Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Wandsworth Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Summary
The Wandsworth General Purposes Committee met to discuss proposed revisions to Article 7 of the council's constitution and make related changes to the members' allowance scheme. The revisions allow for the appointment of deputy cabinet members to assist cabinet members, and the consequential changes to the allowance scheme include removing the provision for policy champions and remunerating the new deputy cabinet members. After debate, the committee voted to recommend the changes to the full council, with Councillor Rex Osborn, Chair of the General Purposes Committee using his casting vote to pass the motion.
Revisions to Article 7 and Consequential Amendments to the Members' Allowance Scheme
The committee voted to recommend revisions to Article 7 of the council's constitution and related changes to the members' allowance scheme to the full council. The changes include the introduction of five deputy cabinet members and the removal of policy champions.
Abdus Chowdhury, Director of Law and Governance, explained that the deputy cabinet members would assist cabinet members in delivering the agenda for change, but would not be members of the executive. He clarified that they would not be restricted from membership of any overview and scrutiny committee (OSC), but the intention was to ensure a degree of separation, preventing deputy cabinet members from sitting on OSCs related to their specific projects or the general overview and scrutiny committee dealing with call-in requests.
Councillor Sara Apps stated that the deputy cabinet members would assist cabinet members with their work, and learn about decision-making and delivery. She also stated that the deputy cabinet members would not sit on committees that relate to their work, and would recuse themselves if anything unexpectedly came up in relation to their work.
Councillor Matthew Corner asked for clarification on who the deputy cabinet members would be deputies to, as two of the roles, communities and resident engagement, seemed broader than existing cabinet member roles. Councillor Apps responded that the communities role would focus on issues such as refugees and faith communities, working with a specific cabinet member, while the residents post would focus on different forms of engagement with residents. Councillor Corner welcomed the fact that deputy cabinet members would not be able to sit on an OSC that covers their brief, and asked for confirmation that the executive would set out a clear scope for the deputy cabinet member's role so that the decision on which committees they sit on can be made with this restriction on OSC membership in mind. Councillor Apps confirmed that this would be the case.
Councillor Malcolm Grimston raised concerns about the additional £23,000 cost of the deputy cabinet member roles at a time when the council was facing overspends in other areas and residents were dealing with the cost of living crisis. He questioned what failings the new roles were designed to address, and what performance indicators would be used to measure their success. He also raised concerns about the politics of the situation, suggesting that the new roles could be seen as buying off people who may have responded in a particular way to the politics of the last few weeks
.
Councillor Lynsey Hedges asked how the removal of the policy champions would impact ongoing initiatives they were supporting, such as Councillor Rex Osborn's work as the Heritage champion, Councillor Joe Rigby's work as the High Streets champion, and Councillor Sean Lawless's work as the Safe Streets champion. She also asked how the introduction of the deputy cabinet members would improve the delivery of the council's agenda for change, and how their performance would be measured and evaluated.
Councillor Paul White asked about the difference between the champions and the deputies, and whether the council was looking for people with particular skills for the new roles. He also asked whether the feeling was that the cabinet needed deputies to help with their workload. Councillor Apps responded that the council had been very focused on delivery and changing residents' lives, and that the cabinet members had a high workload. She said that the deputy cabinet members would provide support and build capacity for the future, and that the legacy of the champions would continue under the cabinet members responsible for those areas.
Councillor Grimston reiterated his concerns about the lack of performance indicators for the new roles, and questioned why the council had chosen five deputy cabinet members rather than a different number. He also asked what had gone wrong with the champion scheme that it had to be dropped, and said that he did not see an explanation in the paper as to why it was five, or what went wrong with the champion scheme.
Councillor Corner agreed with Councillor Grimston, and welcomed the commitment from Councillor Apps that the scope of the deputy cabinet members' roles would be published before the annual council meeting. He also stated that the policy champion initiative had basically been a massive failure and a waste of money for the council and its residents.
Allowances
Councillor Peter Graham raised a technical point about the members' allowance scheme, stating that the paper referred to the schedule of rates effective from 1 April 2024, when it should have referred to the scheme effective from 1 April 2025. He also stated that by publishing a new allowance scheme effective from 1 April 2025, with the same rates as the previous year, all councillors' allowances had been frozen. He asked for confirmation that this was the case, apart from the increase for the deputy cabinet members.
Abdus Chowdhury, Director of Law and Governance, confirmed that the date in the table in paragraph six should be 1 April 2025, and that the figures quoted were from the 2025 scheme that was reported to council in December.
Councillor Graham stated that the total maximum cost should say 2025-26, not 2024-25, and that the fact that the figures were identical to the previous scheme meant that allowances had been frozen. He suggested that if the council did not wish to freeze everyone's allowances, it should withdraw this year's scheme and amend last year's scheme, so that the inflationary uplift could be applied.
Abdus Chowdhury, Director of Law and Governance, stated that what was reported to council in December was a report to notify that the inflationary increase that is envisaged in the scheme for 24 every year but so happened for 2425 25 was applied for 24 25 and that was notified to council to apply the inflationary increase to be effective from the first of April to first of April 24 20 20 sorry first of April 2024 as part of that paper what was also included was the scheme which took into account that inflationary increase that would be applicable from the first of April 20 20 25 so the error that is in the report is where it refers to in the table 2024 25 it should say 25 26 and where it says first of April 2024 it should just say 2025 the sums the figures that are contained are from the scheme that is currently applicable.
