The Council meeting scheduled for Wednesday 21 January 2026 was set to cover a range of important topics, including a review of the Council's Constitution, questions from councillors on various service areas, and several motions on significant issues facing the borough. The meeting also included an emergency motion regarding the Freedom Pass.

Review of the Council's Constitution

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a review and potential revision of the Council's Constitution. This comprehensive document, which outlines how the Council operates and makes decisions, was scheduled for discussion, with a specific focus on proposed amendments. The agenda indicated that the Constitution Working Group would have met quarterly to discuss these updates, and this meeting was to consider recommendations for changes. The review aimed to ensure the Constitution remains current with legislation, regulations, and working practices, reflecting the Council's ambitions for Lambeth 2030.

Questions from Councillors

Several councillors were scheduled to ask questions of Cabinet Members on a variety of topics. Councillor Scott Ainslie was expected to question the Cabinet Member for Economic Inclusion regarding progress on improvements to Streatham Green and the use of UK Shared Prosperity Fund money. Councillor Matthew Bryant was due to question the Cabinet Member for Housing about the recovery of loans made to Homes for Lambeth and the timeline for its winding up. Councillor Alison Inglis-Jones was scheduled to ask the Cabinet Member for Sustainability about plans for tougher enforcement of badly parked e-bikes and accountability for operators. Councillor Deepak Sardiwal was to seek an update from the Cabinet Member for Finance on measures to support residents facing the cost of living crisis, particularly concerning fuel and energy poverty. Councillor John-Paul Ennis was to ask the Cabinet Member for Safer Communities about the council's efforts to improve police visibility in Brixton. Councillor Rebecca Spencer was to inquire about the council's approach to affordable housing developments. Councillor Donna Harris was to ask the Cabinet Member for Housing and Investment about the scrutiny of Loughborough Estate Management Board. Councillor David Robson was to seek information from the Cabinet Member for Safer Communities on how Lambeth's gambling policy update is being used to protect residents. Councillor Martin Tiedemann was to ask the Cabinet Members for Healthier Communities about progress on maternity services for Lambeth women. Councillor Scarlett O'Hara was to ask the Cabinet Member for Safer Communities about efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour in Streatham. Councillor Emma Nye was to ask the Cabinet Member for Finance for details on the closure of Centre 70 and support for affected residents. Councillor Jo Simpson was to ask the Cabinet Member for Sustainability about improvements to cycle lanes. Councillor Christine Banton was to ask the Cabinet Member for Sustainability about air quality improvements in Lambeth. Councillor Ibrahim Dogus was to ask the Cabinet Member for Finance about the overnight levy and Lambeth's share of the revenue.

Motions

The meeting was scheduled to debate several motions.

Motion 1: Pensions Divestment From Genocide and War

This motion, submitted by the Green Party, called for Lambeth Council to review its investments in companies allegedly complicit in Israel's actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It proposed instructing the Cabinet Member for Finance to write to the Pensions Board to review investments with a view to divesting from companies involved in serious violations of international law. It also sought a review of the Treasury Management and Procurement Strategies to incorporate UN Principles for Responsible Investment and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and to avoid contracting with or financially supporting companies complicit in violations of international law.

An amendment from the Labour Group sought to rephrase parts of the motion, adding caveats about acting within statutory powers, legal duties, fiduciary duty, and financial materiality. It also proposed requesting the Cabinet Member for Finance to ask the Pensions Committee and Board to satisfy themselves that existing governance, stewardship, engagement, and risk-monitoring arrangements appropriately assess financially material ESG and human rights risks.

A further amendment from the Green Party sought to strengthen the original motion by referencing the failure to regulate loot boxes and Lambeth's own Healthy High Streets Commission's recommendations.

Motion 2: Working to End Rough Sleeping in Lambeth

This motion, submitted by the Labour Group, highlighted Lambeth Labour's commitment to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, referencing national and local investments and initiatives. It welcomed Lambeth's Rough Sleeping and Homelessness Strategy and the provision of supported housing. The motion resolved to continue calling on the Government to address the housing crisis, properly fund temporary accommodation, increase early interventions, and continue working with ministers, the Mayor of London, and partners. It also committed to delivering affordable homes on council-owned land.

