‘What are they afraid of?’: Fresh row over changes to Town Hall constitution

L-R: Cllrs Penny Wrout, Claudia Turbet-Delof and Fliss Premru. Photograph: courtesy Hackney Independent Socialist Group

Hackney Council is facing backlash to a slew of proposed constitutional changes, which opposition groups say would make it harder for the public to “meaningfully interrogate” the Town Hall.

On Tuesday (10 April) Hackney’s monitoring officer presented councillors with a list of amendments to the council rulebook, following a review into the local authority’s procedures last year.

This assessment, also known as the ‘Corporate Peer Challenge’, concluded that full council meeting agendas could be re-ordered to “allow more focus on issues that align more closely with the mayor’s goals and vision”.

Under new rules, the mayor’s opening speech at full council meetings is set to be reduced from ten minutes to eight, while opposition parties’ response would be cut from five to three minutes.

An amendment was also put forward to “provide clarity” that opposition leaders’ responses cannot make “political statement[s] in [their] own right”.

But opposition parties argue the changes would concentrate more power into the “closed shop that is this Labour administration”.

Cllr Alastair Binnie-Lubbock. Photograph: Green party

The Greens’ co-leader, Alastair Binnie-Lubbock (Hackney Downs ward) said the proposals had been “cooked up behind closed doors” and would “reduce the ability of members of the public and opposition groups to scrutinise and try and improve the council’s decision-making”.

“It is a bit scary that the elected mayor can make a political statement and yet opposition leaders are being barred from that under these proposals,” he said.

He also pressed the monitoring officer, Louise Humphries, and committee chair, Cllr Anntoinette Bramble, about whether the mayor and the Labour group whip had been consulted on the changes – given that opposition groups had not.

Cllr Bramble confirmed that the mayor had been “very much engaged” with the process and felt they supported her priorities.

The council insists that many of the amendments reflect rules that are already in place but will simply be made clearer, while overall the changes would “ensure an appropriate level of resilience for the challenges ahead”.

Ms Humphries said: “Please don’t misunderstand – I’m not saying you cannot make a political comment.

“But given the wording of the current constitution, the comments are supposed to be in response to what the mayor has said – not making a political statement on behalf of your own party per se.”

According to her report, shortening the alloted speaking time will cut the elected mayor’s statement section of full council sessions down from 30 minutes to 20 minutes.

This will “have a positive impact on reducing the length of meetings more generally”.

The council is also moving to reduce the time that responses for members of the public’s questions from five minutes down to three.

Motions are to be capped at one per meeting, while the lead time for submissions would be doubled from four working days to eight.

The current ‘cab rank’ system, where members submit motions – often to “bank a place” in the queue – would also be abolished due to the current status quo of motions creating a “backlog” without enough time for discussion.

Deputations, where a members of the public or group is given time to address the whole council, will also be limited from two per meeting to one.

The council also plans to “provide greater clarity” around its rule for petitions, meaning that they should only relate to something that is within the powers of the council to act on  rather than, for example, another public body.

Speaking to the Citizen, Independent Socialist councillor Claudia Turbet-Delof (Victoria ward) said it was “the most depressing meeting ever, [with] undemocratic processes unfolding before our eyes”.

“We will end up with very little time for residents to raise concerns in the council.”

She added that opposition groups like hers were being “punished for being effective, bringing residents’ views to democratic spaces and demanding scrutiny over what affects residents quality of life”.

Cllr Binnie-Lubbock said: ” It’s outrageous that despite being acknowledged by the administration on several occasions for positively engaging with scrutiny, Labour now wants to shut down our opportunities to do so, including by barring us (but not the Mayor) from making political statements at full council.

“What are they afraid of?”

The plans were largely backed by the committee, with the exception of Cllr Binnie-Lubbock, Cllr Turbet-Delof and Conservative councillor Ian Sharer (Cazenove ward).

The Hackney opposition groups (Green party, Independent Socialists, and Conservative party) later issued a joint statement, which reads:

“Hackney Labour have just voted through sweeping changes that gut democratic scrutiny.

“They’ve slashed the public’s right to speak, halved the amount of petitions they can hear, narrowing the ways residents can submit a petition, and are limiting the time opposition groups have to raise issues for debate.

“They’ve also reduced the number of motions councillors can propose in full council to one per meeting.

“Powers lie with unelected officers to block issues from even making it onto the agenda.

“These proposals were developed with the Mayor and the Labour Whip without consultation from other groups and constitute a blatant power grab from a party with an overwhelming majority, yet they are terrified of being held to account.

“It shuts down residents, silences opposition, and erodes trust.

“This is not democracy – it’s an authoritarian move that stinks of desperation.

“Yet none of this will deter us from holding them to account. We’ll make sure our communities’ voices are heard no matter how hard they try to shut us out.”

A Hackney Labour spokesperson said: “The council has acted upon the recent findings of an independent peer review that suggested we re-order full council meeting agendas to align more closely with the elected mayor’s goals and vision. Residents were consulted and focus groups held to find out what people thought about the way we do things.

“Prioritising the voices of the people of Hackney, discussion of the Labour policies they voted for and ensuring proper scrutiny of the council’s work have always been priorities for Hackney Labour.

“The proposed changes to the council’s constitution do just that. It is right that the voice of Hackney residents remains at the heart of full council meetings. This is why we always have and always will protect time given for public questions, deputations, petitions, policy discussion and motions.

“We will continue to assess and improve the council’s processes to enable us to deliver the best services for Hackney.”

The changes will now be recommended for approval at the council’s annual meeting on 14 May.

Note: this article was updated at 7:50pm on Thursday 10 April 2025, with the addition of the joint statement made by the opposition groups.

Note: this article was updated at 10.42am on Monday 14 April 2025 to add a comment from Hackney Labour.