Transcript

Thank you very much. So please remember, no flash photography is permitted during the meeting. In the event of any disturbances or disruptions during the meeting this evening, I resolve the right to adjourn the meeting and clear the chamber, and I will do so without notice. A.1.95 of the Constitution, after three and a half hours, will vote on whether to extend the meeting for a further 30 minutes. Before we formally start the business of the meeting tonight, in regards to Holocaust Memorial Day. Today was National Holocaust Memorial Day, 27th of January, declared by a number of countries to be Holocaust Memorial Day, being the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Kampf. This is the 80th year since the liberation. On that day, on the 27th of January each year, it's not a day for the Jewish community on its own. We have Yom HaShoah, the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which occurs by the Christian calendar probably a couple of weeks after Easter, usually in the week after the end of Passover. And that's when we mourn just the 6 million. But National Holocaust Memorial Day is a day that we need to bear in mind that during the Holocaust, something like 17 million fell victim of the Nazi regime. That's not people dying, being killed in war. It was civilians. A lot were their own German civilians. Soviet civilians, 5,700,000. Approaching, 6 million. And we go down the list, which I'm sure you either know or can see for yourself. For the Romanies, people with, as it was described, black skin, but that included anyone virtually who didn't have pure white skin. The term genocide, I've only recently found out, was invented for a description, or as a description, of what happened in the Holocaust. Apparently made up of two words from different languages. It didn't exist before the Holocaust. The definition of genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or group. And if you are hearing the term genocide or using the term genocide, please ensure that that definition fits. The aim to destroy that nation, not just people being killed in the middle of a war or as part of a war. We were fortunate last year that Rabbi Weiss, the Orthodox minister for this borough and the local boroughs, minister of the Catford and Bromley Synagogue, spoke with personal stories. So it's two years ago that I deputized. In 2000, I'm a mathematician, so it usually gets wrong. Last year, I was in Budapest for the anniversary of the outbreak of the Holocaust in Hungary. It was quite late there, although antisemitism started well before. The year before, I was with the same group. It's a group of chazonim, cantors, have their convention each year in different countries. In 2003, we were in Hanover. We were there during November, the beginning of November. And there on the 9th of November, 2003, we got back in history to 1938. In 1938, the war hadn't started, but Poles living in Germany were deported, sent out to go back to Poland. But Poland didn't want the Jews to come in, so they were sent back, and they were stuck, therefore, in between two borders in no man's land. And one couple had a son, 17 years of age, living in Paris with his uncle. He had been there a while, to be out of the way of what was going on in Germany. And they wrote to him and told him how they were being mistreated. He had been a bit of a rebel. He was incest by what was happening to his parents. He got a hold of a gun, went into the German embassy in Paris, the aim of shooting the head of the diplomatic. Apparently, the head diplomat was just leaving as he went in, which you didn't know. He realized that he went into the office and shot the diplomat that was there. A few days later, that diplomat died. We had, therefore, a murder. A 17-year-old committed a murder. He was arrested, he gave himself up to the gendarmes. While I'm saying this, just think about this country, very recent history, and not so recent, but within the last 20 or so years. The message went from Paris to Berlin, and there the minister for propaganda put out that the Jews had killed one of theirs. Not a 17-year-old lad, not even a 17-year-old who was a Jew, but the Jews, in such a way that it would stir up hatred even more into a riot. It didn't actually put out and say go out to the streets and commit offenses, but there was a directive to the police that don't stop anyone unless they are attacking non-Jews. To the fire brigade that were out on the streets, don't do anything to put out any fires unless it's non-Jewish premises. All the synagogues were set on fire. When I was in Hanover on the 9th of November, we went to where there had been a synagogue. Now all there is is a very small memorial garden, nowhere near the size of this place, just the size of a room, with a memorial plaque at the other end. We were there for a memorial service, and there were students from a school, a number of whom I could see from the way they were dressed, the girls were Muslims, laying a white rose, each of them. In 1991, at least, the Jewish civilians were murdered. All the shops that belonged to Jews had their windows smashed and graffiti put out. It got the term that we use, the Germans apparently don't, they have another, which I'm sorry I don't know. We refer to it as Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass. Last year, with what happened in this country, with incorrect news, stirring up hatred, resulting in a group being attacked, and the attempt to set fire to a building, brought in my mind a parallel. It also brought back memory of what happened in this borough, and how the members of the faith groups in this borough and the community did not react that way. I'm talking about the slaughter of Fusilier Lee Rigby. I'm the Vice Chair of the Greenwich Faith and Community Forum. I was at the mayor's induction in the Painted Hall that evening, and a number of my colleagues were at the mosque from all the different religions, standing there to protect it in case that the community came together. They realized that if, in that case it was two men, committed a murder, they did it as individuals. Last year, again, a single man committed a murder. Quite rightly he's been charged, he admitted it, he's been sentenced. He's not part of a group, he didn't do it because he's a group. So why go after anyone? So please think when you're hearing news. As an IT teacher, one of the units in the national curriculum is to teach the children about biased information and to check. Double check, triple check. Don't just take one source. Finished. I'll first read the memorial prayer for all the victims of the Holocaust in English. Not exactly the actual translation of the recording, but as I'm not a Chosin myself, last year we had Rabbi Weiss, who is a Chosin. We've got a recording. If I could ask you please to stand, and at the end of each. As is common in the Christian religion and the Jewish religion, to reply Amen and for Muslims Amen. O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, Belzec, Bergen-Belsen, Dachar, Medinec, Sobibor, Treblinka and other extermination camps in Europe who were killed, strangled, burnt and buried alive for the sanctification of thy name. For whose souls we now pray, may their resting place be in the garden of Eden, may the Master of Mercy shelter them in the shadow of his wings for eternity, and may he bind their souls in the bond of life. God is their heritage, and may they repose in peace in their resting places. And now let us all say Amen. Amen. O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, O God, who art full of compassion, who dwellest on high, grant perfect rest in thy divine presence to all the souls of our holy and pure brethren whose blood was built by the murderers in Auschwitz, Thank you. Now we enter to the item in the agenda, the first item, apologies for absence. I have received apologies for absence from the following Councillors. Councillor Leo Fletcher, Councillor Christine St. Matthew Daniel, Councillor Jackie Smith, Councillor Dave Sullivan, Councillor Iris Williams. I have received apologies for leaving early from Councillor Lauren Dinsdahl and Councillor Abioleta. Are there any other apologies, please? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, apologies for leaving early. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, apologies for leaving early. Apologies for Councillor Peter Baker. Thank you. That's been noted. Item 2, minutes. Are members happy to agree with the minutes of the 4th December Council meeting? Thank you. Dennis, go on. Regarding declarations of interest, could I declare an interest in number 13? Yes, I'll call for that later. Thank you, Dennis. Can I ask all members to take their seats, please? Thank you. Now we enter Item 3, that's Mayor's announcements. We have a few announcements this evening. I'm very pleased to announce that this year Royal Borough of Greenwich took part in London New Year's Parade Day, showcasing diversity of culture. And I'm very privileged to announce that we stood in the third position in the LondonWise BoroughWise Competition. And I would like to thank the communities who took part there. Patra Pusaguti, Coventry Cultural Society, Diamond Buddhist Centre, Tamudi UK and Greenwich Mummies Forum. Despite the hardship of the weather, they were so resilient and they showcased the culture in a very beautiful manner and won the third position. And I really appreciate the hard work delivered by the coordinator of that event, Mr Shri Guru. I would like to congratulate and thank them all who attended. Thank you. I'm very delighted to say that our Director of Children's Services, Florence Kroll, has been awarded the CBE in this year's New Year's Honours List. For her services after graduation. What a great achievement. Florence has been a director in Greenwich since 2016, leading on the delivery of services to our children and young people. And their families and the children's services were graded Outstanding Last Year by Upstate. Many congratulations to you. Thank you so much for your service to us. Similarly, I would like to congratulate Jadiya Spencer being elected the Councillor from West Pimpsmead recently in the by-election. Congratulations and welcome to Council. Likewise, congratulations are due also to Councillor Dr Jomini Kambank, who has been made a chief to represent the Kushaki Kingdom from Northern Ghana in the UK and Ireland. I'm sure this will be a proud moment, the Ghanaian Community Group in Greenwich, and will strengthen our ties with Thema in the days to come. Thank you. Now we have some bitter news as well. It is with sadness I note the death of Ursula Boyer, the president and one of the founders of Greenwich Society. Ursula was a notable architect, having designed the sports pavilion at the Festival of Britain in 1951 with her husband Gordon. And her professional career included several local projects, including the conservation of Wangra Castle into four houses. She was an active campaigner to secure the UNESCO American Union's World Heritage Site listing and the establishment of the University of Old Royal Naval College. She was awarded an honorary doctorate of design by the University in 2010. As members will be aware, on 7 January, the borough witnessed another appalling incident of night crime, which resulted in the murder of Kellyanne Bokasha. We send our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Kellyanne, and also friends and family of Dear John Campbell, who was also killed due to night crime in December. We remain determined to examine all the circumstances that led to this death to prevent another similar tragedy happening in the future. Can I ask members to rise for a minute of silence, if you can, in memory of Kellyanne and Dear John and all those affected by night crime in the borough. Thank you. Item 4, declarations of interest. I remind members in relation to Item 13 that if they own second homes in the rural borough, they will need to declare a financial interest in the item and leave the meeting whilst Item 13 is being considered. This will also apply where the partner of the Councillor owns second homes in the rural borough as well. Yes, I have a flat that I let in the borough. Yep. Councillor Mulligan? Item 13 as well. Thank you. Yep. Any more? I have the same declaration, thank you. Dennis? Item 13, Mr Mayor, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Allen? Thank you, Mr Mayor. Not Item 13, but Item 17, property I own is adjacent to one of the car parks mentioned in the item, so I'll be excusing myself for that motion and amendment. Thank you, Councillor Arnold. Any more, please? I think I do. Item 5, notice of members wishing to exceed the five minutes rule. I have not received any request to exceed the five minutes rule, so I enter to Item 6, submission of petitions. I have been notified that some Councillors wish to submit a petition. After I call your name, please stand and briefly summarise the substance of the petition and hand it to the Officer. Councillor Vanderbilt? Thank you. I have a petition here against the closure of the Animal Park in Marion Wilson Park. Although we have heard today that things may be different, I really want to have this on the table. There are 11,500 signatures on this, so it's important that it still goes forward. Thank you. Does any member have any petition to hand? I should now thank you. Item 7, public deputation on matters not otherwise in the agenda. There are no public deputations this evening. Item 8, public question. There are 39 public questions for this meeting. The questions, together with the written responses, have been published to the website. Can I remind everyone of the procedure under the Council's constitution, part 4, A1.26 and A1.33? There is a maximum time of 30 minutes for public question, and one supplementary question can be made for clarification purposes 1. Please make your supplementary question as concise as possible to enable every questioner to have an opportunity to speak. Can those making supplementary questions please move to the microphone at your turn, press the button to speak, remain standing and speak directly to the microphone while addressing the meeting. If the relevant cabinet member is not in attendance tonight, your supplementary questions can be directed to the leader. If the period of 30 minutes expires before we reach your questions and you have a supplementary question, please email it to committee services and a written response will be obtained for you. Question 1, can I invite Alina Resto for supplementary question, if you have. Okay, hopefully the microphone's working. Fosteen Primary School has no air quality monitor outside, no zebra crossing and no school crossing patrol. This is to Avril Lacou. How are you creating a safer, greener, healthier place to live with displaced traffic from the West and East Greenwich neighborhood management project so bad vehicles are stopping on the school entrance zigzag lines of the school? Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor and I thank Alina Resto for her supplementary question. You will forgive me for staying seated but I have an injury at the moment so sorry about that. Look, we are working with the schools, we're working with Children's Services to make sure that all of this is monitored as well. We have had some feedback about the amount of cars that are turning around at that spot so we're looking to put some more warning signs. We had taken those off before, there was a little bit of confusion around that so we're trying to evaluate the appropriate type of signage that would give people sufficient warning that they're going into an LTN zone. This is outside the LTN zone in Charlton, just for clarification. Yeah, but I'm just trying to say that this would prevent a lot of the zigzag. In terms of the air quality monitoring, we don't have to have air quality monitoring next to every building. It's taken as a whole and actually Greenwich has more air quality monitoring. Schools are specifically in a sensitive location, that's what I picked up. All schools are, yes, of course all schools are. So I think that's my response though. Thank you. Thank you. For question two, Ashley Maras is interested. Thank you. So we'll talk to question three now. Karinthia. Thank you, Mr Mayor. You haven't answered my question, leader, and we still await details of the budget and time scale. So will you support Escalate Now, a campaign run by local people? Leader of the council. First of all, thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to thank Karen for her question. One thing to note, I think the answer details of the work that we've been doing. But collectively, we have a joint consensus in making sure we find a solution when it comes to DLR Karisak. And your action is appreciated, our actions are appreciated. We're jointly walking on this path together to find a resolution. Of course, we lend our support to the concerns that you have and we are equally raising those concerns. Thank you. Thank you, leader, Councillor Kheriki. We go to question four, Astrid and Queen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. My supplemental question is for Jamie. Where is the proof that separating the roof costs for leaseholders would be more expensive for Greenwich Council? Councillor Kheriki. Yeah, thanks very much, Mr Mayor. And Ms Ashley. Who I think I've met. Jamie, at these meetings, it's councillors who answer questions. Jamie, though, will be at the meeting on Monday. Though you should have, if that's okay. And all of, we're going to present quite a lot of detailed evidence there. Because, of course, we know how unpopular these decisions have been. So, the evidence will be presented there in slide form and you'll be, sorry, they'll be talked through by Jamie and other senior officers. So, I'm going to leave it to there, if you don't mind, because there's an awful lot of questions and an awful lot of people in the room. But we note it and we will provide that on Monday. Thank you. Thank you both. For question five, can I invite Joe McDermott. Hi. Well, you haven't answered my questions, but anyway. So, is it a supplementary question, can I have a supplementary question for each question I asked? Or just one supplementary question covering both questions? Both questions. So, I can have one supplementary question per question. Thank you. Right. Right. My first supplementary question is related to my first question. And that's that the council has indeed, previously up to this last year, 2024, had roof contractors for repairs and roof replacement. Can I have the cost of what that was over the two-year period they used to finance it? And what the cost was, because you haven't answered my question about the QTLA. The QTLA is for more things like maintenance, lift maintenance, gardening, insurance, not one-off projects that only take a couple of days to resolve. My house will only take four days to re-roof about anyone's house. So, I'd like Claire to be able to provide an answer to that as a supplementary question. McGinnis and Legacy, what were their quotes? Thank you. Cabinet member, Councillor Slats. Yes, it's Pat, Joe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Joe. We've met before. I've also just, I mean, obviously I've seen your other question. I just thought it might be worth me saying, if I may, Mr. Mayor, a few things for a minute, because it covers a lot of the questions that Joe and the colleagues are asking. The first thing I would say is that you are not going to be satisfied with many or any of my answers, either tonight or on Monday, because we're talking about two different beasts, if you like. I don't think there's anything in this room where you have some sympathy with people who got a £20,000 bill through their post just before Christmas. I think we're all sympathetic to that. I know you don't want my sympathy. It's of no use to you. And I speak as a leaseholder. What I need to point out to members, to the public, this is a really large organisation. We're one of the top, the biggest landlords in the country. We have 25,000 properties, 5,000 leasehold. We have 1,523 blocks, of which 450 so far have been shown to need a new roof. We cannot go down the route of having individual contracts for individual blocks, homes, etc. We're just not in that ballpark, partly because we're entirely governed by the rule of law, which tells us how we procure, how we let contracts, how we have health and safety on our sites, how we look after staff and all the rest of it. Even if we wanted to, we cannot step back from those responsibilities. And so we have a tendering strategy which is the best value for money it can be, given the scale of the door. Somebody down the road with a ladder may be cheaper. They will not be able to meet the specification, not least. They may not use scaffolding, they may use their ladder, they may fall on their head, they may, God forbid, fall on one of the residents. They don't have the kind of public liability insurance we have, which, by the way, for this contract, is $5 million. There are lots of reasons why we don't use much smaller companies. One of them is health and safety. One of them is that sometimes they just disappear. There will be defects on occasion. Bigger companies, we know where they are, we go and get them, they have a guarantee. I could give you a list of reasons. Sadly, this is a very busy meeting. There will be more information for people at the second meeting that we're holding with residents on Monday. But I wanted to make that ballpark point about this is a big organisation, we have to make decisions for an awful lot of people, not just the few. Thank you. I think it's time for Joe again for question six. Can I remind the members of the public again that a supplementary question is only one for one question? But she didn't answer it. She made a statement to address you, but she didn't actually answer it. She started by saying she was going to give you a picture, a background, but she didn't actually answer the information. My question was, what about Legacy and McGinnis, who the Greenwich Council gave contracts to, £800,000 for a two-year period to cover roof replacements and roof repairs for the borough wide? That's your question, and that's been noted. Do you have a subliminal question? For the second one, my question was very direct. I said, will the Council accept £8,000 to £10,000 as the fair price for the replacement of roofs? Based on the fact that you're charging £24,000, which is on average more than 200% more than what the average qualified NFRC accredited roofers are willing to charge with full warranty, full 10 to 25 years building warranty guaranteed with full scaffolding and with full public liability, what are the Council willing to do? You haven't answered it. I asked the question, are you willing to negotiate to an £8,000 to £10,000 or just take it to the tribunal? Thank you. I can ask the leaders of the Council to respond to this. Mr. Mayor, just to raise a point, I know in this chamber many of the residents who come to speak to us might not always be aware of our processes. And obviously in asking a question, you have to ask a related question to the first question you asked. And when we as Councillors respond, we obviously also have to address... Mr. Mayor, can I ask you to turn up the microphone, please? When we respond, we also have to address the Mayor. So there's certain formalities in the chamber which we have to adhere to. So I just wanted to explain that and put that on the public record, Mr. Mayor, because I think it's just helpful for residents to really understand that process. And I can understand that when Councillor Slattery was speaking to the Mayor, actually what she was doing is follow the rules set out in our constitution. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. McJoe, for your supplementary question. You accused me of not answering your question. You're asking if I'll take a bid for $10,000. No, I won't. We've gone through a scrupulous tendering service, some of which we'll share with you on Monday. And it would be illegal, actually, now to take away the contract from. What was the contractor who came number one in our competition? So the answer to your question is no. No. Thank you. Can I invite Caroline Arliskas for question seven, please? Anybody next now? So we'll go to question nine for Alan Fyke. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to the Deputy Leader. The Deputy Leader says in her reply, alternative routes and turning points are available to avoid committing a traffic contravention. Does the Deputy Leader appreciate that because of the signage issues, the only sign relating to the barrier is the camera sign itself? So by the time motorists have got to the school, they are already within the contravention zone. Tonight, I saw them driving on the pavement. I took a photo for you, Deputy Leader. I'll send it tomorrow. What do you suggest motorists are supposed to do? By the time they get to the stop point, they are already in a spot where they're not allowed to stop. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I thank Alan Fyke for his supplementary. Look, this is not, it hasn't been as smooth as, and I would admit that, but that's precisely why, you know, we've taken on board the reaction of residents. We've taken on board what we're seeing as issues that are arising from this, and that's why, as I said earlier, we are going to be addressing that with signages earlier on that will clarify that situation to prevent that. Thank you. Thank you. Question 10 for Mr. Pydridge. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. By coincidence, Mr. Mayor, today is the ninth week anniversary of when the scheme was introduced, and the Council is still talking about making changes to the signage. Can my supplementary question simply be the bit of my original question that didn't get an answer? Does the Deputy Leader believe that the signage problems, which there can be no doubt are still in progress, is related to the over-complexity of the design of the scheme? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I thank Alan Fyke again for your supplementary. I believe we're learning lessons, and I believe as we learn those lessons, we will continue to address them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you both. Can I invite Corinne Tewell? Question number 11. Okay, thank you. Question 12. Can I invite Tonyanne Tewsell? Thank you for the written response. I, too, like others, feel like my question hasn't been answered, but my supplementary is that I would also disagree with the feedback in there, that the feedback so far from the arrangement with access has been positive. So we've 90 leaseholders so far who have had a pretty poor experience, putting aside the grievances that we've got with the Council around communication and the S20 process. Less than a handful of leaseholders have actually been able to get hold of the surveys, something we feel is a really simple request, and we've been waiting for a long time. And given that we've been told that individual detailed surveys have been completed on every single property, we feel like this... Yep. What specific quality and performance controls do you have in place as part of the arrangement with access, and how have you measured the positive feedback that you claim access have given to date? Thank you. Cabinet Member, Councillor O'Souza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Ms. Clisson. Sorry, I'm getting confused between the questions. So, access have completed 400, and we have conducted some post-work surveys to establish how residents feel. We've had no complaints, and they've done some additional social value, which is one of the things we get from the bigger contract, so in this case they did up the Middle Park Community Centre. Did you ask something else? Sorry. It's just how have you measured? What is your metric for saying that you have got positive feedback? The absence of feedback isn't positive feedback. What is the positive feedback? Right, so we always do post-site surveys, satisfaction surveys, and we have all of them, it's a cross-section of where the work was done, and they have been satisfied with the work that access has done. And I've met some of the leaseholders and tenants who've had the work done, and so far they've been pleased with the work that access has done. Thank you, both of you. Can I invite Fiona Moore for supplementary to question 13? Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Councillor Lecow, for your reply. Could I ask, please, on these glyphosate sprays, how many are there each year, and how many of them are blanket sprays, and how many of them are like targeted or spot sprays? Deputy Leader, Councillor Lecow. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Fiona, for that supplementary. I don't have the figures at hand, but I'd be really happy to send that to you without a problem. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Fiona, do you want to go for question 14, if you have? Yeah, 14. Yeah, thanks. That's helpful. Thank you, Councillor Lecow, again. I would particularly direct your attention to the north end of Tunnel Avenue, which is like something out of a horror movie, basically, particularly in the dark. So it's really good to hear that you're going to do cleaning and enforcement. That would be really helpful. And I hope the Council will consider feedback after the scheme's been operating for a bit. Thank you. Deputy Leader. Thank you, and thank you for that supplementary. I do agree with you, and I will be coming down there myself once the work is done, and I hope to meet with residents just to get a sense of how successful or not the work has been, and then later on do some sort of feedback to see the consistency of the work. So yeah, thank you. Thanks very much, and it's great to see a motion on the agenda on Lime Bikes. They're brilliant, but yes, please, let's get them parked in the roads. Thank you. We have question 15 as well for Fiona Moore for George Edward. Are you going to ask supplementary questions for him? No. Oh, thank you. Question 16. Deputy Staff. Deputy Staff. Nothing presents. Question 17. Deputy Staffs. Question 18. Do you want to go for question 16, then? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I submitted two questions about the LTN and confusing signage, particularly with regard to the blue badge holders. I haven't yet read Councilor Cal's replies, so I will do that and then email if I have any further queries. I'll be happy to respond to that, and yeah, certainly do get in touch with me. Yes, Mayor. Thank you, David. So we go to question 18. Asta. Nothing presents. No? Okay. So we go to supplementary for question 19. Paul Foster. Thank you, Mayor. So my supplementary question is in relation to access to contract. We've already heard about them quite considerably. So my point was that the Councillor responded about in relation to the allegations of access that they have been terminated by, by Foruck. So let me just get the question. They have been terminated by Croydon and they are being sued by Foruck. Providing on the basis of the investigation from ITV, we now have evidence of the misconduct and the malpractice that they carried out. Will the Councillor accept that evidence that we can get and obtain from ITV and use that to then reconsider the usage of access across the borough? Thank you. That goes to Cabinet Member Pat Fletcher. Yeah. Thanks very much, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Foster. Paul Foster. Paul. Hello. As you know, these are subject to legal proceedings. I am not privy to those legal proceedings. I haven't seen the thing that you're referring to. I certainly know from what we've heard in the sector it is not as straightforward as we think. For example, in Croydon, Croydon have been in financial meltdown and losing contractors left, right and centre because they're not paying them. I'm talking about Croydon which you mentioned in your question and I don't know the details of it. The issue with Axis, they're in this borough. They came top in our very thorough tendering process, the prices for which were checked by an independent consultant. We will monitor them very carefully and we will be watching what the lessons are as they emerge on whatever happened in Croydon and Thorough. Which I think is still under legal proceedings. I didn't get the opportunity previously to answer somebody, one of your neighbours. We will be sharing those surveys and I apologise if they're not out yet. I need to remind everybody, these roofs are 90 years old. They're supposed to have a lifespan of 50 to 60. The chances are we absolutely have to replace all of them and we've got the drone and the physical evidence to prove it. Otherwise, why would I do it, frankly? There's just no benefit to the public, the leaseholders, the tenants, many of whom also need their roofs mending and we as a council want value for money because we're paying that as well. So, those surveys will be shared individually but some samples of them will certainly be available at our meeting on Monday. Thanks. Thank you, both of you. We go to the supplementary for question 20, Alina Russell for Peter Cymrui. Thank you, Mr Mayor and thank you, Deputy Leader. Given the answer states that the advisory warning signs have been removed for the east and west Greenwich LTNs and are currently under review, how can the council legally fine drivers from the 2nd of January 2025? Deputy Leader, Councillor Abboud. I think the answer speaks for itself. We have signage for everything that's mandatory for us to have. What we were doing is looking at those additional signage that will help people to be aware. And yes, we had them, people didn't understand them, we took them away, but we're trying to adjust that and be cognizant of what it is people didn't understand about the previous signage and respond to that. Thanks. Thank you. For question 21, Alina Russell again. Yes. Reviewing signs and monitoring will not improve safety when there are no zebra crossings or school crossing points, school crossing patrols for the four primary schools in the west Charlton area experiencing displaced traffic from the west and east Greenwich LTNs. How will you address the concerns now of local parents and school staff that a child will be injured or killed because of your experiment? Deputy Leader, Councillor De Gea. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for your supplementary, albeit, you know, in... We could be holding a million signs for them. Please, please do not interrupt whilst he's answering. Okay, I have nothing to say. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Given that I've only asked one question and I only have one supplementary, and given the fact that no penalties to Avril for the answer that was given, my supplementary question will only be understood if you allow me to. It will take more than one, just over a minute. The Holocaust Memorial Day is an annual event for Greenwich Council. It is a day of... Can I remind not to make the statement because that is already obvious. You can just go to the supplementary... Ultimately, it will lead to the question and if I don't read all of it, then it won't make sense either. This supplementary question time is just for the question because we have so many other questioners here to give opportunity to ask a supplementary question for them and we have limited time. Right. Given that, we had the rabbi explain to us what genocide is and what is happening in Gaza. We just commemorated the Holocaust Memorial just a few days ago and basically the Council has not at all mentioned in any of its literature, anywhere on its website, anything about the genocide in Gaza. Now, given the amount of suffering and what has happened in Gaza today, should the Council not acknowledge that and at least acknowledge that this is just another genocide in its literature, on its website, just as it is acknowledging other genocides around the world. Thank you. Thank you for your questions. Can I ask the leader to respond to this, please? First of all, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and first of all, one thing that I would like to note is our condolences and prayers go out to everyone who is suffering as a result of this conflict. I presume everyone in this chamber will find it comforting of the welcome use of discussions around the ceasefire and the ongoing resolution to the conflict. Now, Mr. Mayor, we have had many conversations in this chamber on this topic and many residents come here to this chamber to speak to us on this conversation. What I will say is that we are elected in local government and this chamber has not the experience to determine genocide, Mr. Mayor. This chamber does not have the experience of going away and doing the work to determine that and there is a formal and legal process to be able to uncover that. We take out bins, Mr. Mayor, and that is not to undervalue our role, but the quality of the question and the challenge requires people with the experience in that. Therefore, we rely on that guidance and will continue to follow all... ...of my family today, today marks one year... Can I order? Can you not interrupt? ...we bear witness to the false wealth of prayer and witness to the genocide of my people and you sit there silent until tonight, you are in the light. There is no honor to you, the Jewish people of humanity, there is a bit of experience being here, there is no one who can see you through. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I mean, to my point, I have no experience of assessing crimes against humanity and I don't think anyone in this chamber has. And therefore, we aren't legitimately in a position to be able to prescribe that, Mr. Mayor, and that's why we follow that position. So, that is the answer that I give, Mr. Mayor, and whilst it might not bring comfort to everyone, Mr. Mayor, I have to run out of council... ...and make sure we continue to support peace in our communities, maintain community safety, engage with our faith forums... ...and that's the leadership that this council has been doing while also making sure all of us are speaking to all faith leaders and engaging with our communities. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. That is the end of allocated 30 minutes for the public questions today. The answers to all questions have been published online. As previously indicated, if you have a supplementary question which you have not yet been able to ask tonight, please submit by email to the committee services and a written response will be obtained to you. We go to item 9, members' questions. There are 44 written members' questions and these, together with the responses, have been published to the website. All these questions and responses received. Thank you. Thank you. Please note, I have agreed for Councillor Di Ciano's questions to be taken first in consideration of our injury. I'll call out the number of each question in turn. Can any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question please indicate? Priority will be given to the original questioner. One supplementary question is allowed on each of these matters. I'll take question 1 from Councillor Matt Hadley, the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Mr Mayor and good evening. Can I thank the Deputy Leader for her answer to this first question on the Greenwich low-traffic neighbourhoods. 7,000 fines and the correct signage still not installed. This is not going well. My supplementary is that there is more and more feedback coming back from residents on the impact of the scheme on boundary roads in Charlton and Blackheath. That impact is materialising just as residents and we warned it would. The impact is being monitored. Will the cabinet member commit to publishing all the data the council is collecting so the public can see that for themselves? Thank you, Mr Mayor and I thank Councillor Hadley for his supplementary. Of course, as part and parcel of the consultation, that information will need to be made available, so yes. Next, Councillor Hadley for the question 2. Thank you, Mr Mayor. From one end of the borough to the other, can I give an unalloyed thank you to the Deputy Leader, don't fall off the chair, for her answer to this question on West Hallows. West Hallows residents have campaigned hard for very many years as she knows and I'm really pleased we've been able to now give them a firm timetable for the consultation on both options to progress shortly. And I know that consultation will also cover West Park and the other roads as well. So I have no supplementary question, Mr Mayor. I wanted to say thank you and well done. And I take it, thank you. Councillor Hadley for question 3 then. Don't get used to it, Councillor Le Cowell. From one end of the A20 to the other, we're now in New Elton, we're diving around the borough, Mr Mayor, because residents of Larchwood Road in New Elton have also been waiting for a response to their very serious traffic concerns for years and years and years. And it's good in this answer to get confirmation that the 20mph zone will now include wider measures to deal with the rat run issue. But would she agree to meet with the ward councillors on Larchwood Road and those New Elton roads specifically? And in particular, she knows I've made myself pretty unpopular with my colleagues in Bexley Council by successfully stopping their unilateral traffic order on County Gate, which would have made traffic in New Elton much worse. So despite the fact I may not be, and Councillor Tester may not be, flavour of the month right now, if there's anything I can do to help with those cross-borough negotiations and discussions that she's mentioned in her answer, I wanted to make that offer to her because I do have relationships in Bexley that may be of use to us both in solving the problem. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I thank you for your offer and I might take you up on it. Thank you. Now, Councillor Hartley for question 4. Thank you. So now the turn goes to Councillor Charlie Davies for question 5. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to the cabinet member for her answer. And can I wish her well in recovery from her injury too? Thank you genuinely for the response. I think almost 5,000 households receiving a letter is an insubstantial, but how has the Council ensured that as many of those 5,000 households are aware that the letter was erroneous as possible? Deputy Leader? You know, this has been an unfortunate incident, as you'd appreciate, and of course we're trying to get number 1 to the bottom of it and the company that is operating that system, as well as trying to make sure that residents are appropriately informed. Thank you. Councillor Davies for question 6. Thank you. Councillor Pat Grinwell for question 7. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Councillor Le Cow for your response. And I also wish you a speedy recovery. Drivers are being continually fined for not observing certain highway rules. Do you agree that this is unfair if certain markings are not clearly defined? I know that your answer has been quite full, but could I just ask you, apparently we do have regular visits by staff to check the roads, but can I just ask, do the yellow box junctions, do they come under TFL because some of those are really in need of being repainted? I thank Councillor Greenwell for your supplementary. Look, it depends on the road because some of these are on TFL roads and some are on our roads, you know, so it would depend where you're talking about. And absolutely, it's incumbent upon us to make sure that markings are appropriate in certain areas. And I would always be happy to listen if you were to tell me that there's an issue somewhere with regards to marking. Of course, we have officers going out there. Greenwich is a big borough and there's a lot of, you know, grounds to cover, so to speak. But alongside that, I'm really excited that, you know, in the scheme of all the areas we're talking about cuts, you know, the budget for this area has literally doubled following the announcements. So we will be able to cover even more ground and, you know, I think we're going to see a lot of good results with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Greenwell again for question eight. Eight, yes. Thank you. I thank Councillor locale for her response again. And my observations of many people actually illegally parking are on double yellow lines. And sometimes they park, there's one particular case where it's an under, it's a basement car park and photographs have been taken where they just can't, residents can't actually get out or into their car park space because of people illegally parking. You say that we have four civil enforcement officers who work twice a week in the evenings to 10pm. I don't know about anybody else, but I find that this is about timing the evenings. But we also have 40 civil enforcement officers altogether. Is it not possible to change sometimes to have a blitz in one area? It's just that I am referring to Eltham and there is a large amount of people illegally parking on double yellow lines there. I just wondered with the 40 if more could be taken, you know, within that evening slot. Because as you say, we've got four at the moment twice a week until 10pm. Is that right? Thank you. I thank Councillor Greenwell for her supplementary. If you have a pool of 40 members of staff covering the borough, at any given time you could assume that some will be off sick and at any given time you could assume that some will be on holiday. So, you know, it is a challenge and it's one that I'm really determined to address because I do think that enforcement is something that needs expanding to reflect some of the work that we're doing alongside the transport strategy. Because I think from my point of view, if we're putting a sustainable street or a CPZ, you need to make sure that you're protecting that parking for those residents who have paid for their parking. So this is an area that I'm going to be making some decisions about how we expand that very, very shortly. So I agree with you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I invite Councillor Christine May for question nine? Can I invite Councillor O'Brien Mulligan for question 10? