Agenda item

To receive a report from the Corporate Director of Finance & Resources asking Members to review and determine, under Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the allocation of seats on Council Committees and other relevant bodies, in accordance with Standing Order 27(h) following on from the local borough elections held on the 7 May 2026.

(Agenda republished on 15 May 2026 to include an amendment submitted by the Liberal Democrats Group)

The Mayor then moved on to invite Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) to introduce the report from the Corporate Director of Finance & Resources, which the Leader advised fulfilled the Council’s duty to review and determine the representation of different political groups on certain Committees at its annual meeting and as soon as practicable following on from the local borough election held on the 7 May 2026.  Members were advised the report also detailed the position regarding the appointment of Political Assistants following the outcome of the local election and designation of the Principal Opposition Group.

In moving the report, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) outlined the importance of the review in supporting establishment of the Council’s new governance arrangements.  Whilst acknowledging that that election result had created a more plural Council (in terms of political representation) he felt it was also important to recognise that the Labour Group still remained the largest Group on the Council.  As a result, it was pointed out, the review had been designed to ensure the allocation of seats on the committees to which the political balance rules applied were applied lawfully and fairly.  Members were reminded that application of the statutory requirements in this respect was not optional and designed to ensure the allocation on seats on those committees to which they applied were, as far as reasonably practicable, designed to reflect the political composition of the Council whilst also ensuring that the Council’s decision-making, scrutiny and regulatory functions were able to operate effectively.

In terms of the allocation of seats on specific committees, Councillor Muhammed Butt confirmed that he was moving the proposals as set out in Table 1 and 2 in section 3 of the report, subject to the final available ordinary seat (which be on the Audit & Standards Committee) being allocated to the Labour Group.  Taken overall, it was felt that the approach outlined in the report reflected a balanced and workable arrangement which recognised the overall political composition of the Council and would enable the committees listed to be established without further uncertainty.  Turning then to the designation of the Principal Opposition Group, Councillor Muhammed Butt advised that on the basis both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups had the same number of members he would be moving designation of the Conservative Group as the Principal Opposition Group, highlighting the importance in providing clarity around the arrangements for opposition representation and accountability and with the designation designed to reflect the need for a clear, effective opposition role within the Council’s governance framework.

As a final issue to be addressed, the Leader also advised that he was proposing that the current allocation of seats on the Health and Wellbeing Board be carried forward (as set out in section 3,12 of the report) until the broader review of the Constitution was completed. This again was felt to represent a sensible and proportionate approach, allowing the Board to continue operating effectively while the Council completed its review of wider constitutional matters.  In moving the recommendations and proposals outlined, the Councillor Muhammed Butt ended by outlining the way in which they had been designed to comply with the statutory requirements in relation to the political balance rules whilst also reflecting the recent outcome of the election and need to allow the Council’s continued effective governance.

Having thanked Councillor Muhammed Butt for moving the report, the Mayor then drew members attention to an amendment to the recommended allocation of seats submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

In moving the amendment, Councillor Lorber (speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group) began by expressing concern at the basis on which the proposed allocation of seats set out within section 3 of the report (as moved by the Leader of the Council) had been calculated and presented, which he felt did not reconcile and were inconsistent with the total number of 38 seats available.  As an alternative, the Liberal Democrats had therefore submitted an amended proposal relating to the allocation of seat between committees, which he felt not only reconciled with the overall number of seats available but would more accurately reflect the political balance of the Council.  Using the proposed allocation of seats on the Planning Committee as an example, Councillor Lorber highlighted the way in which the proposed allocation within Table 1 of the report created the potential for contested decisions to be confirmed on the basis of a casting vote effectively giving a group that did not hold an overall majority on the Council control of committee decisions.  Under the Liberal Democrats amendment he advised the overall allocation would be based on a reduced total of 35 committee seats across the ordinary committees to which the political balance rules applied, which it was felt would provide a fairer and more balanced distribution as well as more closely reflecting the overall political balance of the authority, whilst ensuring that the views of all councillors could be adequately represented through committee membership and voting arrangements.  In summing up, Councillor Lorber hoped all members would recognise what he felt to be the numerical inconsistency within the original allocation of seats proposed and support the Liberal Democrats amendment on the basis that it would address this position as well as providing an allocation of seats that was more reflective of political balance on the Council and avoid one political group from being able to retain control of committees despite not holding an overall majority on the authority.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Lorber for moving the amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

In opening the debate, Councillor Georgiou spoke in support of the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats Group highlighting the need to ensure, that whilst reflecting the rules, the allocation of seats also reflected the outcome and wishes expressed by residents at the recent borough election.  Highlighting the basis of the amendment in support of what he felt was a fairer distribution of seats, it was pointed out that approval of the proposed allocation moved by the Leader would enable the Labour Group to retain significant control over those bodies on which the seats were required to be allocated.  The opportunity was also taken to challenge the proposed designation of the Conservatives as Principal Opposition Group, with reference made to the way in which the Conservative Group (despite previous criticism of the Labour Group) had acted relating to the appointment of the Leader of the Council, with their subsequent designation as Principal Opposition Group therefore felt to undermine effective opposition and scrutiny.  On this basis he advised the Liberal Democrats would be supporting the amendment as moved and against the proposed allocation of seats as detailed within the report as moved by the Leader of the Council.

