contrary to what CFGS recommend. We felt that CFGS should be here tonight to answer questions on their report. I can tell you that if they were here, they would be horrified by that proposal. It is fundamentally dangerous. Now, I don't know if this has happened deliberately or by accident, but in effect, we are debating proposals for this to be the last ever meaningful meeting of this committee, despite the fact that we've scheduled lots of meetings this year in which it's supposedly in order for us to deal with these issues, instead of which that's going to be handed over to the executive, the very body that it should not be handed to, the very body that the Constitution is supposed to protect us against and not allow them to have untrammeled power. If we put forward this change to Article 15.03, not the bit about who's technically in charge of the review, but the fact that changes to the Constitution have to come back to this committee first, and we don't replace it with anything else, we're allowing the executive to be an elected dictatorship. It is that simple. Now, Councilor Aps says we can rely on her goodwill. The whole point about setting rules for those in power is that you don't allow it to be on the basis of goodwill. You make sure that the rules ensure that they have to do what is right and proper. This is a profoundly dangerous approach, whether or not that's the intention. And yes, you have the votes. You can potentially push this through against all of the guidance of the groups that you supposedly say we should listen to. You're praising CFGS. CFGS say don't do this. But if you want to ignore them and do this, which would make us a total outlier, by the way, if you look at the rules for changing the Constitution, not only does CFGS say that it should come back to a committee, but you look at every borough surrounding us, because I checked all of their constitutions, Lambeth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Merton, all of them require constitutional changes to come back to a committee of the council, a regular committee, not their executive before they go forwards. Even Richmond, which has a committee system so it's very different because you can't just make the same sweeping changes. They still have a subgroup set up to deal with line by line scrutiny. CFGS say that scrutiny should be there. It may not be the intention, but you cannot push this through in this way without totally abusing your powers and allowing others that come down the line to abuse them. You are setting up a position whereby, as we know, elections can change. In 2026, you could have an incoming administration, if you lost, or 2030, which at the first meeting of the council, every single committee is changed, every part of the system is changed, all of the cabinet responsibilities and delegated powers are changed, and you would have no ability other than one vote in that meeting to do anything about it. It is profoundly dangerous. I do not understand why this has been put forward in this way and dropped on us without any consultation. Thank you, Councillor Graham. There are some specific questions there for Mr Choudry to answer. Thank you, Chair. So if I answer the broad question that Councillor Graham put forward as to how this council would be an outlier if it made the changes proposed in this paper, I disagree with him. I, too, have gone through a number of constitutions, and what I have done rather than focusing specifically around the area of this council, I have looked at six authorities across London from north to south, east to west, and a couple in the middle. So I have looked at Harrow, Bexley, Havering, Kingston, Islington and Kensington, and the arrangements vary for members' benefit. In Harrow, for example, the provision that they make for reviewing the constitution is that it rests with the monitoring officer who can propose changes, having consulted with the leaders of the political groups and take a report straight to council. In Bexley, the duty rests with the chief executive in consultation with the monitoring officer, and approval still rests with council. Havering, the arrangements there, give me a moment, sorry, I have to scroll past, there is a limited power review for the monitoring officer, but substantive changes sit for approval by a governance committee before it goes on to council. And I could go on, but I won't, rather than list that for members' benefit. The suggestion that it is the executive who can make these changes without involvement, I'm afraid misses a key point, which is that the responsibility to agree any changes to the constitution, substantive changes to the constitution, will still rest with council. So that's a short response to Councillor Graham's point as to whether politically it's something that is desirable, and I'll leave to members to debate rather than contribute. A couple of other questions were posed from Councillor Jeffries regarding the adjournment motions and the discretion of the mayor. I hope Councillor Jeffries is helpful if I just clarify what the proposal is. The proposal is that the motion to adjourn, so standing on the 28th, that will simply become a procedural adjournment motion. So if the council needs to adjourn, for example, there's an emergency, business can't be conducted, et cetera, and the mayor will still retain a discretion in case that motion is abused. So a member routinely stands up to look to adjourn without cause. What there will be in place of what the current arrangements are for discussing matters that are not related to the matter under discussion is the new standing order 39, which is the matters of local interest, which will be dealt with by the issue being served on notice to the chief executive and added to the agenda at an appropriate point. There will be the right of the mayor on taking advice from the chief executive to reject a request under that. It is simply a lift and shift of our provision for motions. So in the same way that if a motion on notice is inappropriate or not in accordance with the standing orders, then it would be rejected. It's rarely if ever used in practice because the mayor is there to oversee the proceedings rather than comment on the details. And then Councillor Lawless asked a question around as to why points of personal