Closed motion tactic deny residents a voice

Reading the letter from the Conservative Group ‘Chief Whip’ in last week’s edition, you could possibly believe that his reckless disregard for democracy was just a ‘misunderstanding’ and he was just facilitating council business.

I cannot support this position.

Closure motions are used to suggest that a long debate has been ‘full and effective’ and a vote should be taken.

The constitution is the ‘structure' of council process and needs to be accurate. Suggested amendments from councillors are usually welcomed and considered... not this time.

The Conservative administration declined to accept any of the opposition amendments, therefore forcing them to full debate, then, as soon as each amendment was raised, the ‘Chief Whip’ immediately used the closure motion to stop any debate.

The Conservative councillors all voted against the amendments without feeling any need to justify their decision to council or the public.

The closure motion was used again to prevent any councillor speaking on the main report including a Conservative amendment.

Cllr Larcombe was then denied speaking on a ward matter, despite the acceptance of comments from the two Conservative ward councillors. The use of closure motions in the way meant that the views of 18 opposition members, and the residents who had elected them, on important matters were null and void.

But... it isn’t in Cllr Bhangra’s remit to close down debate.

Yes, he can put forward a closure motion but it is the mayor (as chair of council) that has the responsibility of ‘facilitating full and effective debate and decision-making by the council with the overriding aim of promoting confidence in the council by the public’ in ‘an objective, non-political and reasonable manner’(C7.2 of the constitution).

This overrides everything else. It is the mayor’s decision.... yet each closure motion was accepted without question.

Using the constitution to prevent the views of the opposition being heard is seen, in parliament, as ‘infringing the rights of the minority’ and three reports over the last two years have lambasted the RBWM Conservative administration for bad governance, non-transparency of decision making and obstructing opposition access to information.

The Liberal Democrat and Independent councillors are the voice of the residents who elected them.

To prevent them from speaking in full council, by politicising the constitution, is to deny the residents a voice and is not how any administration should behave.

Cllr LYNNE JONES Leader – Local Independents Old Windsor Residents Association

councillor for Old Windsor