Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

Further to Item 4.1, Councillor Shafi Ahmed asked the Committee to note that he was a school governor at a school in Whitechapel Ward, but the school was not mentioned in the report.

Further to Item 4.1, Councillor Maium Talukdar declared that he was a parent of children at Geroge Green School.

To agree the unrestricted minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 28 September 2023.

The unrestricted minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 28 September 2023 were agreed as a correct record.

To review the Committee’s work plan for the current municipal year.

RESOLVED that the work plan be noted.

Note on order: the Chair indicated that he had received indications that some Committee members wished to discuss information provided in the exempt appendices. Accordingly, he took this item as last on the agenda (after Items 4.2 and 4.3).

The Reasons for Urgency as set out in the report were agreed.

Lorraine Feyi-Shonubi (Governor Services Officer) introduced the report that

set out details of applicants who had applied to be nominated as the local authority governor at Tower Hamlets maintained schools. Lorraine explained that a high proportion of the applicants were from BAME backgrounds.

At this point, the Committee resolved to exclude the press and public (see Minute 6 for the full resolution).

Some members of the Committee indicated concern with the application information presented in the report and in the exempt appendices as:

·         Some of the applicants’ connections to the borough were unclear. For example, the question “Do you or have you had children attending schools in Tower Hamlets, been a school governor before or employed in a Tower Hamlets School or by the council?” covered a range of scenarios and answers were sometimes unclear to which element(s) they were responding affirmatively.

·         Control of school governing bodies could be manipulated by persons who did not have the best interest of the school as motivation. For example, it could be used to instigate conversion to academy status against the wishes of the Council, parents and pupils. Knowing the closeness of governors’ links to the local community was one way the Council could safeguard against this.

·         The process for selection and preference of local authority governors was unclear. Some members indicated the Committee would welcome a work plan item looking at this in more detail.

·         Vacancies for positions, even where long-term, were not evidence of lack of interest amongst local people. The Committee needs to investigate if there are additional barriers to their participation.

Other members of the Committee indicated the applicants as presented should be approved as:

·         There was a rigorous process in place to select appropriate candidates who demonstrated the skills and attributes necessary to perform the role. The evidence before the Committee said the proposed candidates had passed that process and that the relevant schools had informed the Council they supported the appointments proposed.

·         There was no criteria that school governors must be from or have connections to the local community.

·         Recruitment to governor roles was challenging. One of the  roles had reportedly been vacant for up to three years because the school felt previous candidates proposed by the Council did not have the necessary experience.

·         It was understandable that persons in the education sphere are interested in pursuing a role as a governor and should be encouraged to take up vacant positions.

Other points raised by members included:

·         Details of the demographic makeup of the board of governors in each case would be helpful.

·         The Council should ensure applicants that have children attending schools in the borough have priority for local authority nominated school governor positions.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

The reasons for urgency as set out in the report were agreed.

Janet Fasan, Director Legal and Monitoring Officer introduced the report that presented the current Guidance for Members and Officers on Outside Organisations and invited them to review the Guidance and consider whether it is content to approve the draft final version attached to this report. Janet explained the Guidance had been revised following helpful suggestions made by Standards Advisory Committee between September 2022 and September 2023. Matthew Mannion, (Head of Democratic Services) added further detail.

In response to questions from the Committee, Janet and Matthew:

·         Asked members to note that any training related to this guidance could be funded from the corporate members training budget and that the member steering group on training could review how that training might look and whether an additional element could be added to the Councillor Role Profile to cover outside bodies duties.

·         Attendance of members on outside bodies is not formally monitored by the Council, though nominees have an obligation to report back to the relevant nominator (which is usually the Mayor).

·         The guidance is designed for persons appointed to outside bodies on behalf of the Council. The Council does not provide advice to Councillors for appointments undertaken in a person capacity.

RESOLVED that the General Purposes Committee:

1.    Agrees The Guidance Members and Officers on Outside Organisations as attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

2.    Notes that the guidance will be circulated to all Members and in particular those Members who are appointed to sit on Outside Bodies by the Council.

Robert Curtis, (Head of Electoral Services) provided a verbal update for members on the progress and timetable of the review of polling places.

Robert explained that the predicted timetable had unfortunately slipped this due to the work associated with the potential combination of polls that could happen with the GLA and General Election in early 2024. Consequently, the review was unlikely to be completed by January 2024 as originally planned.

Robert asked members to note that technically the review didn’t have to finish until January 2025 so he recommended the Council maintained the status quo for the upcoming GLA and for the general election (if combined) and to then revisit the review once the polls for the GLA had been completed, if a standalone election and if necessary to wait until after the date of the general election whenever that would be called. If the GLA is standalone election, Robert advised it would be possible to complete the review before the general election takes place if that is called towards the end of 2024. Committee members indicated they had no major objections to the revised timetable for the review of polling places as outlined.

Robert provided an overview of activity on the review to date, noting that

• Consultation responses had been low, with only 4 responses received in the time allocated with one withdrawn and the other three responses related to relatively minor issues.
• A review on the policy of using schools as polling places was recommended despite the duty placed on schools to provide facilities but this is a cause of frequent enquiries every year.
• Comments received and observations also  indicate that Canary Wharf would benefit from a closer review of polling arrangements.

Further to questions from the Committee, Robert explained:

• that further to the low responses to the consultation, consultation methods would be revisited to ensure the consultation reached as wide an audience as possible and was accessible to residents. It was noted that 80 disabled organisations in the borough were contacted directly but no responses were received.
• anecdotal evidence suggests that the lack of responses could reflect that most voters are happy with current arrangements.
• an update on the preparation for voter ID, including the numbers of applications for voter authority certificates. It was anticipated that applications for these, as with absent voter applications, will increase significantly when the General Election is announced. Preparations continue in preparation of these significant changes.
• that the borough would, from the next General Election, have3 parliamentary constituencies within the borough area of Tower Hamlets  one of which (Stratford and Bow) was predominantly under the jurisdiction of Newham election authority with 3 Tower hamlets Borough wards falling under the ARO for Newham namely Bow East, Bow West and Bromley North. These changes will present challenges for electoral services and also where information will need to be provided to those in the three “give away” borough wards particularly if the elections are combined. Robert explained that  whilst this “give away” principle is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

None.

During consideration of Item 4.1, the Committee indicated it wished to discuss the candidates in more detail. It was therefore:

RESOLVED

1.    That in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that the remaining agenda item contained information defined as exempt in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.