explanation were not included. I suspect that could be a matter for discussion for a next task and finish group. We've had a good general discussion for about 45 minutes. I'm going to come to you, Councillor Graham, so that you can you're indicating you want to make a quick point. I'm going to allow that. But can I also ask you to move the debate towards a decision as well in the same way? And then I'll go back to the people who want to. Okay. Just actually, Councillor Hedges, was your question a rhetorical one, though? We can answer it, apparently. So that's I forgive me. I thought it was a rhetorical question. So, Councillor, Councillor Graham first. And then we will be moving towards a decision. Okay. I'm happy for us to move towards discussion of the individual proposals and look at them in turn, in turn. And that, I think, sensible idea. I just I just wanted to come back on what Mr. Choudry was saying as a monitoring officer. There are two parts to the proposed changes to Article 15. The first is about who formally has the duty to review the Constitution. And I completely accept that that is often the monitoring officer and other authorities. And we're not necessarily opposed to that formally resting with the monitoring officer. The point is not that. The point is the part at the bottom changes to the Constitution must be approved by the full Council. And we're deleting the words only after consideration of the proposal by the General Purposes Committee. We're removing, in his words, the filter. That is not the case in other authorities. It is not the case in most of the ones he was describing even now. And I have yet to check, but officers describe Richmond as having no review function. When I looked, they did have one. Removing that filter is what is so dangerous. And giving the power of that filter to the Executive, at least officers should admit that that is utterly contrary to what CFGS guidance states should be the case. Will they at least accept that CFGS says absolutely in no circumstances should that filter role, which they also say must exist, be given to the Executive? I'd like to go to Councillor Apps, and then we really must move towards a decision. I think, Councillor Apps, you're going to answer the point from Councillor Hedges. Is that correct? Yes, absolutely. And it also brings in the points by Councillor Graham. And it's been really interesting hearing the points. We don't dismiss them at all, but we think we're kind of, we need to hear the arguments back because I think there might be a case of missing the point. What we're creating here is rather than having the opportunity as an opposition to be voted down in GP committee, we're giving the opportunity to co-produce proposals, giving a strengthening hand. The fact is that in Richmond and many other councils, there are informal arrangements. We're not talking about not having arrangements. We're talking about changing them so that they're in a less formal setting, which we think, to be frank, given, as I said earlier, the less more heat than light, we think it would be good to have proper constructive positive discussions rather than create an adversarial position. And we also want to be more nimble and fight foot and to be able to make fast progress, because we have, we want to make some changes with centre for scrutiny and governance in good time as well. And so my point to Councillor Hedges would be that, of course, any opposition party can object proposals in full council. They can bring questions, they can have debates, they can vote against just as you can in GP. But we hope that you won't want to if you've been part of co-producing those proposals. So we look forward to debating these things more. I also wanted to come on to the point of Pope, which is terrible to use acronyms, and a point of personal explanation. I agree with Councillor Lawless, these don't work well at the moment. In many cases, we really ummed and ahhed about this, but we did feel it needed further consultation with members to make sure that if we adjust so we do so in a way that is suitable for the rest of the constitution and which makes sure that it mirrors other aspects of the constitution. Sometimes they're necessary. You know, clearly we don't want members to be slandered. So that's important to make sure that doesn't happen. But sometimes they're raised in relatively trivial cases and sometimes they're raised in a disruptive way. And we want to find a way to manage that better so that they keep the flow of the debate in full council going. So that will be an important change too. Thank you. Okay, I'm not trying to guillotine things. I want to move to a vote on the paper now. Are we going to discuss each proposal in turn? Do you have amendments to the paper? We do. We have technical points we wish to raise under each. I think if we just take each heading in turn, some that we can be very quick on, other things we want to ask potential questions about the technical import of them, and we can then bring the amendments up as they go. So if we just take potential, just each of these headers, just use that. How many are there altogether? Well, there are as many as have been put in the paper. Okay, so each element of the paper. Some of them are very quick, are you? Yes. Go on then. Very quick. Okay, well, if we're taking changes to article 14 first, we don't have any objections to this, so we're quite happy to vote for that to be accepted. I think if we structured the vote... Sorry, are you proposing that we take the paper in parts? Is that what you're saying? Precisely what I'm discussing, because I think otherwise we'll get very confused and we will try not to abuse this to prolong debate unnecessarily. We just wish to debate each of the proposed changes in term, which is the function of this committee, unless it is removed. Okay, can I... Let me take the mood of the meeting. I mean, do we want to take it in parts? I'm happy to do that if we want. Okay, Councillor Lawless. I can understand what Councillor Graham's saying, but I do think they have debated a large part of this paper already. I was expecting... Forgive me, I was expecting you to move amendments to the paper. That's the only thing. But you're saying you want to vote on every section of it? We do wish to vote on each of these proposals