An amendment from the Liberal Democrats sought to introduce a more critical tone, noting the persistence of homelessness and rough sleeping, the impact of austerity, and the increase in rough sleeping nationally. It also criticised Lambeth Labour's flagship policy on social housing supply.

A further amendment from the Green Party aimed to reframe the motion with a stronger emphasis on council homes at council rent, introducing criticisms of Labour's policies and calling for a home first approach to tackling street homelessness.

Motion 3: Gambling as a Public Health Issue

This motion, submitted by the Liberal Democrats, proposed treating gambling as a public health issue, noting its links to suicide, family breakdown, crime, and its disproportionate impact on certain demographics. It highlighted the costs of gambling to society and the government's legislative actions. The motion resolved to retain Lambeth's no casino resolution, require licence applicants in Gambling Clusters to produce strategies to prevent harm, add those with a known suicide risk to at-risk groups, deliver a confidential survey of schoolchildren, ban gambling advertising on Lambeth property, and write to the government calling for the revocation of the aim to permit principle and the creation of a Gambling Ombudsman.

An amendment from the Green Party sought to add references to the failure to regulate loot boxes and Lambeth's own Healthy High Streets Commission's recommendations.

A further amendment from the Labour Group aimed to rephrase parts of the motion, clarifying government legislation on casino regulation and highlighting Labour's actions on gambling taxes.

Motion 5: Tougher action on dockless e-bike operators

This motion, submitted by the Labour Group, noted Lambeth's commitment to sustainable travel and the growth in e-bike use, while acknowledging resident frustration with poorly parked and abandoned e-bikes. It called for tougher enforcement and accountability from operators. The motion resolved to write to the Secretary of State for Transport urging legislation for statutory powers to remove bikes, a dedicated offence for improper parking, a clear legal framework for charging operators, stronger enforcement powers, and a pan-London working group. It also proposed writing to the Mayor of London and e-bike operators with a tougher borough approach.

An amendment from the Liberal Democrats sought to refine the language regarding school streets and healthy neighbourhoods, and to add a point about fewer poorly parked e-bikes without additional costs to local authorities.

A further amendment from the Green Party aimed to strengthen the motion by referencing the adoption of a climate emergency motion in 2019, advocating for more separation between cyclists and drivers, and suggesting incentives for good practice and potential exclusion of operators for persistent breaches.

Motion 4: Lambeth re-accredited as a Borough of Sanctuary

This motion, submitted by the Labour Group, reaffirmed Lambeth's commitment to welcoming communities and supporting refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. It highlighted the council's work in this area, including support for Ukrainian, Afghan, and Syrian refugees, and condemned divisive language from certain political groups. The motion resolved to reaffirm gratitude to partners, continue support for those fleeing persecution, call on the government for financial means, reassure residents of the council's stance, condemn hateful protests, work with the police against hate crime, and prioritise community cohesion.

An amendment from the Liberal Democrats sought to rephrase parts of the motion, including a reference to the Labour Party's language about migrants and a cut to library funding.

A further amendment from the Green Party aimed to strengthen the motion by referencing the Labour Government's policies on refugees and criticising the council's lack of action regarding Palestinian refugees.

Emergency Motion: Save the Freedom Pass in Lambeth

This emergency motion, submitted by the Labour Group, expressed concern over a proposed review of the Freedom Pass by London Councils, which has a Labour majority. It noted the vital role of the Freedom Pass for older and disabled residents and highlighted past campaigns to protect it. The motion resolved to work with the Labour Mayor of London to continue providing the 60+ Oyster card and other concessions, protect the Freedom Pass in Lambeth, and oppose any attempts to abolish it. It also committed to working with communities to make streets safer and support public transport.

An amendment from the Liberal Democrats sought to rephrase parts of the motion, referencing the review by London Councils' Transport and Environment Committee and the presence of Labour councillors on that committee.

Allocation of Seats to Political Groups

The Council was also scheduled to review the allocation of seats to political groups on its committees. This is a statutory requirement following changes in the composition of political groups on the Council. The report detailed the current party split, the proposed number of seats on politically balanced committees, and the allocation of seats to each group, including a revolving seat on the Standards Committee between the Green and Liberal Democrat Groups. The report also outlined the proposed allocation of seats for additional committees and sub-committees.

The meeting also included the approval of minutes from the previous meeting, announcements, and the presentation of petitions and deputations.