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her answer and for having met with myself, Councillor Anning and officers last year to discuss the long running issues that residents have been highlighting about rat running on Bardsley Lane. The answers mentioned in the well, the actions mentioned in the answer here are a really welcome starting point. And I'd just like to ask if you commit to arranging the planned meeting with myself and Councillor Anning as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you for the supplementary. And yes, of course, I would be. I was there when we had the original meeting and we agreed that we would look at that. And so I actually would like to see that progressed as soon as possible. So, yes. Thank you, Councillor O'Brien Mulligan again for question 11. You want to take this one? Yes, that's correct. Yes. Can I also firstly thank cabinet member locale for her work so far on the Woolwich foot tunnel and also wish you a speedy recovery. Perhaps just thank you to Councillor Mulligan for giving me the opportunity to take this supplementary and perhaps also to say that, you know, I know there's a lot of work going on with Newham to ensure that we do get some commitment on this. But perhaps as a means to reassure our residents who constantly do expect us to get some sort of update, is it worth perhaps given putting applying further pressure on them to ensure that they can commit to a certain timeline on this, given that we've missed the January 2025 deadline? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. And I'd like to thank Councillor Aodile for his supplementary. I'd also like to thank all the colleagues that have wished me a speedy recovery. I would like to be out of this cast as soon as possible myself. But, you know, we are doing everything we can to put pressure on our counterparts. And as I said, at the moment, we've identified our money, our resources to get this job done. And we're waiting for legal to sign off that contract. As soon as that's signed off, I will be making sure that we keep you posted on those developments. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Ryan Mulligan for question 12. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd like to again thank the cabinet member for transport for her answer. It would be good if possibly in writing afterwards, you could get the specific numbers asked for in the question about number of faults that are reported identified and our response time. But I think anecdotally, myself and other users of the Greenwich foot tunnel greatly appreciate the speed with which we've seen repairs in the last year or so. And that is incredibly welcome. But I do think the issues that we've had since November with the mechanical issue in the north lift. And I'm very, very grateful to officers for work that's being done to ensure that we have the parts to repair that and spares to build resilience going forward on that. First, I'd like to ask the cabinet member if there's any update on progress to complete those repairs and receipt of those parts. And secondly, I'd like to ask if she agrees with me that this highlights the need to continue working together with partners at TFL to ensure that Tower Hamlets similarly, like Newham with the Woolwich tunnel, will commit to working for a long term replacement to ensure we have reliable lifts in the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels, which are vital pedestrian and active travel crossings across the river. Thank you very much. Thank you. The question goes to Dr. Leeder again. And I really thank you for your supplementary on this. And I would like to also take some time to thank the councillors, yourself and other councillors that have been campaigning and working hard for this improvement. I haven't got the date of the work completion as yet. And for me to have given you a breakdown of every single, you know, that's quite a lot of information that would fit in here. So I can still come back to you on that. But yes, we are committed to continue that work. And of course, Greenwich is in that sort of enviable position of having two foot tunnels and in an area where there are very few river crossings and, you know, our aspirations for active travel continues. And so it's really vital that that is another important part of that jigsaw puzzle, so to speak. So getting that sorted is really a priority for me. And I will be working very closely with both TfL, the deputy mayor and yourselves, as well as the support that Len Duval has lent to this particular issue. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, deputy leader. Our question goes to O'Brien Mulligan for question 13, if you want to. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'd like to thank the cabinet member for transport for her answer in the extensive list, which I think shows a really positive future for active travel in the borough. I'd just like to ask, and I've mentioned this before, if we could be clearer about our strategic prioritization for where we will run cycle routes, be that along major roads with protection or seeking to run more quiet ways down secondary roads. And I'd also just urge everyone to remember that active travel isn't just on a bike, it's also on foot. And I really hope that we can be clear about what we will be doing to encourage more walking in the borough from improving our footpaths through the quality of the surface and lighting, and also to ensuring that residents can access all of the key amenities that they need from shops and so on within the space of a convenient walk. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy leader, Councillor Lecair. I thank O'Brien Mulligan for your supplementary. Of course, you know, with the major cycle lanes, we're working with TfL and we get our funding from TfL, as you know. But it is important for us to also make sure that we're linking these quiet ways, because I think we're trying to encourage, you know, as part of the whole active travel program, people who don't ordinarily cycle and make them feel safe to cycle. And yes, I agree with you. And I think it's really important to talk about walking. And, you know, one of the things we're doing with the team is trying to see how we can improve our signage, our connectivity in terms of some of the walkways that we have. And in Greenwich, we're really fortunate to have many beautiful walkways. So I think we need to celebrate that and look at how we can actually expand that and make that a tourist destination. Thank you. I'll invite again to Councillor O'Brien Mulligan for question 14, supplementary question. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to the deputy leader, cabinet member for transport for her answer. I'd also like to thank the leader of the council and our assembly member, Len Deval, for their help and support in ensuring the key meeting that I think we had in November with some of the TfL and DLR bigwigs. And I'd also like to thank Matt Pennycook, our local MP, for his consistent support in this. I think it's most welcome that we've had assurances from the general manager of the DLR publicly in the press and in a more recent private meeting we had that we will see a commitment from TfL for the replacement of four escalators. Does the deputy leader agree with me that we need a clear timetable for when those works will complete and we also need an expedited procurement process so that we can ensure those works commence as soon as possible? Would you also agree with me that we need to see a wider refurbishment of Cuttysark DLR given how grotty the station has been? And I'd like to thank the cabinet member for community safety and the police for their support on some key measures there to improve that will also go to address some wider issues affecting the town centre. And finally, would the cabinet member agree with me that we need a commitment from DLR and the TfL for much better communication, both at the station, on the trains themselves and across the network to highlight the issue that means that residents and other service users have 121 steps to go up and down at Cuttysark DLR. Thank you very much. Thank you, deputy leader. I thank the Councillor for the supplementary and, you know, I would also echo all the thanks that you have said because it truly has been a very collective approach to putting pressure on the station to do something and I quite agree it does need work. And yes, of course, I would use the best of my office to try and push this agenda and make it very clear so that we do know what's happening when and what the timetable is. So, again, this is something, as soon as we get that, I will be happy to feed back to you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now for question 15, can I invite Councillor David Gannon, please? Thank you very much, Mr Mayor, and could I thank the deputy leader and congratulate the deputy leader on her response and particularly the submission that was made to Transport for London as part of the Silvertown Tunnel user consultation. It's noteworthy, Mr Mayor, that many other boroughs agreed with what we said that the charging and purposing of the tunnel should be based on our climate objectives in terms of reducing traffic. But given now the tunnel is due to open with these charges on the 7th of April, will the deputy leader agree to work with the Peninsula Councillors and other, the many other ward Councillors affected by the Silvertown Tunnel in monitoring the impact of the user charges and the tunnel on local roads? Deputy Leader? I thank Councillor Gatto for his supplementary and, yes, of course, I think this is something that we are all keeping a very close eye on and, you know, we need to understand how that modelling relates to reality. So, yes, we will be monitoring and I will keep all the Councillors in the area appropriately informed and involved. Thank you. Now, question 16 for Councillor Anne-Marie Question. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and Happy New Year. It's the year of the snake to everybody in the room. Can I thank the cabinet member, the deputy leader, for the response to the question. The residents that are complaining since 2022 about fly tipping and so on, they have great civic pride and we're grateful for them reporting us. We're grateful for the fact that the collections are eventually made. But even better still, I am glad to see that at long last there will be an educational campaign, very important. But one of the recent reports that was done by residents indicated that across the road Bexley side is tipping on our side. Can Bexley be drawn into that? I don't know if you'll have to rope in Councillor Hartley earlier than you thought, perhaps. But certainly, as in Nabywood, we're fed up of it. We've got enough problems of our own with keeping the fly tipping down. So could you do that? And also, could you include in that, make it borough-wide the educational programme and include dog mess as well, because really it is another issue. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Leader. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Cousins for her supplementary. I've taken the time to contact all Councillors to give me some intelligence about fly tipping hotspots in their area. We want to use that data to analyse what the best approach in each particular area will be. We are going to be able to work side by side with Councillors in their specific wards and hopefully start to do a programme. But that programme is going to be borough-wide and I will also be working with my colleague, Councillor Slattery, on those areas that fall within her remit. So this is an ongoing process, but it's one that I've decided to make a real focus this year in terms of fly tipping, because I think, to be honest, it's a menace to society and we're all fed up of it. Thanks. Thank you. I'd like to thank Deputy Leader, Councillor Leggau, for your attendance and your commitment to covering the public and members' question. Despite your unwellness and your leg injury, I'd like to thank you and wish you a speedy recovery. Thank you. So we go to question 17 now. Councillor Hartley. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and can I thank the Leader of the Council for his answer to this question, which is on the local government financial settlement, which has shaped the Council's budget from which we've seen the first welcome U-turn today, perhaps more to follow. He called in announcing the budget, the money received from central government this year, a better financial settlement this year. He got an increase of £17.7 million from Rachel Reeves. Two years ago, he got a £23 million increase from Jeremy Hunt and £15 million last year. So he knows there has been no meaningful change in approach to local government funding from this new Labour government. So my follow-up question, Mr Mayor, is does he feel as let down by Rachel Reeves as the country does? Leader. First of all, thank you, Mr Mayor, and it seems very different from the current question that he's currently asked in regards to supplementary. But Mr Mayor, look, we know that this is a government that is working and striving to fix the foundations of this economy. Now, we have seen more support from central government when it comes to local government finances, and we're in a better position for it. Now, I believe the Minister for Local Government has written to councils and said it's still a tough journey to go, and so a lot of change to make. That is built off the back of a legacy of 14 years of a Conservative government, and therefore, therefore, they can't resolve everything in one day. We are fixing your legacy. That's what is clear to everyone in this room. And Mr Mayor, that starts now. We're happy to have a Labour government in place. We are collectively working with the government, but not just working with them, really being able to highlight the difficulties around local government finances, and our feedback is useful in shaping things. Just the other day, myself and others, lended our support to the points on national insurance and how the government needs to think about how they support councils through that. So Mr Mayor, I think we're holding our government accountable, unlike how the Torys did. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. I invite Councillor Hartley again for question 18. How do attunes change? We're being very sympathetic to central government nowadays, Mr Mayor. Can I thank the Leader of the Council for his answer to this question about his community engagement pledge. There's a long and growing list of subjects that come up in this council chamber. Low traffic neighbourhoods, controlled parking zones, the equestrian centre, car park sales, until this evening, the handling of the Animal Park, Royal Artillery Keys, where communities across the borough feel patronised and ignored. So can I ask, if he's going to continue that approach, can I suggest he just takes down his community engagement pledge from the council's website, because at the moment it's doing more harm than good due to the complete hypocrisy of that statement. Leader. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The only hypocrite in this chamber is Councillor Hartley. Now, when he chooses to want us to engage, he says we shouldn't. We should delay, delay, we're delay, delay, delaying by engaging, when he offers to give £50 out to residents. That was his position, rather than think about how we'll be a sustained position of thinking about how we help people through poverty, in which we took time to consult residents on how we shape our Greenwich. So, when you choose to want to have consultation, you seem not to. And when you choose when you don't want to, you seem not to want to do it. But Mr Mayor, I think that our community engagement pledge is very clear. The answer on the sheet informs residents of when we come out to inform them, when we come out to consult them, and when we come out to do collaborative work with them. We have many fantastic examples of how we're working with some of our adults in our social care and working with them to shape the service and respond to them. We have many examples in this chamber about how we're bringing reform in housing. The reforms that are being brought forward in housing to this day are being collaborated with residents, led by Councillor Pat Slattery. So, I can give him the many examples in this chamber about how our community engagement tool is supporting this council to reshape and transform the life of our residents. Thank you. Thank you. Next question. For the next question, 19. Councillor Hartley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. The lived experience of residents in this borough could not be more different to what we just heard. Can I thank the cabinet member for community safety for her answer to this question, which is about Coldarbor police base. I'm flabbergasted that the council continues to actively support the closure of our police base on the Coldarbor estate. From her answer, she hasn't spoken with the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor about this. Councillor Tester and I have met with the Deputy Mayor of London for policing on this earlier this month. We met her alongside Thomas Turrell, the Assembly Member for Bromley, because right next door, Bromley police are actively looking for a police base. While in Greenwich, the Met is closing Coldarbor police base, which is just metres away from where Bromley are looking for one, from the borough boundary. We made a really strong case to the Deputy Mayor. It is now being actively considered by MOPAC. So can I ask the cabinet member, will she change the council's approach, and why not join us in trying to stop this closure instead of just letting it happen? Cabinet member, Councillor Erin Brown. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I wish to thank Councillor Hartley for his supplementary question. So I think one of the issues that he's going to have to address is a sort of misrepresentation of causation and correlation in relation to the closure of Coldarbor police base. When this was first announced, Mr. Mayor, I asked officers within my team to find evidence if there was a causal link between the presence of the S&T base in Mottingham, Coldarbor and New Eltham, and if this correlated with crime levels as experienced by the residents. My officers came back to me to say that this claim could not be substantiated. Mottingham, Coldarbor and New Eltham ward is one of the least prevalent wards for police recorded crime. 65 crimes per 1000 of population in the ward. That ranks 22nd out of 23 for the least amount of crime per population. Over 40% of crimes in the ward occur within residential properties, which will be the repurview of rapid response teams, with only 18% in public spaces on the street. Patrols and community reassurance visits to victims of crime in the ward will remain unchanged by the move to the new base in Kidbrooke. Anything that requires a 999 call would be the response of rapid response units, which are based at Warspite Road in Woolwich anyway. There is no change to the service provided by the S&T team to Mottingham, Coldarbor and New Eltham. They will be doing the same patrols in the same areas. The base itself did not provide an active service to the community. It was simply a location where the police had an operational base out of. They did not actually provide a police-based service. If the member wishes to contribute during the council cabinet response, then I suggest he wins more seats at the next election, if he wants to stand here and talk whilst I'm speaking. So, I do not accept the causation between these two things, the closure of the base and any impact on the visibility of the S&T team in Mottingham, Coldarbor and New Eltham. But if I was to accept this assertion that this is being made, Mr Hartley would be asking me, therefore, it would be the same principle that there are six, you'd be asking me to disadvantage six wards for the benefit of two. And even one of those is doubtable because the transport links to Eltham Town and Avery Hill, the bus connections would actually make it easier for the S&T to get to that ward and carry out their patrols. Regarding active support, we're not actively supporting the closure of this base. It is a decision that rests with MOPAC and they have made a decision in collaboration with the Met's estate teams. So, given the above, I'm not prepared to try and strong arm this decision with the police base. If Bromley police are looking for a base and they wish to approach this council about a leasehold on that building, which is currently occupied by the Coldarbor team, I suggest that they do so and it will be considered by our regeneration team. Thank you. Thank you, cabinet member, Councillor Taggerdine. Next question is number 20 for Councillor Hartley. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can I thank Councillor Hyland for her detailed answer to this question. I've been trying to get these figures for a very long time. I know they're difficult to produce and I'm grateful for their production. The figures confirm that under the old council tax support scheme, before, after all those years of campaigning, we made it 100% council tax support scheme. In that final year of the old scheme, 1,378 debts were passed to enforcement agents amongst council tax support recipients. The very lowest income households in our borough. 