Greenwich Council Faces Backlash Over Constitutional Changes Limiting Public Scrutiny
Greenwich Council has ignited a political firestorm by approving sweeping constitutional changes that opposition members have branded "a complete abuse of power" and "an appalling attack on democratic rights." The controversial measures, passed during a marathon five-and-a-half hour meeting on Wednesday evening, significantly restrict public and councillor questioning during council sessions.
New Restrictions on Public Participation
The approved changes introduce several substantial limitations on how residents and elected representatives can hold the council accountable. Public questions at full council meetings will now be limited to no more than 100 words, while councillors will be restricted to just two questions per member. Additionally, the submission deadline for questions has been extended from five to seven days before meetings.
Perhaps most controversially, the council has raised the threshold for councillors wishing to "call in" decisions for further scrutiny. Under the new rules, councillors must now submit "supporting documents and or information" with their call-in requests, with the council's monitoring officer empowered to reject requests deemed insufficiently supported.
Council Leader Defends Efficiency Measures
Council Leader Anthony Okereke staunchly defended the changes, insisting they were designed to make meetings more efficient and support "better participation, more focused meetings and a stronger scrutiny process." He argued that public questioning had escalated dramatically over the past year, making it "incredibly hard" for meetings to "function properly."
"Democracy is not about who knows how to work the system best," Okereke declared. "It is about ensuring every resident has a fair opportunity to be heard. This is not about reducing voices, it's about making sure every voice has a chance to be heard in this chamber."
The council leader emphasized that the changes would bring Greenwich in line with other London boroughs, noting that 24 councils have question submission deadlines exceeding five days, while nine impose word limits.
Opposition Condemns 'Political Thuggery'
Opposition councillors launched scathing attacks on the proposals during the heated meeting. Conservative Group leader Matt Hartley accused Okereke of changing rules specifically to avoid difficult questions, stating: "He doesn't like the questions that are being asked, so he's changing the rules to stop them being asked."
Hartley went further, branding Okereke a "playground bully" and declaring: "This is not his council chamber. It does not belong to him, it doesn't to any of us. It belongs to the people of Greenwich."
Green Councillor Lakshan Saldin described the changes as "nothing more than a robbery," while Independent and Green Group Leader Majella Anning called them a "stitch up." Tory Councillor Charlie Davis characterized the measures as "the tactic of someone who is desperate to try and stop people asking questions of his failing administration."
Resident Campaigners Voice Outrage
The changes have drawn fierce criticism from resident groups who have increasingly utilized public questioning to challenge controversial council decisions. These include opposition to Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes, staff cuts at Adventure Play Centres, and the potential sale of Greenwich Equestrian Centre to developers.
Adventure Play Centres campaigner Lara Ruffle Coles expressed deep disappointment, stating: "A reduction in our ability to question the council or call in the decisions they have made is an affront to all residents, and to all councillors of all parties."
West Charlton Residents Association Chair Eleanor Restall emphasized the vital importance of detailed public questioning, noting: "The council is forced to answer public questions and however badly that may be at least it is witnessed. The changes are an appalling attack on democratic rights."
Timing Controversy Ahead of Elections
The timing of the changes has raised additional concerns, coming just weeks before the May local elections. Opposition members argued that such significant constitutional alterations should be handled by whatever administration emerges from the upcoming vote.
Okereke countered that the current council could not continue with what he called a "broken system," asserting the administration had a responsibility to implement fixes immediately. Despite claims from Hartley that several Labour members had privately expressed concerns about the proposals, all Labour councillors ultimately voted in favor of the changes.
The constitutional overhaul represents one of the most contentious political battles in recent Greenwich Council history, pitting claims of administrative efficiency against accusations of democratic erosion as the borough approaches crucial elections.