independently. We have three amendments that we wish to make. In some cases, we may move an amendment depending on what is said, or it may be unnecessary. Depending on what is said, we may withdraw some. But we do wish to discuss each of these proposals in turn, which is what we're here to do. Okay, I think... I mean, my instinct is just to let you try and amend it. Or, I mean, your amendment might be to say that you don't want to support a particular section of the paper, in which case, tell us which bit it is you don't want to vote for, and then that becomes an amendment. We have specific technical points which we wish to make under each of these post changes, with the exception of a couple like the first one where we just agree, and we can simply agree. I think it would be very helpful just to allow us to make technical points and ask technical questions under each of these proposals. As I say, we can move straight to a vote on these proposed changes to Article 14, set out Paragraph 6 to 8, because we agree with that. What's a technical point? What do you mean? Well, there are some things about whether it will actually have the effect meant. There are things, for example, about changing the date for submission of questions, about what that will mean in practice in relation to group meetings and indeed OSC dates. There are others about whether actually removing the powers of the listed functions from the finance OSC would actually have that effect, which is relevant to how those functions are set out in terms of LGA 2000. So there are various points where some of them are uncontroversial, some are entirely technical and we'd just like an answer whether or not we get it, we'll at least ask the question. And on other points, we wish to raise very substantive concerns and move amendments where appropriate. And if we do it by the structure of the headings, no one gets confused and we can make some progress. All right. Sorry, Councillor Lawless, yes. Thank you. On this paper, there is one recommendation. So I think we should, the party opposite should either make their amendments and we vote, or we are sitting here and discussing and voting on this one recommendation. This is a function of the way the papers have always been written for GP, but the practice... Well, well, well, well, well, the practice of the committee has always been... Sorry, Councillor Graham, I've not called you. Sorry. So what are you proposing, Councillor Lawless? Well, I think the party opposite, if they're going to suggest amendments, let's hear the amendments and put them to a vote and then let's move on. We'd like to turn through each of those proposals without votes, if a move is not to have votes, and as we go and ask the technical questions, we did set out to start that we wanted to have a general discussion and then we to... Yes, Councillor Graham, I've not called you. Hang on a second. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to put the entire paper to a vote, okay? What I'm going to ask you to do, if you can, is to suggest amendments to that paper. If you're saying that you've got no problem with proposed changes to Article 14, I don't understand why I need to take it in parts. So that's going to go through on the nod because you're not objecting to it. And there will be other sections, presumably, in the same category. So what I'm going to do... Hang on a second. Councillor Grimston, what did you say? It seems to me... I mean, for one thing I'd say, this is an important paper in where we're going in the Council. It's unfortunate if the attitude is, well, we've had an hour now, so we've got to... That's almost the old thing that we're trying to get away from. The danger, I think, of taking it as one, is that we'll simply get a 6-5 vote, or I don't know how I'm going to vote at the moment, which is unnecessary when there are areas of the Paper Weather Agreement which we can move forward on together, which in effect, we can send a message back to Councillor Apps and her colleagues saying, don't worry about this, everybody's agreed with this, we don't need to look at this further, rather than being almost forced into an oppositional picture. And there are several questions I, for example, hope I'll get, but I'm not sure what the word group is used in paragraph 22 in a way that I don't really understand. And I want to be able to just clarify with the officers as to what... Just as an example, I can ask that question now since I'm on, if you like. But just the general point, I think for the particular point we are at the moment, I don't see the harm in going through a paragraph-by-paragraph approach, which is not unusual in this Council in many papers. And it will happen, at the very least, it will mean the areas where there is unanimous agreement on this committee are very, very clear for all to see, and those can move ahead very straightforwardly. Okay, Councillor Grimston, it's not paragraph-by-paragraph, that's not what you're proposing, is it? I think proposal... Well, I mean, that will depend. I mean, we've already, the opposition have already said the one doesn't need to be discussed, but it's entirely in agreement, so whether that's paragraph-by-paragraph. But I think we do need to have an opportunity, I think, where there are specific points that I've not raised yet, because I was talking generally, as you rightly suggested earlier, which I would like to be able to raise, we all do. And I don't see, I think, in terms of efficient business, but also the message that we want to move towards, which is as much consensus and agreement as possible. I think this might take us closer to that than just being forced into a single vote on the paper, as it may or may not be amended. Okay, I'm just a bit thrown by the process, I confess. Look, and I'm not trying to tie everything down to one hour's discussion or anything of the kind, although much as I would have liked that to be in the case, of course. Okay, in that case, Councillor Grimston, here's what I propose. I'm going to go through and say, I'm going to take each section that is headed up, proposed changes to. Is that? Councillor Apps. Could we make sure that any amendments that are related to those are taken at the same time, please? Yes, okay. Is everyone happy with that way of proceeding? Yes. Okay, so