‘Shameless’: Greenwich Council plans clampdown on public scrutiny

Greenwich Council’s Labour leadership plans to clamp down on scrutiny from the public and opposition councillors in a move branded “an attack on democracy”.

The public will be told to ask shorter questions at council meetings and will have to submit them earlier, leaving them unable to react to items on that day’s agenda.

While councillors will be restricted to two written questions per meeting, and will also have to submit them seven working days before the meeting, rather than three as now.

There will also be restrictions placed on the “call-in” process, where councillors challenge decisions and can have them scrutinised in public.

The proposed changes, to come before a council meeting next Wednesday, come as Labour faces its most difficult council election since 1968, when it lost control of the town hall for the only time in the borough’s history. 

After a near-wipeout win for Labour four years ago, more opposition councillors are expected to be elected on May 7 as a result of the party’s struggles in government and following a series of local controversies.

Few expect Labour to lose control altogether, although a survey leaked to The Guardian last week suggested that the Greens could take power in Greenwich at the poll on May 7 if they can stand enough candidates.

Council leader Anthony Okereke said the changes were aimed at making full council meetings – where he and other leading figures face questions from opponents and the public – easier to handle. But critics suggested the change was being made to reduce the visibility of opposition councillors after the election.

Restrictions on public questions

Public questions at council meetings are one of the few ways residents can hold their elected representatives account directly and highlight issues in a public forum. This usually happens at seven full council meetings each year, which all councillors are supposed to attend.

At present, residents can submit questions five working days in advance, meaning they can react to that meeting’s agenda, which is typically published the evening before the deadline.  The session lasts half an hour.

But now residents will be restricted to 100-word questions – restricting their ability to quote councillors or their policies in questions – and will have to file them seven working days in advance.

The number of public questions has grown in recent years, partly in response to controversial council policies like the scrapped sale of Maryon Wilson Animal Park in Charlton, the “sustainable streets” plan to expand controlled parking zones and the Greenwich low-traffic neighbourhood. 

The war in Gaza has also prompted protests and increased scrutiny of the council’s pension investments in Israeli-linked businesses.

Last July, 76 public questions were published. A council document notes that meetings, which begin at 7pm, are now finishing at 10.30pm or 11pm. 

But often meetings have often been extended by other factors: these include the annual Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration, which is led by a rabbi and takes place as part of the meeting each January; events featuring children in the borough’s care, where councillors hold a formal role as “corporate parents”; or external auditors presenting reports on the borough’s finances.

Scrutiny from councillors to be cut back

Members’ questions are when councillors pose questions of the leader and other senior figures. 

For Conservative councillors, this has traditionally been a way to raise issues in their Eltham wards while scrutinising wider council policy. The Greens and independents have also used questions to highlight issues.

In January’s meeting, Matt Hartley, the Tory leader, asked ten questions, as did his deputy, Charlie Davis. Majella Anning, the leader of the independent and Green group, asked three, while Tamasin Rhymes, her deputy, asked four questions. 

But now councillors will be restricted to just two questions each – severely limiting the ability of opponents to scrutinise wider policy. A ten-minute period of spoken questions – which are not submitted in advance – will remain.

At the same time, Labour members have been encouraged by their party to ask soft questions to portray the leadership in a good light, taking up more time in council meetings, according to an email seen by The Greenwich Wire.

In the lead-up to this month’s meeting, Leif Sutton-Williams, Labour’s political assistant – an unelected figure who is on the council payroll – emailed Labour councillors suggesting they email him and the relevant cabinet member questions to “highlight local wins in your ward”. 

“This is obviously the last chance to ask questions in full council before the election,” he added.

Political assistants to support groups of councillors were introduced in 2024 at a cost of £83,000 per year amid criticism: Sutton-Williams has been in post since January last year. The Conservatives employ Nigel Fletcher, their former leader, as a part-time assistant, but proposed removing the roles last month.

Restrictions on ‘call-in’ challenges

Call-ins are where any two councillors challenge decisions made by key figures in the council. The councillors can simply ask for the decision to be reconsidered, or they can go to a panel of councillors for a public hearing, as recently happened with the plans to close adventure play centres. Call-ins are relatively rare but usually attract public attention.

Now the threshold for a call-in would be raised to three councillors from more than one group on the council, making it impossible for right-leaning Conservatives to call-in an issue without the support of the left-wing Greens and independents, or vice versa. This would apply if there are three or more groups on the council, as there are now and are likely to be after May.

Call-ins would also need supporting evidence, making it harder for councillors to challenge an issue to interrogate the council’s own evidence further in public, as happened with the Greenwich low-traffic neighbourhood where residents said the council worked with flawed data.

Labour councillors are often threatened with disciplinary action if they call in decisions, because they are deemed to have agreed to decisions made in behind-closed-doors group meetings, although sometimes they are permitted.

The new rules would effectively bar them from calling in any decision, as they are not allowed to work with councillors from other parties.

Less funding for opposition parties

Councillors will also vote on their pay at the same meeting. Most carry out their roles on top of full-time jobs. Buried in the document is a proposal to remove a £5,800 annual allowance for opposition parties “as it is not currently tied to a specific post”.

What has been said?

Okereke said: “Over the last few months there has been a significant increase in the number and complexity of questions. At January’s meeting there were 98, more than treble since July 2024. This makes it incredibly hard for full council meetings to function properly and consider and debate important matters for residents.

“Following a review that has benchmarked against other London local authorities, we are proposing amendments to the constitution that maintain the participation of the public in meetings and better enables the efficient conduct of council business.”

The Greenwich Wire understands that the changes have been pursued by the council’s Labour leadership and not its council officers, who are the ones who have to deal with the workload of questions.

But not all in the party agree, In an email circulated widely in Labour circles, one figure within the party branded the changes to public scrutiny as “Greenwich Labour’s suicide note”. Another told The Greenwich Wire the leadership was “acting like a dictatorship”.

The council’s four Conservative, two Green and two independent councillors issued a joint statement condemning the changes as “a shameless attempt to evade scrutiny and accountability” and calling on Okereke to drop the proposals and return to discussions. 

They said: “After four years of increasingly unpopular and authoritarian decisions, it is clear Labour’s response is to stop questions being asked and reduce transparency. They should instead be asking themselves why their approach is proving so toxic with voters. 

“Forcing through these changes would be an abuse of Labour’s current majority and an attack on democracy. It would damage the ability of residents and opposition councillors to hold future administrations to account.

“Despite representing very different political positions, as opposition councillors in Greenwich we share the view that democracy and accountability in our borough is under threat from these proposed changes.”

Corrected on Thursday morning to remove a misleading reference to the Labour political assistant’s nationality. Apologies.

To contact your councillors or other representatives, visit writetothem.com.

📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.