The General Purposes Committee of Wandsworth Council met on Monday 18 November 2024 to review polling districts and places and to discuss proposed changes to the council's procurement governance. The committee agreed to the proposed polling scheme for 2025-2029 and recommended to Full Council a series of significant changes to procurement procedures, including increased delegation limits for officers and updated thresholds for seeking quotes and tenders.

Polling Districts and Places Review

The committee reviewed the proposed polling scheme for 2025-2029, which will take effect from 1 February 2025. Mr Andrew Smith, Head of Electoral Services and Elections, presented the report, outlining minor adjustments to polling district labelling in Balham and East Putney wards, the confirmation of Burridge Gardens Community Centre as the venue for the LVA polling district in Lavender ward, and the continuation of current polling places in Nine Elms ward.

During the discussion, Councillor Lynsey Hedges of Balham Ward welcomed the changes to polling district labelling, noting that it would resolve confusion. Councillor Jeremy Ambache, Mayor of Wandsworth, raised concerns about disabled access to polling stations. Mr Smith assured the committee that accessibility was a priority, with ramps available and inspectors completing accessibility checklists. He acknowledged that while some older buildings presented challenges, no issues had been reported regarding access in the past year. Councillor Peter Graham also highlighted a polling station in Lavender Ward that was located outside its designated ward, and while accepting the current situation, requested an ongoing effort to find more suitable venues within the ward boundaries. Councillor Angela Ireland, Cabinet Member for Finance, inquired about the cost of hiring polling venues, and was informed that these costs were covered by the council for local elections. Councillor Sara Apps, Sheffield Queenstown Ward, asked about the use of venues from other faiths, and Mr Smith confirmed that the council was open to using any suitable venue, not just churches, and that the Penfold Centre, which is also used as a mosque, was already utilised.

The committee resolved to agree to the polling districts and polling places scheme as set out in the report and to note that the new scheme would be kept under review.

Procurement Governance Update and Changes

The committee discussed proposed changes to the council's procurement governance, presented by Mr Mark Glaister, Assistant Director of Procurement. The report detailed a need to update internal procurement regulations, which had not been revised for several years, and to align them with the new Procurement Act. Key proposals included increasing the threshold for officers approving contracts from £214,000 to £3 million, raising the threshold for seeking quotes from £1,500 to £20,000, and introducing a sensitivity analysis for procurement scoping reports.

Councillor Graeme Henderson, Cabinet Member for Health, supported the proposed changes, emphasizing the need for streamlined processes to enable quicker decision-making while maintaining scrutiny. He noted that the current SO83(A) process was often seen as a formality and that the proposed changes aimed to involve members earlier in the process. Councillor Angela Ireland questioned the comparison with other London Boroughs, specifically asking why Lambeth and Merton were not included in the benchmarking. Mr Glaister explained that he had focused on councils with similar high levels of scrutiny. Councillor James Jeffreys inquired about the average contract size, and Mr Glaister stated that approximately 20% of contracts were considered significant, with an average value of around £150,000 per year.

Councillor Peter Graham, representing the opposition, expressed concerns about the proposed changes, particularly regarding the increase in delegation limits and the potential for contracts to be approved without sufficient member oversight. He argued that the proposed changes to the constitution were not adequately detailed in the report and that significant amendments should be presented to Full Council with full transparency. He also raised a point about the potential conflict between delegated powers and the requirement for SO83(A) approval for key decisions, citing an example related to the Cost of Living Programme Board.

Four amendments proposed by the opposition were debated:

• Amendment 1, moved by Councillor Graham, sought to ensure that any updated version of the Constitution included an explanatory note listing the changes made. This amendment was lost.
• Amendment 2, moved by Councillor Graham, aimed to clarify restrictions on communications between councillors and contractors, ensuring they only applied to procurement-related matters. This amendment was lost.
• Amendment 3, moved by Councillor Graham, proposed that any contract with an annual value above £200,000 should also be subject to sign-off by the relevant Cabinet Member. This amendment was lost.
• Amendment 4, moved by Councillor Matthew Corner and seconded by Councillor Jeffreys, sought to ensure that proposed changes to the Constitution were approved by Full Council and not delegated to the Director of Law and Governance without specific details. This amendment was lost.

Despite the opposition's concerns and proposed amendments, the committee resolved to recommend to Full Council the approval of the introduction of a Procurement Scoping Report sensitivity analysis, amendments to the Council's Constitution regarding thresholds for seeking quotes and tenders, changes to officer delegation limits for contract awards, the introduction of contract classifications, the establishment of a new Strategic Commissioning Board, and general updates to internal Procurement Regulations. The committee also recommended delegating authority to the Director of Law and Governance to make necessary consequential changes to the Constitution.