Greenwich’s Labour councillors burned the midnight oil on Wednesday to pass new rules restricting public questions at council meetings, just 50 days before the next election.
Lengthy tributes to and from departing councillors and attempts to talk out the controversial measures by opposition councillors meant that the meeting lasted more than five and half hours, with proceedings lasting until 12.40am.
Conservative, Green and independent councillors, whose rights to challenge contentious decisions will be curbed under the new rules, have been incensed by the changes.
They used guerilla tactics to delay the debate and try to push Anthony Okereke, the council leader, into deferring a decision until after the election. This included the rarely-used procedure of calling divisions for votes, where councillors stand up and shout “division!”, the chamber is closed, a bell rung by a clerk, and a roll-call is called of members.
In return, one Labour councillor, Nick Williams (Greenwich Peninsula), tried to force a vote on the changes without debate – a move refused by the party’s ceremonial mayor, Linda Bird, who clashed with councillors of all sides as she tried to keep control of proceedings in her final meeting as a councillor.
The meeting had started at 7pm and featured almost 90 minutes of tributes to councillors who were standing down. It was 11.10pm before the changes were heard – and that was because Okereke had used another rarely-used procedure to push it up the agenda.
At one point, Bird reminded councillors that town hall staff and senior officers present had families and some would need hotels because of the late hour.
The new rules mean the public will have to submit questions to council meetings earlier and will be restricted to 100 words per question. While some other London boroughs have similar rules – and others have more restrictive rules – the timing and speed of the change, just before the election on May 7, has caused uproar.
Councillors, including opposition leaders who have a wide-ranging remit, will be restricted to two questions each. “Call-ins”, to put contentious decisions under scrutiny, can no longer be submitted by councillors from just one party – and they will have to submit evidence for their call-in, rather than holding an objection.
The new rule would have effectively blocked recent call-ins for the low-traffic neighbourhood in Greenwich and Blackheath or the closure of adventure play centres, which were based around residents’ concerns about the changes, or the validity of the council’s evidence, rather than their own data. An early call-in into the LTN did result in broader monitoring of the scheme.
Okereke has said that the changes will make council meetings more efficient and lead to better decision-making. But opponents have characterised them as an attack on democracy, snuck in just before an election. Over 1,600 people signed petitions against the changes, which were handed in at the meeting.
More public questions have been submitted in recent years in response to contentious traffic and parking policies and the war in Gaza, with gave new impetus to a campaign to stop the council’s pension fund investing in Israel, although the public have always only had 30 minutes to ask them.
But questions from councillors to the leadership have also grown. These were once largely used by the opposition, but last week The Greenwich Wire revealed how Labour councillors had been encouraged to submit soft questions so they could show off “wins” in their wards, taking up more time in meetings. These will also be restricted to two per councillor.
Okereke said a small number of residents had been dominating public questions at council meetings. “Democracy is not about those who know how to work the system best,” he said. “It is about ensuring every resident has a fair opportunity to be heard.
He said restricting call-ins would mean that “when a decision is called in, it is clear what the concern is, what the evidence is and what the scrutiny is seeking to test and improve that leads to better discussion, better challenge and a better outcome for residents.”
“Some may argue that this should be left to a future administration,” he said. “We are the council of today. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system we operate is fit for purpose. Doing nothing is also not a choice, and doing nothing means continuing with a broken system.”
Matt Hartley, the Conservative leader, branded the changes “political thuggery”, and accused Okereke of bypassing a working group of councillors and officers that dealt with the constitution, and of dodging his phone calls to discuss the issue.
Hartley added that there were clear drafting errors where Okereke had added his own changes on top of what a senior legal official had written.
“I’m happy to continue to suggest alternatives, alternative ways in which we could manage these meetings as effectively as possible, but Cllr Okereke did not engage at all,” he said.
“He has no respect for this council chamber, and he has no respect for members of the public’s ability and the councillors who represent them their ability, our ability, to hold his administration to account.
“This is the culture of the Labour group. And every single person in this room, every single person in this room knows exactly what I’m talking about, the internal culture of the Labour group leaking out into the public domain. This is the true colours coming out.
“I’ve been in opposition for 12 years. I’m never likely to not be in opposition on this council, but I care about it deeply. I care about the governance of this borough. It is important to me. I’ve poured years of my life, more than a decade of my life, into this place. And this does not belong to you, this council chamber. It belongs to the people we both represent.
“It’s a permanent change to the way the council is run, being rammed through at the 11th hour before an election.”
Majella Anning, the leader of the independent and Green group, opposition councillors had “made constructive and imaginative proposals – however, from that moment on, silence”.
“It appears that all of these suggestions were directed at the public and the opposition, and that is extraordinary,” she said, adding that the proposals looked like a “stitch-up” and the public would think “the rules were rigged against them”.
Okereke insisted that a lack of agreement between opposition groups was the issue. “Leadership is about making decisions when they are needed, not delaying them in the hope that positions may shift,” he said.
“Residents do not judge us by how many questions are asked. They judge us by whether decisions are tested properly and meetings are led with clear outcomes. Residents expect us to act and not delay.”
Anning, who quit Labour last year, said in a statement issued after the meeting that she would be standing down as a Creekside councillor and backing the Greens at the coming election.
“Labour councillors are required to keep quiet and vote for policies that their residents are furious about, because if they don’t, they know they won’t be allowed to stand for re-election,” she said.
“The latest move by Greenwich Labour to limit the ability of the public and opposition parties to properly hold the council to account in full council meetings, is yet another example of the use of its majority to stifle public scrutiny. This move, rammed through on the eve of council elections, is staggering in its political arrogance.
“Residents are putting up with so much now and local councillors have to be able to speak out on their behalf.”
📺 The Greenwich Wire usually tries to include video clips in stories about council meetings. However for this meeting, only one camera was working, and the result is on the council website.
📩 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.
Comments are closed.