Councillor Apps proposed an amendment to correct the dates in paragraph six of the report, changing 1st of April 2024
to 1st of April 2025
and 24 25
to 25 26
. Councillor White seconded the amendment, which was approved with one vote against and six abstentions.
Councillor Corner stated that the amount of money being paid to the deputy cabinet members was out of whack with every other role on the council, and asked for a rationale for this. He also stated that the head count of people charged with pursuing the executive's agenda was being reduced, as there were eight policy champions and now there would be five deputy cabinet members.
Councillor Hedges asked if the allowance for the cabinet members was in line with other similar-sized councils.
Councillor Angela Ireland, Cabinet Member for Finance, stated that the deputy cabinet members would be expected to spend more time on their roles than the policy champions were, and that there was a higher level of responsibility intended for these roles.
Councillor White stated that he had been a champion and would go to a meeting once every two or three months, whereas he was talking to Councillor Rigby, the new deputy, almost on a daily basis. He said that some of the ideas they had worked upon would become policy and part of what the council was doing with the environment, and that the deputy role was a much more direct role than the champion role.
Councillor Apps stated that the council thought it was really important that people from all backgrounds were able to come forward and be councillors and contribute fully in the council's business, and that they were not held back because of financial problems or financial inclusion. She said that the council stood by giving people reasonable allowances in order to enable them to do their work.
Councillor Jeffreys asked what the trigger was for the changes, and why they were coming forward to general purposes now.
Councillor Graham stated that the independent panel recommends that an OSC chair is paid between £15,000 and £31,000, but the Wandsworth payable rate is £11,600, outside and below that. He asked why all of the OSC chairs and the chair of audit were outside that band and below it, while the deputy cabinet members were being paid at the top of the recommended rate.
Councillor Corner agreed with Councillor Graham, and stated that there was no justification for the pay of deputy cabinet members, and that it was completely inconsistent with some of the other roles.
Councillor Graham stated that there was absolutely no rationale or consistency for what was known as the Wandsworth payable rate, and asked Abdus Chowdhury, Director of Law and Governance, to provide a rationale or a reason for it being £9,000 right at the top for a deputy cabinet member, but below the bottom for an OSC chair.
Councillor Apps responded that some of the payable rates were fairly historic and a legacy from the previous administration, and that she would be happy to sit down and talk to anyone who wanted to propose a more fundamental rethink of the whole thing. She also stated that the council was an incredibly ambitious council and was always looking for ways to improve the delivery that they were making to residents, and that this was why the deputy cabinet members had come forward, because they had seen that they needed additional capacity to support the cabinet members in some of their key areas.
Abdus Chowdhury, Director of Law and Governance, stated that he had not got the specific answers with regards to the remainder of the scheme, but that the description of the role of the deputy cabinet members in the amendments to Article 7 of the constitution described duties that were different in some respects from the role of policy champions. He said that the council could and should take account of the independent panel's report in determining remuneration, but that it was not bound to follow it in every instance, as the circumstances differed from one authority to another.
Councillor Grimston stated that the comparator for the deputy cabinet members and the allowance was not the champions, but deputy cabinet members in other councils around London. He said that there needed to be an answer as to why Wandsworth regarded the role of the OSC chairs as being so much less valuable than the London average, and why the deputy cabinet members were going to be the very best in London and deserving the highest pay.
Councillor Apps responded that she had not had a major overhaul of the allowances, and that she was interested that the opposition were very interested in having a rebalance of the allowances overall, and that she was very open to that discussion.
Councillor Graham asked Councillor Apps when she had first discussed with members of her group the possibility of them receiving a new £9,000 allowance, and whether it was before or after the re-election of Councillor Hogg as Labour group leader.
Councillor White stated that every administration had a right to have a look at how things were going, how the cabinet was being supported, and what sort of work the cabinet were doing. He said that he recognised the really hard work that the cabinet members did, and that having assistants and deputies to help them in that work and to add to that capacity was very important.
Councillor Apps stated that the council was absolutely focused on delivering for its residents, and that this was why they were introducing deputy cabinet members to support the cabinet members in their work.
Councillor Graham stated that a fundamental mistake had been made between having two members' allowance schemes published, and urged those involved to look again at that. He said that there were some questions that perhaps had not been fully addressed, and that there was an opportunity for the administration to put that right. He also stated that it was not reasonable for there to be absolutely no rationale or consistency on how people were being paid, and that it verged on the unlawful given the duty to provide reasons for decisions. He concluded by stating that the public would not regard the £23,000 being thrown at these new allowances as cheap, and that they would find the timing a rather expensive bribe for the administration to carry on.
The committee then voted on the paper, which was approved with Councillor Rex Osborn, Chair of the General Purposes Committee using his casting vote.
Task and Finish Groups and Borough Visits
Councillor Rex Osborn, Chair of the General Purposes Committee, noted that the committee had several task and finish groups and had visited other boroughs in London to learn from their experiences. He thanked the boroughs of Lewisham and Barnet for their help and inspiration.
Attendees