I've got in the paper the bundle of documents on page 7. I have proposed changes to Article 14. Can I ask, is there any opposition to that section, that set of proposals in the paper? So that section is agreed, okay? Agreed unanimously. We then have proposed -- sorry, Mr Chowdhury, you got a problem? I've got a problem, Chair. Can I just suggest that the linked paragraphs from page 14 onwards, paragraph 23, which is the arrangements for reporting the affixing of the seal to Council, is that also agreed? So we know that that part is dealt with. Okay, there are concomitant paragraphs later in the document. If we agree proposed changes to Article 14, we agree the concomitant paragraphs later on, okay? All right, okay. So can I go to proposed changes to Article 15? Is there any objection to that section? No? Okay, you have questions, points to -- okay, go on then. Who's making them? Councillor Corner. Thank you, Chair. The first point I wish to raise on this is that, as we have briefly discussed in the general discussion, that changes to the Constitution must be approved by the full Council. But there is no safeguard there to ensure that there can be meaningful detailed discussion at Council. And we know there are other standing orders that allow for Council to be adjourned at -- and even guillotined. So depending on where proposed changes to the Constitution lie on the agenda, it might be that they essentially go through without many members really being aware of what's being proposed and without there being sufficient debate. So can we get a clear commitment from the Administration that that will never happen and that it will always be a substantive debate at full Council? Ideally, proposed changes will come to this committee, of course. That's certainly my position and our position on this side of the table. But if that wasn't to happen, can we have that assurance there will always be substantive discussion at least at full Council? Yeah, I don't think there's any suggestion that that wouldn't be the case. Then let's have it minuted, okay? So in that -- on that -- is that it on proposed changes to Article 15? So, yes, I did make the point earlier that, of course, it's always open to the opposition to raise debates, to raise questions, to take forward issues on proposals that they want to see debated. So that remains something which is fully available to the opposition. But of course, as I said before, we hope that that's not something you'd want to do because you will have co-produced the proposals. Thank you. Okay, very good. Mr Chowdhury. Just to repeat, members, Paragraph 10 sets out the intent going forward, which is that monitoring and reviewing the operation of the Constitution will engage members and the intent and reference the arrangements that operate in other Councils. So it should not happen that a substantive amendment to the Constitution comes straight to Council. It would be highly unusual for it to do so. But will it be subject to substantive and detailed discussion at all times it comes forward at the Council meeting? Or might it be covered in a guillotined, on-the-nod style basis? I think you've had an assurance that there will be a substantial debate. I mean, sometimes they're guillotined, sometimes they're not. I mean, we can't predict, you know, how short of time people might be. So I think you have your assurance, and it will be minuted. Okay? Next one I've got is proposed changes to questions asked by members at Council stand. I haven't made my point or moved my amendment on Article 15 yet. So... Do have an amendment on Article 15. Yes. Well, the point is that, as I said, there is an assurance on task and finish groups here. That's just an assurance. What we're doing is removing all of the safeguards and then saying, well, we'll have an assurance that there will be a task and finish group. But we've been informed that the task and finish groups will be determined by the Executive. It's like sort of a bank manager writing to you to say, well, we're going to change the terms of your account, and it will, in theory, allow the bank to withdraw all your money and transfer it to the bank itself. But don't worry, because here's a letter saying that we don't intend to do that. You cannot remove safeguards and then say, well, our intention is not to do this in the future. Councillor Graham, what is your amendment? Our amendment is simply, because there is obviously confusion. I think there's even confusion amongst the administration councillors themselves as to what this might allow. Not what they intend, but what this might allow is to break this into two parts. The change to 15.01 about the head of paid service and the monitoring officer take the labour, we're not necessarily opposed to that. That's not a problem. It's 15.03. And our amendment, and members have it, is circulated in paragraph 1, new sub-paragraph, save that. Article 15.03 shall remain in force until an alternative procedure for scrutinising changes to the constitution is considered by the general purposes committee and approved by full council. It simply means that we want to see that mechanism and have confirmation of what that mechanism is before we get rid of the safeguard. Because otherwise, anything could happen. And as I said, if we continue down this line, without this amendment, we are running completely opposite to what the Centre for Government Scrutiny says should happen, completely opposite to what the LGA says should happen, and as a total outlier. Thank you, Councillor Greyman. Do you have a seconder for that amendment? Okay, can we move to a vote on that specific amendment then? All those in favour of the amendment, please? All those against? We've got a record of that. The amendment falls. Okay, can I move on to proposed changes to Standing Order 11, then, please? I have a technical question. Okay. The question is that, obviously, set out in the LGA 2000, overview and scrutiny committees can only have functions appropriate to overview and scrutiny committees. They cannot have any others. So by removing these points from the purview of the committee, they are not actually removed, because the finance committee is the fallback committee for any overview and scrutiny functions and areas that are not assigned to another committee. In practice, they