1,378 occasions. So, one of the major benefits of the scheme we've had for five years is that hasn't happened, which you'll agree with. That's a major benefit of what we've had. We're debating council tax support later. If that cut that you're proposing goes ahead, would you be prepared to consider a mitigation, which is to exempt council tax support recipients from enforcement action? Many local authorities do this as a mitigation and I think if the council tax support cut does go ahead, I think that's something she would be well advised to consider. Cabinet Member, Councillor Highlands. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You should have gone spec savers, Matt. I've been sat here all night. You've got a free advert there, streamed out. Look, the context of this is that you should really have asked how many people are behind with their council tax, not just the people who are on local council tax support. This is a duty I share with Councillor Jackie Smith, who is currently sunning herself in the happy hour, I think, hopefully, and getting a good, well-deserved break. Look, our job will be, if we introduce, as we plan to do, a 75 per cent relief for local council tax support, sorry, an 80 per cent, I beg your pardon, 80 per cent. Our job will be to actually really work out who the people are who genuinely cannot afford to contribute that 20 per cent. Now, the Conservative government for a long time have been actually promoting the fact that people should contribute to council tax. And all I would say is that the people who genuinely cannot afford to make that 20 per cent contribution can apply to a hardship fund. We will not know until February actually how much money we will get from the GLA toward this fund. And you need to also understand that half of London are moving towards reducing the amount and increasing the amount that people have to contribute. And there are some boroughs that are actually moving to 50 per cent, and so for us as a Labour council to keep it at 80 per cent is within our values of trying to make the money go further. It's a finite sum. Do you want to give some of the people 100 per cent relief or many more people 80 per cent relief? It's simple maths, really. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Hyland. Now question 21, Councillor Hanley. Thank you. Question 22, Councillor Hanley. Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. Can I thank the cabinet member for health for her answer to this question, which I ask every winter. I ask this every winter, how we're doing with the flu vaccination. It's really important that council staff, particularly social care staff, have the flu vaccine. And it feels like we do the same thing every year and the numbers just go down and down and down. And it's not just here, it's across the country, but can I make another plea just to rethink what we're doing? It's not working. We need to get those numbers up. I know she'll agree with that. Would she agree to do a proper review? I think we've dipped our toe in in previous winters when I've raised it, but can she really get to the bottom of it as a challenge to take on? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. And thank you, Councillor Hartley. Yes, we do do this every year and it's a pleasure. So as you point out, there is a national decline. So I think that's an important thing to point out. And also, as you can see in the response, but I'll just highlight to the room, is that we're unique in Greenwich in the fact that we have an in-house flu vaccination clinic that we're offering to staff. So we are kind of going over and above. And as far as we know, we continue to be the only borough in South East London that is offering that. So we are doing everything we can. The other issue I think that we have here, and again, we talk about this each year, is that people are not mandated to disclose their vaccination status to us as an employer. Plus, they can choose to go and do that themselves. So if they are not having their vaccine within the clinic and disclosing to us directly, they may well indeed have had it and we wouldn't know. The other thing I would add is I had flu and it was absolutely awful. So I can – testament to anyone in the room who can have a flu vaccine and should go and get it because I don't think I've ever been so ill. And I was quite shocked because I couldn't quite believe how well I was. So please, I think what is important is if you can get a vaccine, please go and get it. I think that's the most important thing. At the moment, if we have this decline nationally across vaccinations where less and less people are being vaccinated, less people are protected and it means there are more people who are getting sick and sadly ending up in hospital. So I think it's down to all of us. I think actually the evidence shows that peer encouragement and peer support has a huge impact. And so I would encourage everybody in this chamber to either have it themselves if they can and encourage those around them to have it too. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There might be a motion on that coming, just to say. Can I thank the cabinet member for planning for his answer to this question? This is about the disposal of Shooters Hill Equestrian Centre site, which obviously he knows I really regret. It was mentioned that we'd have a two-week consultation. The council would run a two-week consultation during the calling. Could I ask him, is he prepared to extend that two-week consultation period given the very high level of public interest and concern over the future of the Equestrian Centre site? Two weeks seems very short. Cabinet member, Councillor Realman, please. Thank you, Mayor and thank you, Councillor Harley, for your question. In terms of doing an extension to the two-week consultation, we are obviously planning to make sure that the consultation is well publicised and make sure that everyone is engaged who can be. In terms of extending the actual consultation, I think we are going to make sure we stick to what is required, but we'll make sure that everyone is able to engage as they should be able to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Now, for question 24, Councillor Hadley again. We're hearing some very eloquent ways of saying no to my questions this evening. Can I thank the cabinet member for his answer to this question about the planning portal. I'm really grateful that he is going to look into this issue whereby residents who want to comment on a planning application aren't able to currently see what neighbours are saying in their responses. He's asked the service to look into what other authorities are doing. Bromley Council seems to have nailed this problem. I know that because Mottingham is split between Greenwich and Bromley, as he knows, and I believe they've got an automatic way of redacting personal data. So perhaps if he asks officers to speak to Bromley, so often, Mr Mayor, the source of good ideas in south-east London. Councillor Realman. Thank you Mayor and thank you Councillor Hadley for your question. I'd have to say this is my first full council in my role. The last one I wasn't able to make it because of family reasons and the first one I'd just been kind of selected. So it's really helped me cut my teeth. So I do appreciate that. Thank you for the limelight. In terms of this question, I think we are open to ideas that work in other places and that's exactly what my response was about. We are looking into it and we have to look at solutions that work for us. And it's something that one of the first things I asked about is improving efficiencies through IT and looking at how to improve it. So we definitely will look into it and obviously once we are there, we will let everyone know as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Anne Maricosin, supplementary for question 25. Thank you Mr Mayor. Thank you Councillor Rham and the cabinet member for the response to the question. I'm glad to note that the contribution of the voluntary community sector is noted or is appreciated and especially at this time when they are working very hard for, in many cases, nothing. How we make them feel has an impact on them and what I'm asking the cabinet members, whether they work with the council and everybody as necessary, to commit to more collaborative working especially when we are considering disposal of properties with the voluntary community sector because some of them are so innovative and creative and can give us very good value for money. So if we can work with them more when we are considering disposal of assets, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Cabinet member, Councillor Rham. Thank you Mayor and thank you Councillor Cousin. I really appreciate your question. In terms of the voluntary sector, I've got a huge appreciation for the voluntary sector. If anything, I'm here today because of the voluntary sector. I've done a lot of volunteering to improve my engagement with the community and understand what happens at grassroots. So I totally appreciate that I went to work close and collaboratively with those organisations and VCS is someone I'm very familiar with. I've been in between work in the past where I've used VCS to find my work experience through volunteering. So a very valuable service and they really support a lot of really good grassroots organisations. In terms of working collaboratively, I think yes and in terms of what that means, one of the things that we have a place to do is, and you'll be very familiar with this Councillor Cousin, we have to be very responsible in how we manage those engagements. In terms of when it comes to assets, when it comes to suitable assets, we will review each case on individual merits and we'll make sure that every application or every asset is provided on a robust business case and make sure that they can sustain themselves and we can also make sure that the Council is responsible in how we do that and very transparent as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. For question number 26, Councillor Maye. Thank you. 27. Thank you. For question 28, Councillor Anne-Marie Cousin, please. Thank you, Mr Maye and thank you to the cabinet member for the response to the question. When it comes to grooming of our children and young people, I always think that prevention is better than cure. Will the cabinet member commit to working with officers and any other parties and agencies to ensure that we are intervening much earlier when things come to light, so much earlier action working with the family, the young people and relevant agencies. Why I say much earlier is that I know we have data, I know we analyse data, but it's about using that data to inform much earlier decision with a focus on prevention rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Can I invite cabinet member Nadell Cray. Councillor Cray, please. Thank you, Mr Maye and thank you, Councillor Cousin, for your supplementary. I can assure you that's already happening. We are going to enhance on that even more. We're going to work with schools as well and get all that data so we can, you know, help young people at a very early stage. That work's been going on. We've been, myself and Florence, have been doing a lot of meetings with schools and other organisations to make sure that we get all our ducks in a row, make sure that we interfere very early, support young people at early stage and make sure that we keep them away from harm, from grooming, from all these anti-social behaviour. I can tell you we have got a fantastic team that is fully equipped, fully ready to take this challenge on and really connected to young people and we'll continue supporting them in every way we can. Thank you. Thank you. Supplementary question for 29. Councillor Cousin. Okay. Thank you, Mr Maye and thank you to the cabinet member for her reply to the question. The reason why I ended up in hospital that day was helping our deputy leader and, to be honest, I must say for everyone's benefit we keep saying that she's hurt herself. She really has separated the bone. There is a fracture there and not played down. I know she is injured. And I think going there and just seeing what we went through, I was literally motivated whilst I was there to start writing down all the issues. I stopped at 15 in what I copied you into, but there is more. I even have a resident who is complaining this month, absolutely flabbergasted as to why it appears, you know, taking the cabinet members, lining your ducks up in order, but for unknown reasons it never seems to happen for this person at QEH. How we make people feel once again is so important. Going to a hospital emergency for where the car park is part of our healing, is part of our mental health, it can impact on us. And so what I'm asking you is can you work, I don't even know what to say, we don't run the hospital I know, but we want not just when external agencies are monitoring. Any day I go in there or anybody goes in there we should be getting premium service. So how can we work better with the trust to ensure that whenever anybody is going for treatment they are looked after, they are recognised as being patients in need of care from the minute they are even parking. And I think if we look at it holistically like that, that might go some way towards better service, but there is something that needs to be done. From one visit I raised 15 and I could have done more, I stopped at 15. Thank you issues, thank you. Thank you. Can I invite cabinet member, Councillor Lohr. Thank you very much Mr Mayor and thank you Councillor Cousins for your question. And thank you also for giving me an opportunity even though she is now left to wish Councillor Le Cowell her swift recovery as well. I didn't realise the question was collected to her. So yes, I am more than happy to take this away and take this specific kind of scenario and I think one of the things that I think is highlighted in the reply is we have really very strong partnership relationships in Greenwich. That is definitely something that I have noticed since coming into the role. There is strong dialogue and conversations between our hospital, between ourselves, we have our integrated commissioning elements and with our ICB partners. So I see no concerns in keeping that dialogue open, talking to them, raising that and often I have case work from people such as yourself or directly from residents and I will take that directly to the leaders and have an open and honest discussion. I guess the one thing to highlight is our hospital is under significant pressure and I think that years of underfunding and I think the cost of living crisis and the pressure on individuals nowadays mean that people are getting sicker and people are presenting at A&E very ill when we need to get to them earlier. So the shift that I think the government has indicated from hospital to community is key, prevention is important and as a borough again I think we are really well placed to deliver on that. We already have had for years really preventative services, social prescribing in the form of live well. So yes, there is a transformation that is needed but specifically on that I will definitely look into it and raise it for you. Thank you. Thank you. For question 30, Councillor Easy-Cook. No supplementary, thank you. Thank you. For question 31, Councillor Cathy Bellows. Thank you Mr Mayor and thank you to the cabinet member for your response. There is an area on the Cold Harbour estate where there is a small number of young people who are regularly unable to get a place at a local secondary school, often being offered places a long way. I would like to ask the cabinet member what steps have been taken to try to stop this happening again. Thank you. Thank you. I invite to cabinet member, Councillor Perry. Thank you Mr Mayor and thank you to the Councillor for her supplementary. I can assure you every step in here has been taken after our meeting with yourself and discussing this and also meeting Clive Heffer yourself to make sure that nobody is left behind, no young people in Eltham, doesn't have to cross all the way across from Eltham all the way to Thames Street for a school. Making sure that we work with local partners, local schools and find every place as possible. We are more than happy to meet with you on a regular basis to keep you updated on how this is progressing so you can ensure your residents that this is on top of our agenda and making sure that young people get the right places for them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now for question 32, kind word Councillor Asli Mormont. So we go to question 33, Councillor Ainslie Cook. Oh thank you. Question 34, Councillor Madam Chair. Thank you Mr Mayor and thank you to the cabinet member for Community Safety for answering my question regarding the situation on Wickham Lane and it's very heartening to see all the extremely positive work that's gone on from the police and the integrated enforcement team in that area. Would the cabinet member accept an invitation to come and meet the residents on Wickham Lane? They were present at the last Save A Neighbourhood panel and made some very good points to the police who were present. But it would be great if perhaps we could meet in the area so we could just have a walk around and have a look at the issues as they're live. Thank you. Cabinet member, Councillor Teller-Drain. Thank you Mr Mayor and I thank Councillor Asgar for her supplementary. The answer is yes of course. I would be delighted to make a visit to the residents of Wickham Lane. I hope she appreciates that it is a priority area for us in terms of anti-social behaviour and there is a number of actions that we are already taking to address this over the last few months. And I do hope that she will be able to join me on a second part of her ward on Friday with the SNT team. Thank you for question number 35, Councillor Nazarski. Just in response to the cabinet member yes, I will be there on Friday. Thank you very much and thank you so much for agreeing to come and see the residents of Wickham Lane as well. My supplementary for the cabinet member for yes to Councillor Rahman about the local plan and I think this is a really pertinent issue in my ward of Plumstead Common but I think it's an issue in every ward as well. About the council being able to have a policy on HMOs and oversaturation and perhaps where they are not suitable. And at the moment there is nothing in planning regulation that we can use locally to prevent this so applications tend to go through. It's causing the loss of family housing stock, it's causing a stress on resources in a lot of streets where there is a saturation and there is nothing the council or the planning committee can do about it. It's good to see that we have a new local plan in the works. I have been telling residents in my ward of Plumstead Common please look out for the next stage of the consultation and request that we work in an HMO policy into our new local plan. And it's great to hear Councillor that that's going to happen, there's going to be a policy on HMOs. That's great news. However my question did say that the local plan, the new Royal Greenwich local plan is due to be adopted in Spring 2027. You've said in your answer to me that we're meeting the government's deadline of December 2026 to submit our local plan for examination. So by my calculations that would mean it's still due for implementation in Spring of 2027. That is over two years away. Given the need for an effective local plan to come in as soon as possible, is there anything that we can do to help speed up the process? Thank you. Thank you. Cabinet Member, Councillor Hammond please. Thank you very much Mayor and thank you for your question Councillor Asgar. One thing I will say, the local plan, if I am re-elected in 2026 and is implemented in 2027, I'm hoping that it's going to be one of my legacies. So in terms of pushing it through sooner, I think the main thing is one of the key things that we want to do is meet the current deadline, otherwise we're subject to other changes. And that is something we are doing. And in terms of speeding it any further, at this stage in time I'm not sure that it's possible. But obviously we work with officers to get everything done as thoroughly and as efficiently as possible and work through the timeline that we have now. I think that's important because it's something that takes a lot of time, a lot of hours of research, a lot of hours of quality consultation. So we want to make sure that that's done well and we don't want to rush any part of that. But what we don't want is any more delays. So that's something that we'll push on. And when the draft is ready and the consultation is ready, we will appreciate your support and getting it out there and everyone else's support as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, question number 30, Councillor Tom Davies. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to the cabinet member for her answer. I'm sure she's been waiting all evening for these questions. For this one, I don't expect her to be able to give me a full response right now, so very happy for her to confirm I'm writing later. But is she able to confirm under the major capital works programme what percentage of all works have had quality assurance carried out? And then specifically to access what percentage of their works have had quality assurance carried out. Thank you. Cabinet member, Councillor Batsley. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Davies, especially because you've accepted a written response will be necessary because you're right, I do not have that percentage to my fingertips, so I'll get that response sent. Thank you. Now for 37, Councillor Davies. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to the cabinet member for her response. I realise that I'm not speaking to a room of free marketers, although I'm conscious that the shadow chancellor was trying her best today to pretend to be one. But surely, on a serious point, surely to truly drive competition... Did I say shadow? Oh. Ruined a perfectly good gag, didn't I? God. But surely, to truly drive competition and receive the greatest value for money for residents, for leaseholders, and for council taxpayers, it would be better to openly tender the individual projects under this to the three contractors, and to secure the best possible deal for each job, rather than allocating a specific area to each contractor. So is she able to confirm why that approach hasn't been taken, rather than the approach that has been taken? Thank you, Councillor Batsley. Go on. Thank you, Mr Mayor and thank you, Councillor Davies. I think that would cost more, because we'd be constantly writing specs, quality assuring, surveying, etc. So I don't accept the premise. I think it's pretty clear in the answer, too, that this is somewhere between a whole contract for the whole borough, which would be mad, and lots of little contracts, which you'll have heard me say to leaseholders from Middle Park earlier, is just not feasible when you consider the size of the council. There are 1,563 blocks we have to look after, so the three-area contract seems a fair middling position, because they do compete against each other, actually, in contract meetings. We do say to them, well, Equans are doing better than you over there and Axis over here, so that's helpful. The other important thing is if any of them fail in any of their element, we can take away that work and immediately give it to another contractor, so we're not having to then go back out. So I think that contract tendering strategy is quite complicated and very technical, and as you know, I'm not an expert, but I employ experts on the subject. And I think they've got the balance about right between lots of little contracts and one great big one. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go back to Councillor Davies for supplement 38. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to the cabinet member for her response. She mentioned earlier that we're all sympathetic to leaseholders receiving letters with a £20,000 bill just before Christmas, but it would be remiss not to point out that this council sent that bill. And we've heard about the social value project at the community centre, but if you're a leaseholder having to decide whether you need to sell your home to pay this bill, that isn't much comfort. And so will the council firstly apologise to all the impacted leaseholders for the mess that has been made of this project and the serious failings that have taken place? And will they engage with contractors to ensure that with this project and future projects carried out under this scheme, leaseholders are receiving a fair deal? Cabinet member, Councillor Strachey. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Davies. I don't agree that it's a mess, actually, Councillor Davies. I do think it is a lesson that I've learned that you have a meeting, then a drop-in, and then you roll out the bill, so to speak. So we're not right. We didn't get the sequence right. Happy to apologise for that. I don't otherwise think it's a mess. I'm not sure why you think it's a mess. We will have a meeting. We had a meeting that you were at, which was a feisty town hall-style meeting last Wednesday, I think, 19 leaseholders, and we're meeting them again on Monday. Then we'll arrange the drop-ins, and the work will be rolled out properly. So I don't recognise the mess you're talking about, other than we should have got the sequence the other way around right at the beginning. Thanks. Thank you very much. Councillor Charlie Davies for question 39. Oh, thank you. Now, question number 14, Councillor back to you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Raman, for your response. I mean, you can't take the blame for this, but I did ask previously at Council if the local Councillors could be kept informed of what was going to happen. I know about the Centre facility, I'm on planning, yes, that's gone through, but there was a lot of concern locally about how the rest of the green areas were going to be. That would have gone out to tender and new people that had different people, different charities, who had put tenders in, and I asked if we could be kept informed, but we haven't been. So this is a surprise to me tonight to hear that, and it's good, and I'm not sure how you pronounce this, the ALWDO Assistant Limited have got the tender for this, it's the centre, the Woodland Centre next to the Centre facility that will happen, for complex needs and mental health issues. That is fantastic news, but what I will say is, what is in it for the local residents? When I say the local residents, anybody, because when that was owned by Wide Horizons, they had certain open days when the public could go in, help feed the animals, help, there was a nature trail for the public, and they became really involved, parents and children together, which is massively important. But there's no mention of this in your response, so can you tell me sort of if that's possible? I'm quite shocked, I'm pleased that a solution is being come to and that people with complex needs are being catered for and families great, but what about that contact with the local residents and the people who want to just come and view it? Thank you. Thank you. Cabinet Member, Councillor Greenwell. Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me. Thank you, Councillor Greenwell. I appreciate your question, and I think looking at the response to the question on paper, I feel like it was answered, but I get your point about any kind of organisation, when they take on a new project, it's about community engagement. What is the community engagement angle to that? How would they bring in the local residents? Obviously, it's an SEND facility, it's special provisions for families and those that need access to this kind of facility, so their needs will become first, but like you said, Wide Horizons had a really good engagement programme, and from my experience of similar organisations, they tend to have a lot of community outreach programmes as it goes. So it's not mentioned here, but obviously it's up to the organisation to give us that information. So, I don't have that information at hand, but I can find out more for you, if that helps, when it's ready, because obviously it's early days, and we can share that with the local councillors, but it's also up to you, you can also reach out to them as well, when they're running as well. Thank you. For question 41, Councillor Greenwell. Thank you, Chair, and I thank Councillor Slattery for her response. I'm going to make this short, because this is already being addressed. Again, I'm going back to the situation in Middle Park, but it's not just Middle Park, it's going to be all over the borough, Avery Hill, Strongbow within our ward, and other areas as well. All I will say, Councillor Slattery, is again, I know I'm going over, reiterating and reiterating, but it's for a reason. I know that there's a framework of rules that you have to make sure that are followed for best value for money to be achieved. I am aware of that. Again, my question is, we've got 11 contractors, apparently, from the council, you see in your response, one being access, which we all know about, because I was at that meeting last Wednesday, and listened to the residents and their questions and concerns. All I will say is, again, is it not more cost-effective, I'm repeating, yes, to look at different contractors for the different areas of work, and we heard something in the meeting about contractors' subcontracting work out as well, but is that the best value for money, because it's going to mean more cost to the council? Is that all right? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for what I think was a question from Councillor Greenwell. I know she's reiterating it, so I'll reiterate my responses, which are, we're part of the South East Consortium. This is a not-for-profit, huge group of expert professionals who go through all sorts of interviewing and checks for us. We sent an invitation to 11 contractors who have passed all their tests. Nine, I think, made a bid for this works. We shortlisted three. Access were the top. United Living and ECWAMs were second and third, or it could be the other way around. I repeat, we cannot have individual contracts just for roofs, for example, A, I don't know what the evidence is for that, why that would be cheaper, but B, while we're up there, because of legislation now we have to do insulation, not all roofers can do insulation. We also have to do chimney pots while we're up there. We also need to be able to respond to anything that is found while we're up there, and we just can't go down the route of one trade and then another contract for another trade. We need to do multi-trade. I do think that is more cost-effective than what you're suggesting, which I'm not sure why you're such a fan of it, to be honest. Thank you. Councillor Greenwell for question 42. Thank you, Chair. I thank Councillor Slattery for her response. I'll make this very short because I don't want to irritate the Councillors. I think a lot of residents, and one in particular, will be pleased to hear that you have an additional four pest control offices dealing with this. Thank you. Councillor Slattery. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Greenwell, for your praise. No, surely not. I think even just talking about this issue, you get kind of weird, don't you? Sadly, we have had more reports of bed bugs, and as well as the four pest control offices, we're also looking at a way of supporting some older residents who won't be able to do some of the pre-bagging of their own stuff before we go in and fumigate and all the rest of it. So, it's a difficult issue for everybody concerned. I can't bear the thought of it. So, thank you. We'll do our best. Now, question 43 for Councillor Greenwell. So, you're taking it. Madam, are you OK? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm grateful to Councillor Greenwell for giving away. I'm afraid this answer has triggered me, and I just need to ask a follow-up of Councillor Kyra. This is Councillor Greenwell's excellent question about the impact of the Government's decision to charge VAT on independent school fees. You've given an answer to that. Thank you. And you've rightly said that parents may choose to use the academic year to make that change, and you're keeping it under review. So, could I ask, is the Council proactively contacting independent schools to get a sense in advance of time whether or not that will be the case? And I was triggered because in the second paragraph it said it's important to remember why the Government made these changes, and that is too. And then the fump changes. We are literally seeing a copy and paste from a Government press release. How depressing. Is this really what we can expect from this Council administration for the next 16 months, just shilling for central Government? Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Mr Hartley, for your question. Let me point out the situation. You know, the data has not changed since this question was put at last fall Council. It's exactly the same. It's been repeated again, and we've given it the same answer. Nothing has changed. The second time, you put in the same question. Well, we're more than happy to continue reviewing this. There's enough spaces in schools, and we are more than happy to work with any young parents that want to transfer their children to mainstream schools. Coming back to the second part, we completely support the Government on this change because it makes it a fair playing field for all children from across backgrounds, races, religions, cultures. And there ain't nothing for elites. All young people are the same regardless, and they are when it comes to school. But, you know, there are certain elements with society that tries to put children in different schools when that shouldn't be the case. Children should be children, and they should be all... No, you can shake your head as much as you like, Councillor David, but children like other children regardless of their race, religion, culture. And this is the best approach for our schools, for our education, and the future generations. Thank you, Councillor Karen. So, we go to the last question of the members' questions section now. The question goes to 44, Councillor Anne Marikajian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm bringing up the rearing. May I apologise for being involved with these list of questions? Losing the will to live for my own question. Thank you very much to the cabinet member for the response to my question. I am delighted to see that we have recently enhanced our data intelligence captivity, and obviously I know that the point of that is to improve things. We do have a duty, it's almost an impossible duty, to ensure the human rights to safety and life of all of our residents. Will the cabinet member commit to ensuring that the police and other agencies are using, this is why I asked the question about the data, are using this data much earlier? So, if we have now got an enhanced system, hopefully we'll be getting much earlier quality data so that we can take much earlier action. Once again, as I raised earlier, that's because prevention is better than cure. Thank you. Thank you very much. I invite the cabinet member, Councillor Tilden, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I thank Councillor Cousins for her supplementary question. Mr. Mayor, I did want to thank you for your minutes of silence at the beginning of this meeting to the victims of knife crime in our borough. I wanted to add to that, you know, a child is a sort of labour of love. They don't get to the age of 14 without someone having teaching to read, having stayed up with them at night, comforting them when they were sick. It's all those hope and expectations you put into a child that they would go on into the world to succeed. And to see that potential, that hope and that labour of love so thoughtlessly and carelessly snuffed out by an act of violence is so tragic that I think it was very important that we mark that. And I think, yes, we have enhanced our data mechanisms for identifying the warning signs of violence and grooming in our young children and we hope that that will lead to earlier interventions. So I thank her for her question. Thank you very much. Next are the world questions to the members of the – oh, sorry. Oh, yeah, I'm still carrying on. I know to your hands. Next are the world questions to the member of the cabinets from the council members. Could you please indicate by raising your hand if you wish to ask the questions? One, two, three, four. Thank you. The first goes to Councillor Joban. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We heard earlier this evening that the possible closure of Marion Wilson Animal Park in my ward of Charlton Village in Riverside as part of potential budget cuts was off the table. As the leader and cabinet members and officers and residents are aware, I've lived and breathed this issue over the last few weeks, the last many weeks, and I'm extremely relieved at this outcome, as will be my co-counselor, Gary Dillon. I'm relieved because of the massive social, therapeutic and educational value the Animal Park provides. And just to clarify things, I would like to ask the leader to confirm exactly what the statement will mean to us. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Joban. The word cast, the leader of the council to respond to this. First of all, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I would just like to thank Councillor Sandra Bower for her time yesterday in joining me in a meeting with residents and campaigners who had concerns about the decision that we had brought forward, Mr. Mayor. It's fair to say, you know, they really lent on us in terms of the remarks Councillor Vanderbrook made in terms of social value and the importance that this Animal Park has in the community, Mr. Mayor. And I'm happy to say that we have arrived at that position after sitting here, stout, and really thinking about how we preserve the park, and now can confirm that it is off the table, Mr. Mayor. Yet still, though, that is an off the table budget gap for us as a council, and yet still we have to work with our cabinet member for finance in thinking about how we close that budget gap, which we will do as we get to the budget, full council budget, or our special budget in December. But I guess, Mr. Mayor, just for this chamber, it highlights the difficult decisions that we as leaders have to make and the tough choices that present ourselves for years of underfunding when it comes to local government funding. So, Mr. Mayor, I'm proud that we could be able to respond and really listen to residents, and lastly, we will continue to work to think about long-term funding solutions for all of our services and really think about that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Salida. So, the next question will be Councillor Greenwell. Thank you, Chair. This is a question, I think, for the leader. Residents of council homes are questioning why they have been informed that they need permission to install CCTV cameras or doorbell cameras outside their homes. This includes leaseholders. Surely, their safety and security comes first in this present climate. Please, can you explain the reasoning behind this move and why it also applies to leaseholders? Thank you, but I'm aware. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I hear the question from Councillor Greenwell. I'm happy to write to her formally and set out a position and circulate a wider response to everybody in this chamber in absence of Councillor Satterfield. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I feel a bit unfair asking a question of Councillor Bower before she's actually technically been appointed later this evening, so she'll have to forgive me. My question's about the adventure play service, the play centre service, another feature of the budget, and we've had exchanges about this already, as she knows. There's a lot of concern because of the detail that has been published and what further detail hasn't yet been published about what that means for individual play centres. There's a particular concern in the ward that I represent around Coldharbour Adventure Play Centre, which plays an absolutely critical central role on the estate. I know that further details will be forthcoming. Could I just ask her when those details of what the review will mean for individual play centres, including Coldharbour, when that will be available, and how we can get that out to the community as quickly as possible to allay some concerns which may be needless and explain the changes in greater detail. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Councillor Hartley's right in terms of Councillor Bower not having the opportunity to be appointed tonight, so happy to take the answer on her behalf. Hopefully, once appointed, which we'll finally get to on the agenda, Councillor Bower will be able to respond to those concerns. But first of all, we understand the level of concern that there is in there. That's why we've thought about how we invest in this. Actually, as you can see, this is more of a transformational project, and that's what we collectively need to get right. We understand the role Adventure Playgrounds has in our community, so in time, we will set out the way we will look at that. Our initial current thinking and understanding is just really sitting down and looking at each individual one and working with a cabinet member for children and young people and thinking about what that future of Adventure Playgrounds looks like. Now, that's a reforming policy that helps us save money, but there's still an opportunity to give back to the community. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Davies. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I've got a bonus question for Councillor Slattery, so I'm pleased she's come back. I read before Christmas about a very damning report by the Housing Ombudsman into Hyde Housing, and I was shocked to discover that the Council haven't engaged with Hyde about the findings in that report and their failings with their repair service, failings with customer service. Can Councillor Slattery explain why the Council haven't engaged with Hyde Housing, and can she promise to, as quickly as possible, engage with Hyde and establish what they're doing to address those concerns and issues within the borough? Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Davies, and can I apologise? I did leave the room after two and three-quarters of your hours, and I missed, I think, Councillor Greenwell's question. Apologies, but I think a note's been made. Hyde Housing, yeah, we do, we have, the Director actually holds regular meetings with all the major players, registered providers in the borough, he sometimes attend, so I'll make checks as to what specific engagement we've had with Hyde, but we do talk to most of them all of the time. Thanks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we go to item 10, matters for early debates. There are no matters for early debates in this meeting, so we go to item 11, the time we have 45 minutes left for the elevator time, but we'll work on, we'll work on, I hope everybody will summarise their talk. Appointment of the cabinet member for equality, culture and communities. This is an information report and for noting only. Does any member wish to speak on this report? Leader of the Council. I'll be very brief and welcome, Councillor Bauer, to the cabinet, but more importantly, legitimise her position in taking questions at full council. Thank you. Thank you. Can I invite Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Hadley. Councillor Bauer may regret the privilege that the leader has bestowed upon her. Can I also welcome Councillor Bauer to her appointment to this important cabinet role? It's been known each other for a very long time, campaigning against each other in 2014 on the cold harbour, and I wish her all the best in the role. Also, I just want to echo what colleagues have said about the withdrawal, the very sensible welcome withdrawal of the council's proposals to close Marian Wilson Animal Park, which would have made such a small saving in the scheme of things. I'm delighted that all the hard work that went in from the community, from the friends groups, from all the campaigners and from the enormous number of people who signed that petition has paid off and everybody worked really hard. You've had a very busy first week in your cabinet role, not least that Sunday's public meeting that we were both at with Joe, and the community really made their views plain in a very admirable way. I think it's to everybody's credit that this outcome has been achieved through this withdrawal of this council proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does Council note this report? Thank you. The report is noted. Thank you. I wish you all the best in your role. It's a good start, isn't it? So we go to Item 12, Local Council Tax Support Scheme. This report is to consider changes to the local council tax support scheme for working age households from 2020 to 26. It was considered by the cabinet earlier today who agreed the recommendations should be go to full council. Can I ask the leader to move the recommendation? First of all, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I rise to move this decision, and I note that we will get to the amendment later. Mr. Mayor, this report sets up Local Council Tax Support Scheme for the year 25-26. The decision before us today is to move from a 100 council tax support base to an 80 council tax support scheme, as well as other changes detailed in the report from section 1.4 to 1.11 in the report. Now, Mr. Mayor, I recognize that the changes to council tax support will be new for some of our residents and may result in some residents have to contribute more to their council tax bill. That's why, Mr. Mayor, we are bringing forward and setting out a new Greenwich Supports Council Tax Hardship Fund for those who might struggle initially to pay their council tax bill. We will also be ensuring that we are supporting residents using our established GLAB service because we know that the best way to tackle low incomes is by getting our residents into better paid living wage jobs, which enables residents to manage their finances and meet their household bills. In addition to that, Mr. Mayor, I want to place my thanks on the record to the residents who took time to engage with our consultation. Council tax support is quite a technical issue and a thing of many scenarios and percentages, and I think it's been good to hear from residents on their thoughts and feelings on our proposals, which show that there is an understanding of the decision that the council is making, which also helps support the council's financial position and allows us to continue to protect, transform and reimagine frontline services that our residents rely on. So, Mr. Mayor, I move this decision and I welcome the debate on the amendment put forward by the opposition. Thank you. Thank you very much. I can understand from the gesture that Councillor Hackley wished to propose an amendment. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have lost count of the number of times I've got to my feet in this last 10 years in the council chamber to make the case for council tax support. I think the cabinet member and the leader knows that this is a subject that's really important to me. I spent most of my early 30s in this building arguing for the introduction of the 100% council tax support scheme. I put it to the vote twice in 2018 and in 2019 and Labour Council has voted it down twice on the basis it was supposedly unaffordable. And then they relented and implemented it anyway. And that change in 2020 lifted the majority of 15,000 households on the lowest incomes out of council tax altogether. It put an end to the ridiculous situation where this Labour Council was instructing bailiffs to try and enforce debts against a group of its own residents that had already been identified as vulnerable by the council itself. And we heard earlier this evening more than 1,300 times on more than 1,300 occasions debts owed by council tax support recipients in the final year of the old scheme that only gave a maximum of 85% support. On more than 1,300 occasions this council passed debts to bailiffs to visit those residents and try and collect debts that the vast, vast majority of those people simply could not afford to pay. And the 100% support scheme brought us a benefit that none of us could have foreseen at the time. Because when Covid struck, just as our borough's 100% scheme was coming into effect, one of the very first things the government did was to fund and mandate this very policy right across the country as a pandemic measure. Other boroughs had to scramble to effectively introduce 100% support. But because we'd already done the work, because frankly I'd been campaigning for this for so many years and years and years, we were instead able to use that extra funding to provide additional support to our residents to help them through the pandemic, support that other boroughs didn't get. So that's what our 100% council tax support scheme has delivered. A tax cut for people on the lowest incomes, vulnerable people protected from the council's bailiffs, and more support when residents needed it most. The scheme's been in for five years, and as I've argued before, it has more than pulled its weight as a policy. And so tonight, for my colleagues and I, this is a really grim full council meeting. Because the cabinet's proposal in front of us reverts the council tax support scheme, and I want to make sure this is well understood. It reverts the scheme not just to the 85% level, which is where we found it in making that proposal, but to an even lower level of support at 80%. And reference was made earlier to other boroughs, and I accept, Councillor Hyland is right, other boroughs have less generous schemes. Let's be better than other boroughs on supporting the lowest income households in our community. Let's be better than other boroughs. This change that cabinet is bringing forward drags 12,300 people on the lowest incomes into council tax for the first time in five years. And I'm sorry to be blunt, but if Labour councillors vote, if you vote for the cabinet's recommendation, you need to make no mistake. You will be voting to increase poverty in this borough. And I know that's not what anybody wants to hear, I know it's not why any of us stood to be a councillor to come here and do, but that is exactly what you will be doing if you vote for the unamended motion. So our amendment draws a line. It removes the bulk of this change, the reduction in the maximum support level from 100% to 80%. So it maintains that maximum 100% level for those 12,300 households who are about to use it. And that's all it does. And this is another thing I want to be really clear about. Our amendment retains the various other changes to the scheme that the cabinet has brought forward following the statutory consultation. So it doesn't undo the entire change, it does mitigate the bulk of the impact of it. And the third point I want to be super clear on is that our alternative option still raises £1.1 million of savings, which Councillor Hyland will know, the leader of the council will know, is exactly the same level of savings that you penciled in for this 12 months ago in the medium-term financial strategy. You've just come back with a bigger cut, and that's what we're trying to stop. So that deeper cut of £3.9 million is what this amendment reduces by protecting 100% council tax support. So voting for this amendment would be us all here tonight saying that we are not prepared to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in our borough, because that's exactly what this Labour administration's proposal will do. Our amendment means that frankly this organisation will have to do better, will have to do even better at finding a further £2.8 million of non-frontline efficiency savings. And before you tell me it can't be done, last year the council administration found £26 million of non-frontline efficiency savings, the existence of which they had denied in this council chamber for years. This year again, in next month's budget proposals, a further £1 million of service efficiencies, non-frontline efficiencies, not cuts, efficiencies, have casually appeared in the council's proposals. So more efficiency savings are being found, and there are more efficiency savings to be found. So this is a political choice. You can either push this organisation to go further and double down on the transformation and efficiency agenda to get those savings, or you can take millions of pounds out of the pockets of the poorest people in our borough. We heard earlier about difficult decisions. I think this one is an easy decision, Mr Mayor, and I'd urge all councillors to vote for our amendment so we can make that decision together. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hartley. Is the amendment seconded? Formerly, Mr Mayor, I reserve my right to speak. Before we debate on the amendment, can I ask the leader if he accepts the amendment? Thank you, Mr Mayor. We're not accepting this amendment, and I'm happy to speak to it later when we go into the debate. Do members wish to debate the amendment? Anybody can indicate. Councillor Highlands. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm very happy to defer my contribution until after the leader has explained his decision around the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I appreciate, actually, I was thinking Councillor Hartley is probably wasted as a Conservative councillor because of the campaigning that he's done to create a value-driven work ethic. I'm trying to fight for those that are kind of worse off in our society, which, actually, as a Labour council, which we've done over the last 14 years, and actually, you've actually benefited from that. You've been able to campaign for that. So, actually, it's worked in your favour being a Conservative councillor in a Labour council which is adamant and which is resilient and up until now hadn't let the 14 years of austerity affect the residents. And when it came to their pockets, but we are where we are now, where we have to be prudent, where we have to ask those to contribute more where they can, and those that can't, we are there to kind of support them through. So we haven't left anyone behind, but we have to be pragmatic. So, just going back to, and I truly appreciate some of the stuff that you said there, Councillor Hartley, but you could only say that, and you could only do that because you were in a Labour council who hadn't let the government's lack of funding affect them over the last 14 years in December. As other councils. Thank you. Leader. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I rise to speak on the amendment that we've received from the Tories. I have to say I'm quite surprised by this proposal from Councillor Hartley and Davis, as this amendment being proposed today will leave the council with a budget gap of $2.8 million in their forthcoming budget. Now, Mr. Mayor, everyone in this chamber knows we have a legal responsibility to set a budget, and if we were to agree this amendment, this council would have up to the 11th of March to find 2.8 worth of million cuts. Now, Mr. Mayor, 2.8 million is a lot, and I'll be interested to know where these cuts would come from. A cut of 2.8 million, Mr. Mayor, would wipe out our entire children with disabilities team. A cut of 2.8 million would require a cut and wipe out our entire residential street cleansing function. A cut of 2.8 million, Mr. Mayor, would cut our whole housing benefit function. Did the Tories really want to double down on their legacy of being in government and implementing the harshest cuts that the public sector has ever seen? That's their legacy as much as they might want to pretend that they weren't in power for 14 years, Mr. Mayor. It was 14 years of Tory austerity, 14 years of Tory cuts, and 14 years of the Tory party ruling this country and forcing the Labour Party to pick up the pieces and do the hard work to rebuild it. They gave us Liz Trost who crushed the economy, and now it's up to Labour councils like ours to make these tough choices that we need to make to protect frontline services and put our residents first. Mr. Mayor, a cut of 2.8 million could only be found by reducing frontline services, which we are doing, which we have seen this council have to do year on year on year on year. Last year, we did a children's census consultation. This year, we're looking at adventure playgrounds, Mr. Mayor. So when Councillor Hartley sits there and speaks to backhouse cuts, he fails to ignore or he ignores the fact that they're also front of house cuts, cuts that are affecting residents in real times and terms. When I speak to residents, Mr. Mayor, they talk to me of the things the council used to do, the things the council used to do. This council has spent the last 14 years cutting, cut after cut after cut. And Mr. Mayor, since the beginning of my administration, we've been working hard every day to protect and transform frontline services. We've increased funding to key frontline services like children's services, housing and adults with social care. Now, I know Councillor Hartley shares concerns about the initial proposal, but this is why this council is stepping up and rightly so to create a hardship fund to support the most vulnerable residents. And that is the additional layer of support, Mr. Mayor. But more importantly, Mr. Mayor, if we don't want our residents to rely on council tax support, we have to make sure that we're getting them into jobs. Ensuring that they can get a decent living wage, which is why we're also proposing to make sure we use our GLAB service to help support residents. Because our interventions around supporting residents into employment, into better living wage jobs is the work of this council. That's the difference the Labour Council makes versus a Conservative one that would continue to cut frontline services. And on that note, Mr. Mayor, I must remind Councillor Hartley of his position in all of this. Hillingdon, Bromley, Harrow, all Conservative councils are planning to reduce council tax support scheme as well as Labour ones. No council is immune to these decisions that found its foundation when the Conservative government was in power. No one is immune. We've all seen the press stories about how councils are struggling. But where is the inception of that struggle? Where did that start? So whilst I hear the concern, Mr. Mayor, I don't want him to forget his legacy in those 14 years. And personally, I wish they wouldn't have happened. Local government finances would have been a much better place without years of cuts and austerity. But they did happen. And he as a Conservative politician should take responsibility in that and for his record, because it's his party after all. Now Mr. Mayor, today you will see the stark realities that we in this chamber must confront. Like the Annable Park that we've managed to find a resolution for. These are the difficult decisions that leaders like myself have to make daily in local government. And we have to confront these issues daily in local government. So Mr. Mayor, while I note the amendment, I also reject it. Because Councillor Hartley's amendment is irresponsible, as it fails to fully recognise the significant budget gap that it would create in the forthcoming budget. None of us around this chamber want to sit here and slash services. This motion would force us to do precisely that. Apologies, amendment. So I want to ask everyone to vote this amendment down and keep these cuts away from our communities in the same way this Labour Council has protected people in our communities, has put people into housing, and has resolved the vulnerable situation that many of our residents are suffering. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Townley, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to call out some of the complete rubbish we've just heard from the Leader of the Council. If it wasn't for Councillor Hartley having pushed this scheme for all those years before 2020, some of the poorest residents in this borough would have had bailiffs at their door. But because this scheme was brought in after the Conservative groups campaigning, that didn't happen. And we need to address the fact that the Leader has said that this proposal would lead to a slash to frontline services and cuts to services. That just isn't true. We've gone through, this is a fully-costed proposal that we have gone through with Council officers, and all that is needed here is for the Council to double down on transformation. Let's look at last year. We saw that overnight they found $26 million after putting their heads in the sand for the previous 14 years. If this Council had got serious before last year about managing their finances, we wouldn't be in the position we're in. But unfortunately, the party opposite were not serious about managing the Council's finances, and this is why we find ourselves in this scenario. The failings of multiple administrations, many of whom sitting opposite, have been involved in those multiple administrations, and so rather than trying to turn this into something that is the Conservative Party's fault, the party opposite need to look a bit closer to home, look at themselves and understand if they'd taken the finances of this Council seriously all those years ago, they wouldn't need to be making this decision. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. It is really that simple, really. We have $2.8 million if we were to accept your amendment to have to find by 11 March. Where on earth do you suggest that we find that? I mean, the Animal Park closure isn't acceptable. People are, you know, quite rightly exercised about a cut in that way. But this Council has lost 53% of its funding since 2010. Mr Mayor, I'd like to suggest that we move to the vote on the amendment, please. Thank you. Final leader. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I mean, I'll just come in because it seems like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand the proposal on the table. Now, Mr Mayor, at Cabinet this evening, I discussed with my Cabinet this particular amendment that was forthcoming, and we questioned the Director of Finance about what this proposal would do to our forthcoming emerging budget. And what it said was that it would end up having a knock-on impact on the forthcoming budget, 2025, which we need to set in March, and result in a £2.8 million gap. So they clearly don't know how to do the sums, but I am proud he's found his voice to talk on this amendment. Does the Leader, as the mover of recommendation, wish to close the debate on the amendment? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll now ask the Council to vote on the amendment. Those in favour? Those against? Abstentions? The amendment has not been agreed. Does any member wish to speak on the main report? Councillor Hartley. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Speaking on the main item, which is the Cabinet's proposals, but also exercising a right of reply in what the Leader just said, all our proposals are developed with support from Council officers. And I'm sorry, you've got no credibility whatsoever when you say, when you characterise the £2.8 million that would need to be found, as having to be, you said it would be a cut, it's only possible by cutting services, slashing services. We've heard it year after year after year. We've brought proposals based on transformation and efficiency. We said it time and time again for years and we got the same message. We've cut to the bone. There's nothing left. There's no waste in inefficiency. And then as Councillor Davies got it spot on in saying, last year you came up with £26 million of non-frontline efficiencies. You don't have to believe me in your own proposals. I quoted at length last year your own proposals, where it said in black and white on the page, no service impact, no impact on residents. £26 million a year of waste in inefficiency was sat in this Council's budget for the entire 14 years that has been discussed so much. So when you say, when you mischaracterise, misrepresent our proposal to say, actually, you know what, we should work harder as a Council to find those efficiency savings rather than this drastic cut to Council tax support, when you mischaracterise that as a binary choice between your Council tax support cut or cuts to services elsewhere, you've got no credibility whatsoever because we heard it so many times. We heard it again and again. And you found the efficiencies. There are more efficiencies to be saved. So the only other thing I want to say, the amendment's been defeated. We're debating the main item. I just want to return to the point, respectfully, that Councillor Hyland and I discussed earlier because she very skilfully evaded answering my question on bailiff action. I've said so many times, one of the major benefits of the scheme that we worked so hard to introduce for these last five years is that the Council wasn't sending bailiffs to Council tax support recipients. I have to pick Councillor Hyland up, respectfully, upon what she said earlier. She said, I've heard it so many times, the sort of can't pay, won't pay argument, and she sort of tilted the discussion into the won't pay because it suits her to do so, because it makes it easier to defend her proposal. The vast, vast majority of Council tax support recipients who fall behind with their Council tax simply cannot afford to pay it. They're not the won't pay category. I don't accept that. And I think if she spoke to Council tax support recipients, she would discover the same. So, as I said earlier, many other local authorities, double digits of local authorities, have taken the policy decision to exempt Council tax support recipients from bailiff action. So this proposal that you're about to vote for will lead to bailiffs being sent by this Council to our own low-income residents who are about to lose their Council tax support. So, could I ask her to answer the question directly, because I'm putting the question directly. Would she consider, just look into, that's all I'm asking, exempting Council tax support recipients from enforcement action as part of the collection process? Oral questions in the middle of a motion. Good luck to me. Constitutional change. Okay, so, basically, this Council has a great deal of empathy with its residents who genuinely cannot afford to pay. And they will make representations to us as Councillors in casework, through emails, through phone calls, and through places like the Contact Centre and the Citizens' Advice Bureau, and indeed probably through organisations like your own. The issue for us is that we have to tread a very careful path, because we are responsible to every taxpayer in this borough for how we spend money, and that includes not collecting debt. Secondly, we are audited, as you know, annually. And thirdly, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And you know, as you've just spoken earlier, that there are some people who won't pay, and there are some people who can't pay. And it's for us to decide with them the people who genuinely cannot pay. And that is why the Leader has said tonight that we're setting up a hardship fund to make sure that we support that 20 per cent of the people that you're talking about who genuinely struggle to pay that. Our enforcement, I'm not saying we will never enforce, but obviously we will look at the stages at which we enforce, and there may be a longer period, okay? Thanks. A point of personal explanation, Mr Mayor, if I may. Councillor Hyland's quite right. I suddenly thought it was all your questions. Just to clarify, we're abstaining on the main motion, and that's because I'm not going to vote against the hardship fund, given that you've defeated our amendment. So, you know, frankly, I don't want any sort of groans when we abstain, because we're abstaining because I'm not voting against that hardship fund and neither are my colleagues. But I can't vote for the main item with this drastic cut. So I just wanted to clarify in advance why we're voting the way we're voting. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Platt. Mr Mayor, thanks very much. I'm quite anxious about the number of members of the public who are waiting and hoping, I think, for a motion to be discussed, so I wonder if we could move to the vote. And some of the items that are coming up, I know we have to discuss tonight, so I don't know if there's a way we can expedite that discussion really quickly and forego our right to be in the limelight so that we can at least have some discussion about that issue. Thanks. Mr Mayor, on that intervention there, I think it's best if we go to the vote and reserve my right to speak, just like the Deputy Leader does, of the opposition. Thank you. I will now ask the Council to vote on the recommendations in the report. Those in favour? Against? Abstentions? Thank you. The recommendations have been agreed. Item 13, Council Tax Base 2025-26. Can I remind those members who have declared a financial interest in Item 13 to leave the meeting before the item is considered? I remind members in relation to this item that if they own a second home in the Royal Borough, they will need to declare an interest, financial interest, in the item and leave the meeting whilst this item is being considered. This will also apply where the partner of the Councillor owns second home in the Royal Borough. Again, this item was considered by Cabinet earlier today and they agreed to recommend that the Council agrees that this isn't required. Can I ask the Leader to move the recommendations? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In the interest of time, I will be quick and I move this report which will see us respond to the increase in the additional properties built in Greenwich and increase our Council Tax Base, as well as the Council Tax premiums that we are going to be placing on empty homes. I think everyone can agree that this is a good thing as we don't want homes to be empty in the borough and actually we need to get people into homes because that's how we tackle the housing crisis. So I formally move the report, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Matt Hadley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We had a technical accompanying amendment to this report just to ensure against the prospective victory of our previous amendment but given that our previous amendment wasn't successful, I'll withdraw the technical amendment that we've submitted for this motion and we'll go straight to the vote and we'll be voting for it as a technical report. Thank you. As members are aware, there is a legal requirement for the Council to conduct a recorded vote on this item. Can I ask the Chief Executive to call on the vote on the Council Tax Base? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If you can shout out for, against or abstain, please, when I call out your name. Councillor Magella Anning has declared an interest. Councillor Ashgar has left. Councillor O'Dellie? Babatola has left. Peter Baker is absent. Councillor Bower? Councillor Byrd? Councillor Vanderbrook has declared an interest. Councillor Burke-McDonald? Councillor Issie Cook? Councillor Cousins has left. Councillor Davies? Councillor Dillon is absent. Councillor Dingsdale has left. Councillor Dowes? Councillor Farhi? Councillor Fletcher is absent. Councillor Gardner? Councillor Greenwell? Councillor Hanan? Councillor Maye? Councillor Highland has declared an interest. Councillor Ige? Councillor Kyra? Councillor Le Cowell has left. Councillor Littlewood? Interest. Councillor L'Olivar? Councillor Maye? Councillor Mabang has an interest. Councillor McGaughey? Councillor Merrill has left. Councillor Mohammed is absent. Councillor Morrow? Councillor Obern Mulligan? Interest. Councillor Okereke? For. Councillor Obemi? Councillor Pearce? Councillor Rahman? Councillor Ranabat? For. Councillor Richard Scottle? For. Councillor Scott McDonald? For. Councillor Slattery? For. Councillor Aidan Smith? For. Councillor Jackie Smith is absent. Councillor Spencer? For. Christine St Matthew Daniel is absent. Dave Sullivan is absent. Rachel Taggart Ryan? For. Councillor Tester? Councillor Miranda Williams has left. Councillor Sei Shan? Okay. That's 33 votes. For. Zero against and zero abstentions. Clarification please. I was absent momentarily. I would have voted for but I wasn't here. Oh. Would you like to vote? I would. So that's 34 votes for zero against and zero abstentions. Thank you, Secretary. The decision has been agreed. Point of order, Mr Mayor, if I may. I think Councillor Slattery made a very good point that we've got lots of residents here for the building safety motion. The leader and I have just discussed it and we wanted to suggest jointly that at your discretion, Mr Mayor, we reorder the agenda and perhaps take that item. And if I could move a motion to extend the meeting by 30 minutes because people have come a long way and it's a very important subject that's taken a while to get to the agenda. So just as a suggestion to put to you, Mr Mayor. The time is now approaching 10.30 pm. I remember happy to extend the meeting by further 30 minutes. The meeting is extended until 11 pm. We shall vote again at that time if we need to consider another extension. So with the discretion, with my discretion, I'll reorder the agenda considering our member of public. So we'll go to item 16 first. Mr Mayor, I realise I have to declare a conflict of interest and I've been told I shouldn't vote on this motion because my building is undergoing remediation. So I should not vote. I've been told that. Item 16, motion. Protecting leaseholders from excessive insurance and remortgages cost in building requiring fire remediation. Can I call the Councillor Ladde Olegbini to formally move the motion? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm honoured to present my first motion to this chamber and I'm hoping that it will receive support by my colleagues. I move to propose for this motion and this is about protecting leaseholders from excessive insurance and remortgage cost in building requiring fire remediation. I'll give you a background. So this year will be the 8th year anniversary of the Greenfell Tower. The fire, like we all remember, burnt for 60 hours, taking 72 lives. The Greenfell fire exposed a crisis of fire safety in high-rise buildings across our country. Considerable number of buildings in the Royal Borough of Greenwich being found to have various levels of breaches of building regulations and the use of dangerous materials. We believe that it is imperative that the developers and owners of all buildings over 18 metres in need of fire remediation work must be able to proceed with the removal of unsafe materials as quickly as possible. Leaseholders should also be protected from the cost of this work being passed on through fees and charges. However, the response to this crisis from the previous government was woefully slow. It was in piecemeal and what it did was to create a competing and contradictory safety standard for remediation work that has left residents burdened with high insurance premiums and market difficulties. And what this motion is saying is that the Council notes with deep concern the following. One, the disparity in safety ratings between developers and insurers. The flammable materials on homes poses a risk and while we cannot eliminate all fire risk, it is about managing them. The disparity arises from insurance companies and developers having varying priorities and perspectives. In the wake of the Greenfield Tower fire, insurance companies have heightened risk and increased premiums in many buildings over 18 metres. In many cases, the risk is too high for single insurers who are not able to provide cover on their own. So, leaseholders are left unable to get cover or brokers have turned to sourcing cover from multiple firms. The latter meaning that several insurers are involved in covering one building, creating a layered effect and driving up costs. Furthermore, the disparity widens deeper because developers are relying on building regulations and standards that they meet during construction. These regulations may now be varied depending on the specific interpretation of safety requirements. These ratings can sometimes be less stringent than the criteria used by the insurers, who often apply more rigorous standards based on their risk models and potential liability they face in the invent of a claim. Developers are focused on present safety and adherence to construction standards, whilst insurers look at potential risks and historical data to predict future incidents. Developers are aiming to ensure building is safe from the start, are daring to court and best practices, whilst insurers are evaluating the likelihood of future incidents and how well risks are managed. Developer ratings are often based on current and immediate safety measures, whereas insurance ratings consider long-term risk and past performance. Insurance are focused on the EWSI certification process. This is a set way for developers to confirm to insurers that an external wall system on residential buildings has been assessed for safety by a suitable expert in line with government guidance. It is, however, not a legal requirement to remediate to A1 standards with requirements for fire safety B1. These disparities create confusion and frustration for leaseholders, and they are unfairly burdened with increasing their premiums. There is a risk from flammable materials, and the B1 ratings have not given certainty to all stakeholders, for example, residents of Royal Artillery Cues, and also insurance providers. These differences in standards create a gap between what developers consider safe and what insurers deem insurable, resulting in challenges for leaseholders in securing affordable coverage. Although this mitigates the risk for individual insurance, they also escalate overall insurance costs for leaseholders, further exacerbating the financial strain on residents. And what we are calling for today is that the Council calls upon the Government to one, act upon the findings of the Greenfield Inquiry, to bring forward a review on how to better protect leaseholders from costs and take steps to accelerate the pace of fire remediation across the country. It is imperative that this review considers the findings from fires in Barking, at the Providence Wharf Building in 2021, and the Spectrum Building in Dagenham in 2024, and determine what is acceptable on buildings. This is with a view of ruling out flammable materials. Second call. Government must provide clarity for residents on whether A1 rating is necessary, and work with developers to ensure the highest standard. And lastly, that Government should back a risk-pulling reinsurance scheme to help ensure quicker and more substantial reduction in the costs paid by leaseholders. Thank you. Is the motion seconded? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before seconding this motion, I would like to give thanks to the work of my colleague, Councillor Hepesabard and Beni, who has been a stalwart campaigner for the residents of Royal Artillery Cays, and has tirelessly called for this necessary fire remediation work to be carried out without delay, and for the tenants and leaseholders to be protected from poor standard and excessive charges. I do not need to go into detail into the importance of this work. It has now been beyond seven years since the fire and ground floor tower took 72 lives and exposed the national crisis in building safety. And yet, as of August 2024, of the 4,771 buildings that have been identified as needing clouding removal, only about a third of these have been fully remediated. I welcome the actions of the current Labour Government, which has prioritised accelerating remediation work and providing the building safety regime through regulation, to ensure we never again see a repeat of Grenfell fire. This has included an investment of remediation works rising to over £1 billion in the 2025-26 budget. While speed is important, it is also essential that the burden of this work does not fall upon the narrowest shoulders to bear it. Leaseholders had no say in the materials that were used by developers and building owners, and should not be punished for the mistakes made by them. In recognition of this injustice, the Government has made a commitment that it would review how to better protect leaseholders from costs and take steps to accelerate the pace of remediation across the country, putting a renewed focus on ensuring those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right. This motion highlights the learnings from our experience in Greenwich, particularly with the Royal Artillery Keys building, which has become very much emblematic of the problems with high-rise remediation work nationwide. As a local authority, we are calling on the Government to stand by and push ahead with its commitments to get fire remediation work done whilst protecting leaseholders. In addition to this motion, I have written to Alex Norris MP, who is the Building Safety Minister, urging him to increase resources and implementing clear and forcible timelines for the Building Safety Regulator, and to back a risk-cooled reinsurance scheme to help ensure quicker and more substantial reductions in the costs paid by leaseholders. Clearly, the situation in the Royal Artillery Keys is absolutely dire. Obviously, I represent Greenwich Peninsula Ward, and we have had a large number of properties and constituents affected by cladding. I was very moved to go and visit someone who bought their property when they were childless. Then they had one child, so they were looking to move. Now they have two children in a one-bedroom property, and they have been able to move because they have it now to get the EWS1 certificate, which is so important in order to be able to sell the property. It is particularly difficult for shared owners as well, and many in our ward are shared owners. In the Bellway development in Greenwich Peninsula Ward, around John Harrison Way, it has taken Ardmore over three years to complete the mediation works with re-cladding. It is because of changes in regulation, uncertainty about funding, and uncertainty about what the regulations were during the period of the last government. I am glad to say that now has completed, but during that time, they were in uncertainty, they were in darkness, they could not sell or move on, and it was dire for them. Luckily, we have had developers who have been willing to pay up, albeit that people have been dragging their feet for all these issues, but I do think Matthew Pennacook, our Member of Parliament and now the Housing Minister, has done a tremendous amount to support residents in our constituency. It is very important that we continue to press home because it is very difficult, often living hell, for the people who have to live in these properties with these problems hanging over them. We absolutely do need to accelerate this and I very much welcome the motion. Thank you. An amendment has been proposed by Councillor Matt Hartley, which has been published on the Council's website. Councillor Hartley, would you like to move your amendment? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You are going to have to bear with me procedurally because I am going to move an amendment to the amendment, which has happened before in the distant past of my time on the Council. If I could, and I believe I can do this just on the fly, because the third bullet point in the paragraph that starts Council regrets Barrett-Redrose, which refers to the London Fire Brigade and an enforcement notice, I would like to remove that bullet point from the amendment. If I can do that now verbally, Mr. Mayor, as that has happened in the past, I will then propose the amended amendment. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I come in on that point and raise a point of order? I get clarity around that from officers on that particular point. I believe the cabinet member has been asking questions about that particular point and officers advise they have not yet been able to see this. I will bring in the cabinet member, but I think there is some clarity that is needed before we agree on a motion that might not be accurate. Just clarification on this point. Officers have been unable to substantiate the claim that this enforcement notice has been issued by the London Fire Brigade. So until we have clarification on that point, I do agree with the opposition that it would be prudent to remove it. We have tried to clarify with the London Fire Brigade over the course of this week, but I have not had a confirmation that that is indeed the case. Mr. Mayor, apologies. We have just had a debate on the amendment to the amendment, it sounds like. Councillor Taggart-Ryan has raised the issue which caused the leader and I to agree that I would amend the amendment to remove that bullet point. Now, this point is contentious. Just to explain, given that this is a reason, I just need to explain. Because it is a contentious issue, the reason I have agreed to remove it from the amendment is because there is some doubt and different perspectives. But, my understanding is the enforcement notice has been communicated to the ROK Residence Association, so on that basis that it was included. But look, there is an issue of clarification, as the leader said, so the leader and I have agreed on removing that bullet point from the amendment. So, if we could just perhaps proceed on the basis of the amended amendment, I can see the leader of the council is agreeing with me, I will then introduce it, if I may, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Do you want to comment on that? No, we are done. We are definitely done debating the amendment to the amendment. Look, this is a really important issue and we need to get back to the issue rather than the procedure. First of all, all of us were deeply affected by the horrific disaster at Grenfell in 2017. It was an appalling human tragedy, as Councillor Taggart-Ryan said, the result of a collective failure in fire safety regulation over many years, successive governments of all parties and by the building industry, all of which was laid bare by the public inquiry. In the years since, many thousands more people have been affected in different ways as the scale of fire safety concerns about high-rise blocks has become clear. That includes many of our residents who have been living in fear whilst facing the prospect of huge financial costs being unfairly imposed upon them. So, it is clearly a crucial issue to address and it matters a great deal to many of our residents. It was also an important issue last autumn when former Councillor Chris Lloyd rightly sought to bring the issue to this Council Chamber on behalf of the residents in West Thamesmead and particularly those at Royal Artillery Quays. It was disappointing to say the least when that motion was effectively forced off the agenda by political game-playing, with a name being removed from that motion after the deadline forcing it off the agenda. I know from speaking to residents at Royal Artillery Quays they felt very let down by that fact and I think we saw the impact of that at the ballot box in the by-election. The amendment we are putting forward tonight is intended to return this motion to the spirit of the original motion that Councillor Lloyd brought forward, with these additional points to address the specific concerns relating to Royal Artillery Quays. The motion, I'm comfortable with supporting everything that's in the motion, even that sly dig at the previous government. I think there's some merit because it's been a failure of multiple governments. I'm happy to support the wording of the motion but it doesn't go far enough. What you've done is bring back this approach of a generalised call on the government to do this and not focus on what the Council can do with its relationships, with its leverage. It's also important to say that we absolutely acknowledge that there are many other housing developments across the borough affected and our amendment notes that in the wording of the amendment. If ward councillors want to raise concerns about blocks in their wards, they are obviously free to do so in other motions. This started with being about Royal Artillery Quays and residents of Royal Artillery Quays had expected their particular case to be raised in the Chamber last year. We, as the opposition group, thought and think that they deserved that opportunity so that's why I'm bringing this forward. In putting the amendment together, I'm very grateful for the input and support of the Royal Artillery Quays Residents Association and in particular Steve Day. Steve is a national campaigner on this issue. The more I've spoken with Steve, the more I am in awe of his level of expertise on this issue. He's a national campaigner with deep expertise on the history of the whole cladding scandal and fire safety regulations. That sort of knowledge is an asset actually to the borough and I think the Council should be using Steve's knowledge and expertise to inform its work on building safety. If we can tap into Steve's expertise, I think we should do that as a borough, as a Council because we all want to end what has become an absolute nightmare. The more I have got to learn about this, including from conversations with Steve and other residents, the more I just see it is an absolutely intolerable situation that people have been left in. This amendment doesn't delete anything from that original motion that we heard read out earlier. We're happy to support that. All we're doing is adding these specifics about Royal Artillery Quays. Firstly, for Council to note that Royal Artillery Quays has been identified as having potentially dangerous cladding, that leaseholders have been forced to shoulder the burden of paying for those extra waking watch patrols, the intolerable increased insurance premiums and obviously seeing their properties blighted by the issue and being unable to sell or remortgage. The previous government did take action to force Barrett Redrow, the initial builder, to pay for building safety improvements, but there are serious concerns here about the way that company is going about this. In particular, they are proposing to do only the bare minimum of works, the very bare minimum, to meet the lowest permitted standard introduced after Grenfell. That means potentially dangerous, flammable material remaining in the buildings and concerns over the safety of escaped stairs. Residents' concerns about the situation are very, very deeply held and I think we as the Council need to support them in their tireless campaigning on this issue because the situation, the status quo, cannot be allowed to carry on. This motion provides an opportunity for the Council to let residents know at Royal Artillery Quays that the Council is on their side because, to be honest, it hasn't felt like it up to now. The amendment in taking nothing away from the original motion will include all of those points that we've heard earlier, the more generalised points about what the government needs to do, but we think it should be a lot more specific than that. This isn't a party political issue, Mr Mayor. I hope we will all want to support Royal Artillery Quays residents on this issue, so I hoped the amendment would be accepted and I'd urge the administration to accept it. Regardless of that procedural issue, which I think we've cleared up through removing that bullet point, this amendment, with that bullet point removed for the avoidance of any doubt on that contentious issue, I think has a lot of merit and I commend it to the Council Chamber. Thank you, Mr Mayor. CHEERING AND APPLAUSE Thank you. Thank you. Is the amendment seconded? Formerly in reserve for my right to speak, Mr Mayor. Before we debate the amendment, can I ask Councillor Olugbemi if she accepts the amendment? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would first and foremost like to acknowledge Steve Day. We have met several times and I'm in total support of what Councillor Hartley has said about you. You're a dogged, persistent fighter. Well done. Well done. APPLAUSE And in response to Councillor Hartley, while we welcome constructive debate on such a very vital issue, this amendment falls short of offering meaningful solutions for the residents that we represent. There are fundamental concerns with the amendment and I'll bring them out one by one. One, there's a weakening accountability for developers and insurers. Firstly, the amendment acknowledges the existing gap between safety and insurability, but doesn't hold developers or insurers and financial institutions accountable for resolving the disparity that I mentioned earlier. The amendment's inclusion of a new section on the supposed gap between safety and insurability, it oversimplifies a very complex interplay between government policy, building regulation and insurance market, because there are three things that were picked out in the motion. Other than supporting practical steps to alleviate the financial burdens on leaseholders, what it does is that it's introducing unnecessary technical points that do little to move the debate forward. And instead of reinforcing the call for immediate government action to regulate insurers, because one of the key things that I know from the conversations I've had with residents, apart from Steve Day when we were at the door knocking, we were both campaigning and with Councillor Spencer, was about the premium of insurance. The second point is the failure to demand urgent government actions on cost. The original motion calls upon government to act on the findings of the Greenfield inquiry, ensuring accountability and concrete steps towards the fire safety improvement. The amendment, while adding the phrase in full, does not introduce any meaningful new measures to accelerate remediation or directly alleviate leaseholders' costs. Without the tangible policy intervention, leaseholders will continue to suffer under exorbitant insurance premiums and mortgage barriers. Thirdly, insufficient support for risk-pulling insurance reforms. Our motion calls for a government-backed risk-pulling reinsurance scheme to drive down leaseholders' insurance costs. The amendment attempts to reframe this by specifying that it should be funded by a levy of developers. While developers must contribute to remediation costs, placing the ball solely on them without mandating insurance participation risks, creating further financial loopholes, where insurance continues to exploit leaseholders without taking responsibility for fair pricing. However, the amendment lacks specificity on how such a levy will be structured, how to be implemented, how to be enforced. It is a vague commitment without clear legislative backing. Lastly, I see this as a political opportunism. The conservative amendment introduces a tone of political opportunism rather than genuine advocacy for leaseholders. By focusing on additional requirements for private developers without equal pressure on the government to address the structural failures in fire safety policy, it conveniently shifts blame away from the years of inadequate regulation by the past conservative government and a slow-moving reform. On that note, I am rejecting this amendment. We send a strong message. Mr. Mayor, can you please be decent and let us continue the meeting? There is a democratic process to follow. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, by rejecting this amendment, we send a strong message that our priority remains firmly on protecting leaseholders, holding developers accountable, and demanding audit action from central government. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, may I make a point of order? I just wanted to clarify, I think it is important. The amendment is not an either-or. It is not your motion or my amendment. My amendment just adds to your motion. I mean, everything you have just criticized was in your own motion. And I think it is really important before the vote takes place that everybody is clear, including the mover of the motion, that this is not either-or. It is not the motion or the amendment. It is either the motion on its own calling on the government to do all those things, or it is the motion plus the amendment specifically about leveraging the Council's influence on the situation in Royal Artillery Keys. So I just wanted, for everybody's benefit, this is not either-or. That is just not what is in front of us. It is either the motion or the motion plus my Royal Artillery Keys amendment. I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, we are now considering the amendment. Does any member wish to address the meeting on the amendment? Councillor Cagavino. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am rising to speak in opposition to the amendment brought to this motion. On such an important issue, there can be no room for factual errors presupposing the outcomes of matters yet to be determined, or misrepresentation on what bodies hold the power to enact change. Unfortunately, this amendment, far from clarifying, providing clarity on the standards of required works, serves to muddy the issue. The likely result of which will be further delays to the work being carried out. Such delays will only continue to exacerbate the physical and financial risk that residents are exposed to, and this is not acceptable to this Council. Firstly, it is jumping the gun to state that flammable material will be left by developers on Royal Artillery Keys. An update I received this morning from the Building Safety Regulator stated, The investigation is still ongoing. The building control applications are still under review and no decision has been made regarding the issues raised by a resident in respect of the proposed applications. It is right that this Council awaits the outcome of the Regulator's determination before making a judgement on those plans. The Building Safety Regulator has the legal framework and subject matter expertise to make an evidence-based determination on what works will be carried out on Royal Artillery Keys. This Council does not have that power, nor should it seek to undermine the work of the Building Standards Regulator by presuming to predetermine its outcome. Therefore, it is not appropriate at this time to accept the additional paragraphs to the motion proposed by this amendment. Regarding past 9980 code, this was introduced by the previous Government in 2022 and replaced the assessment criteria on external walls in that same Government's 2020 Consolidated Advice Note on Building Safety. The Consolidated Advice Note was withdrawn in less than two years of operation after its treatment of the risk posed by flammable material in external walls was widely criticised as unworkable. The original motion recognises that the past 9980 does not work well and has thrown up issues for insurers, leading to higher costs for leaseholders. Therefore, we have called for the Government to review this and to provide clarity on how the disparities between building standards and insurance standards can be closed, with the minimal amount of costs being shouldered by leaseholders. This is important and we have gone further to suggest a risk pooling scheme for reinsurance which could ameliorate these concerns from insurers. But we must be clear with leaseholders, the call to change one element of the pass code will not serve as a panacea for the issues they are facing and it is not an evidence-based approach. As the experience of the Consolidated Advice Note in 2020 demonstrates, a similar approach to what is being proposed by this amendment has been tried before and was found to be too blunt and inflexible to work in practice and was abandoned within less than two years. The result of which is that we are now five years down the line and developers have still not carried out the necessary remediation work. There is not one easy, simple call for change that will bring these two legislative and insurance systems into perfect alignment. It would be misleading for me and anyone else on this Council or within this borough to tell residents that that is the case. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment on the pass code. In sum, it would put this Council in a position of calling for an overly simplified and untested solution, previous iterations of which have failed. If the unsafe material is ever to be removed from tall buildings in our borough, central government needs an approach that is capable in practice of bridging the interests between insurers and developers and providing clarity on this for leaseholders. This requires a broader review of how to protect leaseholders, taking on board the recent findings of the Barking and Dagenham fires. This is what the original motion calls for and it does not require this amendment to achieve this aim. Once again, this amendment presupposes the outcome of that review and puts forward an untested theory as a factual solution. I would like to share the advice received by senior officers in our private housing and environmental health standards team. I firmly believe that attempting to alter the past 9980 code without alignment of the building standards regulator would create conflict between local and national policies, potentially undermining the regulatory framework that has been established. Any change would require robust data, expert reports and, likely, the results of pilot schemes or case studies to demonstrate its necessity. Moreover, a motion seeking to amend the past 9980 code could face considerable resistance or even legal challenges from key stakeholders, including developers, property owners, insurers and residents, who might fear that such changes could introduce new risks and uncertainty. This, in turn, could result in delays to fire safety remediation plans. To close, Mr Mayor, I will make it very clear that this Council has fought tooth and nail with the building safety regulator to bring forward plans for necessary remediation works on the Royal Artillery Keys and other high-rise buildings in our borough. We will not countenance any suggestion that this is not a priority for this Council or that we have not put the residents of these buildings first in our considerations of how to address these fire safety. To suggest otherwise would not only be factually incorrect but would also be an insult to the residents of this borough, especially those West Tenemies who have continued to put their faith in us as representatives. Mr Mayor, I will conclude. I would caution leaseholders to be very cautious in the advice they take on this matter. It is not a simple fix and, if they are being told so, you might find that you make the situation worse. Thank you. So we are running out of time again. We are at the members of public and members. We need to continue our meeting. We are at the end of the extended time. So we have two options, whether we have to go to the voting of that and we will extend for the other motions. Or not. Do we go on voting for this? We want to discuss more with the additional time. Mr Mayor, I submit we should go straight to the vote but I do just want to say, can I just say for the, you know, everybody in this room wants to get the right outcome, whether they are Conservative Councillors, Labour Councillors, campaigners, residents. That is important to say to everybody in the room. Everybody wants to get the right outcome. There is a difference of view, clearly, on the policy point around the passcode. The amendment focuses that final few points about what the Council can do. And what the amendment says is Council calls on the builder, Barrett Redrow, the initial builder, to make Royal Artillery Keys as safe as possible, to remove combustible materials and to join the Royal Borough of Greenwich in working constructively with the residents association in a tripartite relationship as these matters are resolved. So, I just want to focus, thank you, but I actually just want to lower the temperature of this and focus on what really matters, which is the Council using its status in the community, its relationships, its leverage, to bring together the parties to try and make progress. So, clearly the amendment has not been accepted. I think we should go straight to the vote. I want to lower the temperature of this debate. I am sure we all do. Everybody has the right intentions, everybody in this room. We should move to the front, but I would urge the Council, we should move to the vote, but I would urge the Council, regardless, to look at those last three bullet points in the amendment and think about how the Council could bring together the parties involved to try and make some progress, because the status quo isn't an option. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and just happy to come back on that point, because I think that's exactly what we are trying to do. Again, Juan Fenn commends Steve Day for his efforts and his work on doing this. We have particularly met with him and had these conversations ourselves, and equally, and equally, Mr. Mayor, are in conversations with Barra. Now, obviously, this is a technical issue in that legislation at the moment currently permits Barra to build to B1 standards. Now, if we're going to ask Barra to stop building at B1 standards and take it to an A1 standard, we need to change the legislation, because it's currently legal to build to B1 standards. Now, if I go to Barra and say to Barra, take down B1, what they will say to me, well, that's legally required. It's legal. It's able to be legal. Now, I need a tool to be able to say to Barra to do that, and that's why our motion is about making the government to change the legislation to enable Barra not to turn around and say, I'm meeting my legal responsibility. It would be wrong for me in this chamber to mislead residents. We have a responsibility to get these technical difficulties correct. And that's why collectively, that's why collectively, that's why collectively let us both find a solution that we talk to government on this and all lend our hands to this issue. We want to get this right. If it's still legal to build to B1 standards, no developer is going to be changing or tearing down cladding, and is still going to have leaseholders feeling unsafe in their homes. We need to make sure we get the legislation changed to ensure people are safe in their homes and developers undertake the right remediation processes for the developments. That's why I'm asking this chamber to vote this motion down, because it doesn't change the legislation that will put the pressure on developers. This Council doesn't have the authority to do that. The legislation has to do that. So Mr. Mayor, walking away, I think Councillor Hartley is right in the point that we all are here looking for a similar resolution. So Mr. Mayor, I feel we go to the vote, but there's more work to be done. This is not where the debate ends. Collectively, we have to work with all residents in this chamber and lend our support and lend our voices to each other's issues, whilst also making sure that at the national level, where government has the responsibility of changing this, that that's where we unlock those levers to make sure developers like Barrett get to remove B1 combustible cladding. Thank you. We have exceeded the extended time in the meeting, so time is now approaching even exceeded leaving. Our members are happy to extend the meeting by another 30 minutes. All those in favour? 30 minutes? Yeah. Thank you. Those against? Yes, agreed. The meeting is extended, so we shall vote. Point of order, Mayor. Just on that, I think we have a forthcoming motion on land rights. It might be worth deferring that to the next council meeting as a result of the time that it's taken. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Do you know that some people in this chamber have caring responsibilities and young ones at home, so I just want to pay tribute to that. Apologies, Mr. Mayor. I agree. We haven't yet voted on the amendment. We need to vote on the amendment, then debate the motion, then vote on the motion. That's my understanding. Is that right? Yes. Thank you. I'd like to speak just very briefly on the motion. So we extend just for the voting. Order, order. Can I get your attention, please? The time is approaching or is exceeded the time, so can we extend the meeting to complete this agenda on the motion for voting? All in favour, extend the meeting to close this motion. Yes. Thank you. So we go to vote. We have an amendment, and I would like to ask the council to vote on it. On amendment. All those in favour? All those against? Abstentions? The amendment has not been agreed. Do a member wish to continue the debate on the original motion? Yes, Mayor. Councillor Hadley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will speak for 40 seconds to just clarify. We are voting for the unamended motion, this really important point. This was not about your motion or our amendment. It was your motion plus our amendment. That was what was discussed. So because we agree with everything in the motion, we are voting for it. We don't think it goes far enough, but we've just lost that argument because the amendment's been defeated. But we're voting for the unamended motion to call for those legislative changes. But I would just reiterate, I think the council needs to do more to get the parties together. But we will vote for the unamended motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And just on that point, and I welcome the fact that you'll support our motion, obviously the last motion brought forth is a blunt instrument because it doesn't get the legislative changes. That gives me the power to tell Barrett to take down. Hold on. No, no, it doesn't. That gives me the power to take down. It doesn't. So Mr. Mayor, what the point that we will move forward on again is collectively, I'm glad that the chamber will support this motion, first of all. Councillor Hartley has made another amendment again on the technical details. It is a very technical motion and therefore we have to be right about the accuracy. Now, the points in there about the fire brigade, Mr. Mayor, clear point is the fire brigade hasn't formally published any notification on that. And that's why I'm helped you made that amendment. But the point is, these are technical motions that really need to be gotten right before we agree in this chamber. So just moving forward, Mr. Mayor, I move the recommendation. I hear his points, but there are certain points in his motion that we couldn't support on that basis. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, a point of personal explanation, I will be very brief. The leader said that our amendment didn't include the call to government, but it did. It did. And to me it did, mate, because I've never said mate in the council chamber. I've never said mate in the council chamber, but it really did because the amendment didn't delete anything from the motion. It just added paragraph. This is a basic understanding. And I just want to make sure that we're clear that at no point have we opposed the call on government. Mr. Mayor, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm happy to have a meeting with him after to go through the details of that, if that's what is helpful for him. But ultimately, you can't just amend paths. There's a process on technical details. Also, the building safety regulator has an independent role to play when it comes to assessing fire safety. Thank you. Can I call on Councillor O'Brien to close the debate? Formerly. Thank you. I will now ask council to vote on the motion, the original motion. All those in favour? All against? Any abstentions? The motion is agreed. Okay, so can we go to item 14 very quickly as we have got extended time? This is an executive function taken under urgency procedures. Item 14 is an information report. Does any member wish to speak on this report? On item 14, it is for the notes. Does council note the report, please? Yes, thank you. The report is noted. Now, due to the studies of the time today, I formally defer the two motions, motion 15, item 15 and 17 for the next meeting. And we formally close the meeting today. Thank you.