To consider the above report

Members considered an updated political balance for the council.

Councillor Johnson proposed the motion as detailed in the report.

Councillor Larcombe highlighted that he had submitted a Motion on Notice at item 13a in relation to political balance. As an independent councillor he had been prevented by legislation from sitting on any committee for the last three years. The borough website under ‘how to be a councillor’ stated that most councillors were nominated to a political party, but that individuals were welcome to stand in their own right. Councillor Larcombe felt this meant independent councillors were only welcome until they won their seat. He felt excluded and disenfranchised and a victim of discriminatory legislation.

Councillor Davey commented that the logic said to him that if the West Windsor Residents’ Association (WWRA) with two members was given two seats then a grouping of one member should be given at least one seat.

The Monitoring Officer suggested that Councillor Larcombe’s motion could be proposed as an amendment to the current motion being debated, to allocate him seats within the political proportionality calculations. She advised that in order for such a motion to succeed, no Member could vote against it. Abstentions did not count as voting against a proposal.

Councillor Larcombe proposed an amendment to allocate him two seats under the political proportionality calculations.

Councillor Werner seconded the amendment.

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that he supported the proposal to allocate seats to Councillor Larcombe to enable him to represent his residents.

Councillor Werner confirmed that he had spoken to the Monitoring Officer to say he would be prepared to offer two Liberal Democrat seats as part of the arrangement. Just because someone had been elected as an individual, it did not mean they should not have the right to represent their residents on committees.

Councillor Baldwin commented that he felt the current situation was an inequity for Councillor Larcombe. He questioned why a report had been produced for this meeting when Councillor Larcombe’s motion had originally been on the agenda for the cancelled July meeting.

The Monitoring Officer explained that in early September 2022 a new group had been formed (the WWRA) which had triggered a review of political balance by the council, requiring a report to the September full Council meeting. The order of business for a full Council meeting was set out in the constitution, meaning Councillor Larcombe’s Motion on Notice came later in the agenda.

Councillor Reynolds commented that the discussion was about formalising an arrangement; Opposition councillors already shared seats. Common sense told him it was the right thing to do. It would have no impact on Conservative seats on any panel and Councillor Werner had made an offer of two seats already. The only reason anyone would vote against the proposal would be if they wanted to silence Councillor Larcombe.

Councillor Johnson commented it was a generous offer that had been made by Councillor Werner, but it was a shame it had not been made some time ago. His own perception was that Councillor Larcombe deserved representation.

Councillor Larcombe concluded that the legislation was discriminatory and had been used by the council very discretely to keep him off committees.

It was proposed by Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Rayner, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Council notes the report and:

i)               Approves the amended political balance for the council as detailed in Tables 2 and 3, subject to the allocation of two seats to Councillor Larcombe from the Liberal Democrat Group.

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 30 councillors voted for the motion. No Councillors voted against the motion. Four councillors abstained.