can't remove an area from the committee's remit, because the committee can only have remits appropriate to overview and scrutiny committees and any that aren't assigned come to the finance committee in any case. So are we now on proposed changes to Part 3, Appendix B, or are we on proposed changes to Standing Order 11? Part 3, Appendix B. Okay, Part 3, Appendix B. Do you have a seconder for that? It's not an amendment. It's a question to say how can this have any meaningful impact, given that OSE's functions can't be reduced by virtue of standing orders. They have the ones they have by law. You can't add to them by law. Very good. And the finance has to fall back for reasons for the ones that aren't allocated. Okay, technical question. Councillor Graham, I can say no more than what is contained in Paragraph 11. It's to align the changes to Article 15 of the proposed changes made to the remit of the finance OSE. The role will still remain for finance OSE to scrutinize matters related to purchase of goods, services, materials, and equipment, but not the standing orders and the procurement regulations which form part of the constitution. That is the change proposed by changes to the Article 15. That would suggest that the standing orders were currently unlawful, because the overseas aren't, by the matter of the LGA 2000, not allowed to have any functions that the committee can't have. Councillor Graham, we don't want a debate here. I haven't called you and we don't want a debate here. You've asked a question, you've had an answer. Do you have an amendment to that proposal? No, we don't have an amendment. We're just going to vote against it. Okay, you're going to vote against it. All right, very good. Can I put that to a vote then? That's at the bottom of page 8 in the documents, is it? I think it's, yes, it is. Yeah, it is. Yeah, I've got it. So, all those in favour of deleting it, is that right? No, you're just going to vote against it. Okay, all those in favour of that paragraph then? All those against? All right, thank you. Are there any abstentions? Yes, oh, there's a nice abstention there. Thanks very much. Okay, so can I move on to the proposed changes to question standing order 11 then? What are you after here? Is this a question? I have a question. Okay, I understand why the arguments for having a longer period of time for questions to be considered and their responses written prior to the full council meetings but moving to a five-day period from the current two-day period will under our current timelines for committee cycles mean that questions, some questions will have to be put that are relevant to a certain area before that committee has met in that cycle. So for example, one of the most affected committees will be the finance committee which as we know has a huge remit and will very often if not at all times on the current schedule meet after the questions have to be put which means that there isn't an opportunity for scrutiny and questions will be put to the council which could have been dealt with at the committee. So can the administration rethink this and ensure that the timeline for questions will allow all committees to meet prior to the questions having to be submitted? Can I ask are you proposing to vote this down or amend it or what? I'm asking that question. I would like the administration to reconsider. Councillor Apps. I see this relates to amendment two that you're proposing so we can deal with that amendment straight after I answer this question. So let's see how it goes with this new deadline. I think that's going to be, as I pointed out before, it's an extremely modest change compared to what most councils do. It's absolutely on the balance of making sure that we give good time for the opposition but also adequate time for the majority party. We need good answers to questions, not just good questions. And the current time limit is unreasonable if I may say so. We've got a lot to do in this council. We've got important business to get done and we do not think it's a reasonable deadline. I'd also say that you have the important advantage that you've got supplementary questions. So you will have seen the papers. You will no doubt have studied the papers in detail about coming to safe finance. You will know the areas that are of interest to you and you can bring forward further information that comes forward through your supplementary questions. We do absolutely make an undertaking to make sure that you've seen the papers and I'd also say I would add to that around constitutional proposals that are coming forward. We'll make best endeavour to make sure that you've seen all of the information that you'll need in order to make those decisions. So if we could move that, I mean I understand the point that's been made. I think it's been made now several times. We've had lots of conversations about questions so if we could move to them moving the amendment. Can I move to a vote on that section then? You're not amending it are you? I want to introduce the amendment if possible because this is something that we resisted when we were in charge. This is a change that was proposed and resisted when we were in charge to allow opposition. Can you move an amendment? I will move an amendment. I'm introducing the amendment because this is information that I doubt members on the other side are aware of. Amendment 2 as on the papers here, this proposal is something that was resisted when we were in charge and we defended the rights of the opposition councillors, the Labour councillors at that time to have the time adequate to them. Instead of which now we have the OSCs brought forward much closer to the annual council in the calendar and we will now have a situation where there is no ability for us to respond to that general scrutiny. Let us move to a vote. Hang on, I haven't even introduced what I'm saying. All we are saying is that you can have the amendments. I haven't described the amendment. The amendment would allow that five days in circumstances where the OSC isn't meeting a week before. But where the OSC falls within the notice period it would simply say instead of being on the Wednesday morning it would be on the Friday morning which still gives you a substantially longer period than now. It's a perfectly reasonable change. That's