Speaking next, Councillor Kansagra (responding on behalf of the Conservative Group) advised of the way in which his Group based their approach towards decision making, which he pointed out had always been focussed in seeking to achieve the best outcomes for Brent residents.  Examples were provided of the group previously having supported proposals from both the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups where they were considered to reflect this approach, which it was felt contrasted with the approach adopted in the past by members from other opposition groups.  Councillor Kansagra also took the opportunity to reject allegations that the Conservative Group had received any form of incentive in relation to the arrangements under discussion, describing such claims as inappropriate with the basis of the approach adopted by his Group being to ensure the Council could more forward (in terms of its governance arrangements) in a way that best served residents and would enable the effective governance of the Council.  In advising the Conservative Group would not therefore be supporting the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats he assured members of his Groups intention in opposition, to continue scrutinising and holding the administration to account.

As a final contribution, Councillor Clinton felt there was a need to challenge the assertion made by Councillor Kansagra regarding the role of Liberal Democrat members in supporting proposals from other parties, with specific reference made to the support provided on the tourist levy and regulation of digital devices in schools as examples.  Highlighting that a number of the committee positions under discussion, including the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, attracted additional allowances Councillor Clinton felt it was fair to question the basis on which any potential arrangement had been reached which enabled the Labour administration to continue governing while securing specific positions for the Conservative Group on other bodies.  In summing up he ended by advising that the Liberal Democrats would continue to highlight these type of issues in order to ensure that genuine independent opposition was being provided on behalf of local residents.

As no further members had indicated they wished to speak, the Mayor advised he would no invite members to exercise their right of reply before moving the vote on the amendment and recommendations which had been moved.  Prior to inviting members to exercise their right of reply, Councillor Georgiou raised a Point of Order relating to the status of any agreement which may have been reached between the Conservative and Labour Groups, facilitating the continuation of the Labour Group as a minority administration and whether, if such an agreement was in place, that would prevent them being nominated and designated as the Principal Opposition Group.

In response, the Chief Executive clarified the basis on which members of the Executive were appointed and advised that provided members of the opposition group did not form part of the Executive there was nothing to prevent that group being nominated as Principal Opposition Group.

Having received this clarification and advice, the Mayor then moved on to invite Councillor Muhammed Butt (as mover of the original report) and then Councillor Lorber (as mover of the amendment) to exercise their right of reply on the debate.

Speaking first, Councillor Muhammed Butt advised that the Labour Group would not be supporting the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats and would instead be supporting the proposed allocation of seats as moved and set out in the report, based on these representing a fair and lawful allocation designed to reflect, as far as reasonably practicable, the political composition of the Council whilst ensuring the business of the Council was able to continue being undertaken effectively moving forward.

Moving on to exercise his right of reply, Councillor Lorber once again outlined concerns relating to the basis of the calculations within the proposed allocation of seats set out in the report moved by the Leader of the Council and in ending sought clarification from the Chief Executive that the proposed allocation had been assessed as numerically correct.

Having been invited to provide clarification by the Mayor, the Chief Executive drew members attention to the note which had been included within section 3.8 and Table 1 of the report, which had made clear that based on the rounding up of seats to be allocated between the respective groups there was one final available seat from the 38 available to which all groups could lay claim to.  In order to reflect the existing membership size of the Committees to which the political balance rules applied, this would be on Audit & Standards Committee. The report had therefore been clear that it would be for Council to decide which Group received that final seat, with the Leader having moved, in introducing the report, that this be allocated to the Labour Group.

Having noted the clarification provided, the Mayor then moved on the vote on the report, which he advised would start with the amendment moved by the Councillor Lorber (on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group), prior a vote on the final substantive recommendations.

On being put to the vote (by a show of hands) the amendment moved by Councillor Lorber (on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group) in relation to the alternative allocation of seats on the ordinary committees to which the political balance rules apply was declared LOST.

The Mayor then moved on to put the substantive recommendations as detailed within the report moved by the Leader of the Council to a vote.

Prior to the vote being taken, Councillor Georgiou (as Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group) requested (under Standing Order 43 (c)) that the vote on the substantive recommendations in the report be undertaken on the basis of a roll call.

Having confirmed the request, the Mayor then moved to put the substantive recommendations to the vote, which was conducted by the Chief Executive.

On a recorded vote being taken the substantive recommendations as detailed within the report moved by the Leader of the Council were declared CARRIED.

The voting recorded on the substantive recommendations was as follows:

For (31): Councillors Aden, P.Ahmed, Amadi, Anderson, Bajwa, Blackman, Burn, M.Butt, S.Butt, Chadha, Choudry, Chowdhury, Dar, De Souza, Dixon, Donnelly-Jackson, Do Rosario, Grahl, Hack, Ibrahim, Johnson, Kansagra, Kelcher, Knight, Madhabushi, Maurice, Mishra, A.Patel, H.Patel, Rubin and Thomas.

Against (22): Councillors Ahmadi-Moghaddam, Alexandre, Brown, Chauhan, Clinton, Gallagher, Georgiou, Jansali, Lorber, Mahmood, Malonga, McLeish, Mitchell, Mulaisho, N.Patel, Perrin, Ryan, Shah, Unger, Vakani, Want and Warsame.

Abstentions (2): Councillors Agha (Mayor) and Mistry (Deputy Mayor).

It was therefore RESOLVED:

(1)    To agree the size of each Committee, as detailed within the report.

(2)    To approve the allocation of seats on Committees to each of the Council’s political groups (where the rules of political balance apply) as set out within the report, including the final available seat on the Audit & Standards Committee being allocated to the Labour Group, and to make appointments to those committees (under agenda item 10 on the agenda) giving effect to the wishes of the political group allocated the seats.

(3)    To note that the political balance on Council Sub-Committees would be reviewed at the first meeting of the General Purposes Committee and Licensing Committee to be held following the Annual Council Meeting.

(4)    To approve the designation of the Conservative Group as the Principal Opposition Group

(5)    To agree provision for the allocation of a political assistant to eligible Groups, on the basis detailed within section 3.15 – 3.19 of the report.