In accordance with Part 4A, paragraph 7(m) of the Constitution, it was unanimously RESOLVED to extend the duration of the meeting beyond three hours, to end by 10.30 PM.

The Chair explained that this urgent item had been added to the agenda in response to discussion at Council on 14 September. He invited Councillor David Williams to set out his reasons for asking the Commission to consider this matter.

Councillor David Williams said that he accepted counsel’s advice that the current consultation on council tax and council spending is lawful. He said that the question to which he was seeking an answer is who made the final decision on the consultation questions and what the sign off arrangements had been. In particular, he was seeking information about the level of involvement of the Leader and Cabinet Members. Also, in his opinion, there were weaknesses in the consultation document regarding the options and it lacked some pertinent information, for example on the relationship to the level of reserves.

The Chair invited Councillor Jeff Hanna to speak. Councillor Jeff Hanna said that his comments were summarised in a document that he laid round at the meeting (this has been published with the minutes). He said that he supported the consultation but had some reservations about the content and the process by which it was put together. He questioned counsel’s advice and said that, in his view, it would have been preferable for the document to be signed off by Cabinet, with an opportunity for scrutiny. He said that he found the consultation form overly complex for residents, that it lacked information on the reduction in government funding and that the order of the options might affect the outcome.

In response, Paul Evans, Assistant Director Corporate Governance, said that although it was unusual to seek counsel’s opinion on a sensitive and political issue such as this, he had done so in order to provide a second opinion and to reassure members that the consultation process was appropriate and the consultation document complied with the code of conduct in being fair and unbiased. Counsel had provided reassurance on both counts. An additional point regarding the use of reserves had been included  in response to counsel’s reference to the Moseley v Haringey case.

Paul Evans explained that signing off consultation material in itself does not constitute a decision and that the Leader and Cabinet have considerable freedom on what to do to assist in the formation of ideas. He said that consideration of the consultation results will inform decision making by Cabinet, with the usual budget consultation with scrutiny, and subsequent recommendations from Cabinet to Council.

In response to questions about the signing off process, Paul Evans said that material for My Merton magazine is generally drafted by officers and that the final draft is provided to the Leader’s Office. The Chief Executive, Ged Curran, added that policy development takes place in private and that there is consequently a differential level of involvement of members depending on their role. He urged the Commission to accept the advice given by counsel and by Paul Evans.

Several members then said that they accepted counsel’s advice, that no criticism of officers was intended and that the role of expert officers is crucial because of the difficulty in satisfying everyone on the design of a questionnaire.

The Chair reminded members that the Commission, at its meeting on 23 March 2016, had requested an opportunity for pre-decision scrutiny of the proposals for public consultation on the budget. Some members expressed disappointment that this had not happened and the Chair asked that the Commission be fully involved subsequent to the consultation.

Councillor David Williams moved and Councillor Oonagh Moulton seconded a motion to “advise the Cabinet that whereas the Commission recognise that it was right for officers to prepare a consultation document on council tax and spending under delegated powers, the subject matter is highly controversial. In consequence the Commission believes that the process would have gained greater credibility if the framing of the narrative and questions had been both more transparent and inclusive, for example on a cross party basis and in co-operation with interest groups”. 4 members voted in favour and 6 against. The motion fell.

Councillors David Williams, Oonagh Moulton, Hamish Badenoch and Peter Southgate asked for their vote in favour of the motion to be recorded.