enough, thank you. Can I move to a vote on that? That's your amendment too, is it? In that case, all those in favour of the amendment? Is there a seconder for it? Of course there is. All those in favour of amendment too? All those against? It falls. Proposed changes to petitions, any objections there? I have a question. The question is simply to either Councillor Apsle or the monitoring officer. Does anything in this change prevent either opposition members referring stuff to committees through the Council's petition scheme or placing it on the agendas of those committees through their rights as OSC members? Mr Chowdhury. No, it doesn't. As paragraph 14 makes clear, it simply aligns the process. So the current arrangements are very small petitions can be presented at Council that are taken forward to OSCs, it's simply to ensure that those petitions also align with the process that exists in Article 3NxA. So this is one of the mystified, how am I allowed to respond? Nobody told you, Councillor Graham. So can we move to a vote then on proposed changes? You asked a question, you've had an answer. I don't have to take you if I don't want to now. Now then, let's just take a vote on it. All those in favour of that section then proposed, there's no amendment to this. So all those, does that mean we're unanimously in favour? Okay. All those in favour? All those against? All those abstaining? Very good, thank you. Proposed change to the exercise of a right to reply, standing order 21B. Have you got any questions, objections to that? Anybody? I simply wish to ask why it is that of all the things that were in the CFDS report, where there were proposals, where there were things that could have been brought forward to this committee, the Executive has instead decided to bring forward something that they do not mention, that they still wish to review, haven't reviewed, and just by pure coincidence relates to powers that opposition Councillors have tried to exercise, and whether this is a change that flows from the CFDS report, or it's a change that flows from pure spite. Okay, is that okay, you want to answer that, Councillor Apps? Certainly I will. We looked at this, I mean, we could have just abolished it entirely, that would have been perfectly within our rights, but actually we think it can have a useful part. However, I do not think it's appropriate for members to stand up and make points of reply when almost everyone except for themselves does not wish them to do so and wants to hear other voices within the Council. So it's a matter of making sure that we manage debate and that debate is moved forward and we hear from a diverse number of Councillors and that no single voices are allowed to dominate. Good, all those in favour of that proposal then? All those against? Thank you. Was there an abstention? I don't think there was, no. Proposed changes to motions of adjournment at the bottom of the documents page 10, is there any objection to that? Is there an objection or a question or what? Thank you, Chair. This proposed change makes reference to topics of local interest being brought up. I do want to hear some detail about the guidance that Mayors will receive about what is and isn't a matter of local interest. It seems to me that if a matter is of interest to anyone in the borough or any organisation, that it might be defined as local interest. Will there be guidance on what is and isn't a local interest and what the thresholds are for considering something to be local, national and international interests? So, Councillor Corner, on page 12, the new standing order 39 is set out. I can really say no more than what's contained within the first two lines of the new standing order. The language used within that are a mimic of the language used for on notice motions. It is for members to be able to demonstrate that it's an issue live to their ward or it relates, otherwise relates to business of the council. I am very grateful for that and if I can just come back very quickly to add some colour to what I'm saying. On frequent occasions at this council, topics related to foreign policy and things going on in other countries have been proposed for debate and it's always been okay for people to argue, well, look, it's happening in the international sphere but it is of interest to our communities locally. Would a topic like that be considered a local concern or a local matter? Is that not been answered already to your question? No. I think it has. Can we move to a vote on that, please? We need to know what a local concern is before we can vote on it. Well, you've had an answer on that already. I asked if there would be further guidance given to mayors and haven't received any assurance that there will be. Did you want to say something? Oh, sorry. I'm just going to propose an amendment. It seems to me, firstly, I'm not sure the council is actually the right place for ward issues. We need to be careful that it's not a matter of saying, well, I've got a problem with a roundabout or potholes in Augustus Road. Can we get these sorted or not? Where it is a matter that's something in a ward that you think might be something that's happening elsewhere in the borough and raising it to colleagues' attention, I think that's a very different matter. But I wonder whether these are things really more about matters of topical interest than of local interest and whether it might be worth amending the title to matters of topical interest. It could be local or topical but I prefer matters of topical interest. And simply just to say draw the council's attention to an issue that is live and topical or something of that or relating to business of the council. And I'm not sure what the raising the ward specifically adds to it. We're not excluding it. And it kind of gives an impression. I'm not sure what it's there for. It's not there for very parochial issues in our ward. It's more there for things that might be of interest across the borough. Good. Very helpful. Is that an amendment, Councillor Grimston? Okay. How would we phrase that amendment? The sentence here is, yes, it's 39. Yep, you can. And we'll alter it to topical and local. Local and topical? Matters of local and topical interest. Okay. We'll take that as an amendment. Local or topical. Can we take that as an amendment? Sorry, Councillor Perhaps. Right. So draw attention to the council's attention to an issue that is live in their ward or a topical issue relating to the business of the council. Would that be appropriate? Appropriate? Acceptable? That will do. Okay. All those in favour of that amendment, please? All those against? We have our own points and we have our own amendments. You have your own amendments on what? On this item. Oh, okay. So I'd actually had discussed this in advance for Councillor Grimston. It was very much the same opinion that he was. But I think we ought to know what we're voting on here. What we're doing is instead of, I should preface by saying I think the adjournment debate system we have is absolutely crazy. I think that the way that you can interrupt any other debate is crazy. We've kept an adjournment debate here that can still interrupt other debates. So it's not even doing what the executive suggests it wishes to do. Please propose your amendment. Well, I'm setting out the concern and I'm setting out what the amendment is seeking to answer and address. So our concern is that on the matters of local and topical interest, not only are we reducing the time, but now instead of a cabinet member having to know their brief and having to stand up on the spot and answer to anything that they could get challenged on, which was the case for all of our cabinet members for decades, they will have written notice and be able to read out a scripted response. But more to the point, when they read out that scripted response, they will not have to take a stance. They can sit back down and there will then be no vote. So there will be no way to hold the executive to a position on those issues. It removes the vote and it gives advance notice. And then on the adjournment, there would still be a vote on that one, but it puts it entirely at the mayor's discretion, which puts the mayor in a very invidious position because where as currently it's possible to balance between the parties, the mayor would have to pick only one during the meeting. Can you tell us what the amendment actually is, please, Councillor Graham? So the amendment is the amendment three in front of you. What it does is it does two things. First of all, on the adjournments, it makes it an actual adjournment debate, exactly as adjournment debates occur elsewhere that would come at the end of the meeting, couldn't interrupt business earlier, would be on the same lines otherwise as exactly the administration has set out, but that it would alternate so that the same group couldn't have it two meetings in a row, which would also allow the independent member to make an adjournment debate if he wished whereas currently he is excluded because one of the other factors here is it gives explicit power to the whips on all of these matters. So it allows the adjournment to fall at the end of the meeting after all other business and it prevents all the other things that they have to do and makes the consequences changes. Then on the matters of local and topical interest, what it simply does is it removes the prior notice, it reinstates a vote and it makes sure that it comes at an appropriate juncture in the meeting. Now, there's things that if we had these discussions in advance we might have been able to agree. I think you've made your point, thank you. Can I move to a vote on it then, please? All those in favour? I haven't had a mover and seconder yet. Oh yes, sorry, where's your seconder? Okay, very good, thank you. This is your amendment three, isn't it? Yes, it is, okay. Just checking. All those in favour of the amendment, please? All those against? All those abstaining? All those abstaining? No? No abstentions? Okay, very good. We've had two amendments to the same thing. The first one succeeded, the second one fell. So can I move to proposed changes for requisitioning special committee meetings? Is this a question or a proposal? We didn't vote on the proposal as amended. Which proposal as amended? Previously, so we had an amendment. Oh sorry, I see. We never indicated whether we supported it as amended. Understood and forgive me, Mr Choudry was trying to point that out to me. So can I see all those in favour of the proposal as amended? All those against? All those, yes, technically the amended proposal as amended. Any abstentions? No, okay. So in that case, is there a concomitant change? There are consequent changes to it, which is part of your amendment, Councillor Graham? I assume we're voting on that at the same time. We're happy for that to happen. Okay, so that was bound up with what we've just voted on. Good. Can I move to proposed changes to the requisitioning of special committee meetings? First of all, okay, Councillor Graham then. Thank you. So this is a power that we've used once in the last two years. The only reason we used it was because the OFC agenda was overloaded. And we used it to allow full flexibility about when that meeting would have been held rather than using our statutory call-in powers that would have forced the meeting to occur far sooner. What we now seem to have is that for a power that we've used very sparingly and reasonably and where we didn't use the statutory powers that would have caused far more inconvenience, this will now be removed from us and removed in a way that no other council that I can find does. I'm not aware of a single council that has this group restriction on who can call special meetings. And more to the point, although the '72 Act is ambiguous on how councils allow things to be put on agendas, nevertheless in saying that every member has the right to both place something on the agenda and have it debated, it's basically stating that if there is no time to debate something at a regular meeting that there should be provision made. I think this is a very, very strange, clear response to the opposition using a power reasonably and sparingly. And I would also like to ask Mr. Chaudry what is to prevent the members of the Conservative group reconstituting as two groups, one for Battersea and one for Putney and Tooting, and thereby meeting the qualifications all by ourselves. Because as far as I can see, in law there is nothing to prevent us doing it, and we could appoint a joint leader and joint spokesman exactly as coalitions do elsewhere. So can a quick answer to that, Mr. Chaudry, seeing as you've been named? There is nothing, Councillor Graham. A group is two or more members who choose to constitute as a group, so yes, it is possible if that's where you need to touch. Can you also, sorry, just a further follow-up, is there anything to prevent opposition councillors were the Labour group to refuse to send to a special meeting, calling a special meeting to council for all 58 councillors to come and debate the same thing under our statutory powers? No, there's nothing to prevent us from statutory power. I would ask perhaps whether she really wishes to go through with this change, because it's quite clear that we were not exceeding the rate of reasonable use of powers and we can easily get around it if we wish to. Councillor Graham, can we move to a vote on it then? Are you false? This is the last occasion we'll ever get responses from the executive, because the executive will be answerable to the executive in future and not to regular councils. Councillor Grimston has the floor. Thanks. Just a couple of questions about Power 22 and the comments around standing order 58. Firstly, why is standards committee being specialed out, separated out as being different from the other committees? Like the other committees, it only has two political groups on it. It seems very strange if this is something to do with the fact that it happens to be an independent member, who of course is not a group, on it at this moment. It seems slightly strange to write the standing orders around the particular membership of the committee at this moment in time. I found that confusing. And also, talking about members of groups in there, does this include, for example, the parent governors and the religious governors on the education overview and standards committee? And does it include the independent members rather than the independent member on the standards committee? Okay, some specific questions to Mr Chowdhury. Sorry. So, Councillor Grimston, with regards to the children's committee and the IPs on the standards committees, they are not full members. They are able to participate, but they are not members of council and therefore cannot form groups. With regards to the standards committee, it is at least two members from that committee from more than one group. It is just a consistency amongst, it's a smaller committee than other groups, that's all. Okay, can I move to a... It's a smaller committee. Sorry, Councillor Grimston. Sorry, I just didn't quite understand the question. Sorry, is that specific to one's, or is there something in the national legislation that says more than two groups? Because, as I say, we don't have two groups on the standards committee any more than we do on any other committee. It's not. Sorry, Councillor Grimston, no, it's not from any national guidance any more than the proposed change to other committees' requisition of special meetings. All right, can I move... It's very odd to have different wording for the standards committee, which is precisely the same as all the other committees in terms of political groups. Thank you, Councillor Grimston. Can I move to a vote, then, on this section to... We're going to get a response from the Executive. On this last occasion, we may ever get one. I want to move to a vote on it. I think it's time... We've had question and answer session. It's time to move to a vote. So, this section, are you objecting to it, then? You don't have an amendment to it, do you? We are objecting to it, yes, obviously. You want to vote on it in parts, in other words? Yes. Okay. Can I see everybody in favour of that section of the main paper? All those against? Okay. So, it falls. So, it goes through rather. So, if I move to the very last of the proposals, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last of the proposals is about the common seal. Can I move straight to a vote on that? No, I've got questions. I'm not necessarily against this, but I have questions. Very quickly, question. Yes. So, first of all, the paper doesn't actually state why this should be removed. It's maybe an opportunity to update the arrangement for storage of the keys to the box, but why do we wish to remove this record from meetings of the council? And why is it the case that we would not, therefore, ensure that the same record is kept online, or at least make a change to ensure that it was? I could potentially see that you remove it from the agenda as a standing item, but to remove it altogether, that strikes me as a diminution of the public's ability to see what's going on. Mr. Chowdhury. Yes. That's a mission on my part, Councillor Graham. The record will certainly be kept and it will be made available to members and the public. It would be entirely inappropriate for the record not to be maintained. Okay. It is simply to remove the receipt of the report at council, which certainly in the three years I've been here has never been considered or looked at. Can I move to a vote on that section? I don't understand what's going on there. Can I just come back, because we have another example where we're given an assurance, but there's no guarantee that anyone has to follow it. This is the problem with this whole malarkey now, that we are in a position where we have assurances but no guarantees, and that's not a way to write a constitution. That's enough. Thank you very much. Can I move to a vote on this now? This section proposed changes on the common seal. Can I see all those in favour of this section, please? All those against? Okay. Any abstentions? No. Okay. Only proposals in the document. I'm going to suggest that we move to a vote on the document as a whole, having been through every section of it. All those in favour of the document as a whole. Including the recommendations and the next steps and all the rest of it. And the amendment. Exactly. All those in favour of the document as a whole. All those against? Any abstentions? No. Okay. Thank you for that. On a point of order, can I ask if the next meeting, if the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee, we have several meetings scheduled this year, which we didn't previously on stand-alone nights, will we be meeting on those occasions? Thank you for your participation this evening. Meeting closed. [BLANK_AUDIO]