At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 24th November 2015 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre,

Lampton Road, Hounslow Present: The Mayor, Councillor Nisar Malik (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Myra Savin Councillors: Keith Anderson, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Felicity Barwood,

Lily Bath, Tom Bruce, Manjit Buttar, John Chatt, Samia Chaudhary, Sam Christie, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Samantha Davies, Theo Dennison, Katherine Dunne, Colin Ellar, Richard Foote, Linda Green, Sachin Gupta, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Sam Hearn, Tina Howe, David Hughes, Elizabeth Hughes, Kamaljit Kaur, Hanif Khan, Guy Lambert, Adrian Lee, Paul Lynch, Mukesh Malhotra, Khulique Malik, Ed Mayne, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Sheila O'Reilly, Robert Oulds, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Sue Sampson, Jagdish Sharma, Peter Thompson, John Todd, Gurpal Virdi and Bob Whatley

1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Raj Bath, Peter Carey, Bandna Chopra, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Puneet Grewal, Gurmail Lal, Tony Louki, Amrit Mann, Daanish Saeed and Corinna Smart. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Candice Atterton and Gurpal Virdi. In relation to agenda Item 6, Article 4 Direction - Removal of Permitted Development Rights for Office to Residential Use in Certain Key Employment Locations in the Borough (REG357), Councillor Ed Mayne declared an interest, advising that he lived next to one of the sites in question and he would therefore leave the Council Chamber during consideration of the item. In relation to agenda item 16, Motion Proposed by Councillor Katherine Dunne and Seconded by Councillor Keith Anderson, the following Councillors each made a declaration of interest, namely that they were Members of a trade union as listed below:

Keith Anderson - General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union (GMB) Tom Bruce – National Union of Teachers (NUT) Manjit Buttar – Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) John Chatt – GMB (retired) Sam Christie - GMB Mel Collins – Community Union and the National League of Blind and Disabled Workers. Steve Curran - GMB Theo Dennison - GMB Katherine Dunne - Prospect Colin Ellar - GMB

Richard Foote - Unite Linda Green - Unite Sachin Gupta - Unite Bishnu Bahadur Gurung - Unite Sam Hearn – Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) David Hughes - GMB Elizabeth Hughes - GMB Hanif Khan - Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union (BECTU) Guy Lambert – Community Union Paul Lynch - BECTU Mukesh Malhotra - GMB Khulique Malik - Unite Ed Mayne – RMC Unite Alan Mitchell – Equity and Unison Sheila O'Reilly – First Division Association Surinder Purewal – Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) Shantanu Rajawat - Unite Sue Sampson - GMB Myra Savin - Unison Jagdish Sharma – Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) Peter Thompson – National Association of Headteachers (NAH) Bob Whatley - GMB

There were no other declarations or apologies. 2. Announcements Heathland School World Class Status The Mayor invited Councillor Tom Bruce, as Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services, to make an announcement in relation to Heathland School. Councillor Bruce expressed his delight at being joined in the Council meeting by Mr Peter Pattar and Mr Saparan Gill, the Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher of Heathland School which had recently been awarded World Class Status. This was an award given to only twenty five schools across the country and was therefore prestigious. He invited Mr Patter briefly to address Members. Mr Pattar thanked the Mayor and Members for allowing him to address them and explained that World Class status was conferred on schools which had already been judged as outstanding by OFSTED (The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills) and had gone further by improving student progress, aspiration and achievement to such an extent that their standards rivalled those of the best schools internationally. He was therefore delighted that Heathlands School had been given the status. He was also pleased to be able to say that the application had been made by the pupils in the school itself. In addition, five of the schools pupils had achieved Membership of Mensa, described as the “High IQ (Intelligence Quotient) Society”. Furthermore, the school had achieved a very high proportion of successful GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) exam grades in the last year. He therefore expressed his gratitude to the Council for all its support in helping

the school achieve so much. He also thanked staff, pupils and their families for working so hard to make the school the success it was. The Mayor, on behalf of all Members, congratulated Mr Peter Pattar, Mr Saparan Gill and the five pupils from the school who were in attendance at the meeting, namely Sana Ahmed, Alexander Gough, Laim Gourlay, Taranvir Sekhon and Arman Uddin, and expressed the pleasure of the Council at their achievements. He then invited them each to approach the mayoral dais in order that he could shake their hands, present the pupils with mayoral medals of merit, and to allow photographs to be taken. Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause. The Sixtieth Anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme The Mayor expressed delight at being able to help mark the continued local success of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, as well as the scheme’s sixtieth anniversary. He reminded Members that both Councillors Ed Mayne and Mel Collins were ambassadors for the award in Hounslow and that a number of supportive Councillors attended the award winners celebration events each year. He therefore invited Councillor Tom Bruce to make an announcement about the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme in Hounslow. Councillor Tom Bruce welcomed Mr Peter Pleat and Ms Dot Hasler, representatives of the award scheme, to the meeting, and thanked for them for their support of the scheme within the Borough. He then advised Members that all fifteen eligible schools in Hounslow were involved with the scheme and in the last year, 21 Hounslow pupils had achieved the gold award, with many more winning silver and bronze awards. Hounslow had a 62% completion rate, the second highest level in London, and this meant that there were so many successful award winners there would be three award ceremonies this year to cover the numbers. In addition, over 15000 hours were volunteered by young people undertaking the award within the Borough, and many other of all ages volunteered their own time and support to help. He thanked Councillors Mayne and Collins for their championing of the award, as well as headteachers, the London Regional Office staff, agencies who were involved in the scheme and Mr Michael Marks, Director, Education and Early Intervention. However, he paid his greatest tribute to the young people who undertook the award and “astounded with their commitment and hard work”. He then thanked Mr Pleat and Ms Hasler for attending the meeting to present the Council with the awards licence for the next year. With the agreement of the Mayor, Councillor Collins then also briefly addressed Members. He stated that he considered his involvement in the scheme to be one of the things of which he was proudest outside of his Council work. He considered that the scheme offered a lot to the community which was important when economic considerations meant that opportunities for young people were reducing. He hoped that the Council’s success in relation to the scheme, and the sixtieth anniversary of the awards, could be used as a springboard to reach out to parts of the community that had not yet embraced it. He concluded by thanking Mr Marks, and in particular, Ms Hasler, who had supported the award scheme for 43 years. Councillors Bruce, Mayne and Colins, along with Mr Pleat and Ms Hasler, then approached the mayoral dais to present the Mayor, on behalf of the Council, with the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme licence.

Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause. The Pension Fund Panel Annual General Meeting With the agreement of the Mayor, Councillor Mukesh Malhotra, the Chair of the Pension Fund Panel, addressed Members about the recent Pension Fund Annual General Meeting. In doing so, Councillor Malhotra made the following statement:

“I would like to draw Members’ attention to the successful Pension Fund Annual General Meeting which was held earlier this month on the 16th November 2015, and chaired by me. We had an excellent attendance with 300 Members of the scheme attending, including retired Members and current Members of staff. We had presentations from Clive Palfreyman, the Director of Finance, from our adviser, from one of our property fund managers, and from our pensions administrator, Capita. Capita did a very worthwhile series of presentations demonstrating how our new interactive website for scheme Members will work. This includes self-service options, and also sophisticated modelling tools to enable scheme Members to plan their retirements. We also had a session from the Chair of the new Pension Board, Councillor Sam Hearn, who explained that the Board is a new oversight body which will work the Council to ensure compliance with the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations and to ensure the effective governance and administration of the Scheme. There were engaging contributions from the audience. Our Pension Fund is a success story. We now have 20 000 Members and over forty employers in the fund. Our investments continue to grow. The Pension Fund is our largest single asset and was over £800m at the end of March. Over the last ten years we have been the 6th highest performing fund.”

Councillor Malhotra concluded by thanking officers in the Finance Department, particularly Ms Lorelei Watson, Head of Treasury, Pensions and Capita White Ribbon Campaign Against Domestic Violence The Mayor invited Councillor Sue Sampson, Cabinet Member for Communities, to make an announcement. Councillor Sampson expressed delight in being able to confirm that the Council had been award White Ribbon status and had joined a select group of authorities in the country campaigning to end violence against women. A launch event was planned to take place on Wednesday 25th November 2015, which co-incided with the United Nations Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. She explained that the Council had committed to undertaking more preventative work in the area of domestic violence and had been working to put a programme of delivery in place. This included projects for the creation of a perpetrator programme, a Female Genital Mutilation Prevention Project, an Anti-Acid Campaign, Early Intervention initiatives and an Exiting Prostitution Project. She also explained that the Council

was working closely with the police to ensure that those suffering from gender based domestic violence could get assistance. She concluded by asking everyone to wear a white ribbon which pledged the wearer never to commit violence – and she thanked all the men who had supported the initiative. Recent Terrorist Attacks The Mayor reminded Members of the recent horrific attacks on Paris. He explained that the Council had sent its condolences to its twin town of Issy-les-Moulineaux and to all the people of Paris and France. Since then, there have also been other acts of terrorism including in Mali. On behalf of all Members, he formally sent the sympathies and thoughts of the Council to all those who have been affected by these terrible events. Former Mayoress, Mrs Edna Flynn The Mayor then advised Members that Mrs Edna Flynn, who was the widow of former Councillor Bob Flynn, and a former Mayoress of the Borough, had recently died at the age of 95. Councillor Flynn had been one of the people first elected to the Council in its original year of 1964 and had served until 1990 either as a Councillor or as an alderman. He and Mrs Flynn had been Mayor and Mayoress in 1983-84 and she continued to be very active in local Labour Party politics for many years. On behalf of all Members, the Mayor expressed the thoughts and sympathies for her family at this difficult time. He then invited Councillor Elizabeth Hughes to say a few words in remembrance of Mrs Flynn. Councillor Hughes stated that both Mrs Flynn and her husband had many colleagues and friends and had given politics within the Borough much wise leadership and guidance, particularly within the Labour Party but also beyond, having been active politically since the age of sixteen. She had been a Hounslow resident throughout her life and had been born in Feltham. She had worked during the Second World War in an agency which helped to maximise the war effort. In addition, she survived two wartime bomb blasts. She later worked in the Air Ministry, based in Heston, where she met and married her husband, Bob Flynn. In the 1950s, she had become very interested in cycling and was a Member of a number of cycling clubs during her lifetime. This was just one example of how she had been “ahead of her time” in many of her attitudes – another being an early advocate in the 1970s of “Women’s Lib”. She had sung in an socialist choir and later been interviewed by BBC Radio Four for its well respected “Making History” series. Councillor Hughes described her as “an astonishing woman” and considered her to have been her own mentor. She remembered her as great fun and was pleased that she had died happy at the age of 95. Former Councillor Mike Sterne The Mayor then announced the sad news of the recent death of former Councillor Mike Sterne, who had represented the Hounslow South Ward as a Labour Councillor, being elected in 1994 and then retiring from the Council in 1998. His wife, Pat, had also been a Councillor at the same time and they had both served on the Education Committee, with Councillor Mike Sterne being the Chair in 1994/95. Mr Sterne had also been the Chair of Governors at Belmont School for many years and had done a good job there. Again, on

behalf of all Members, he expressed the Council’s heartfelt sympathies to Councillor Sterne’s wife, Pat, and to all their friends and family. He then invited Councillor Bob Whatley to say a few words in remembrance of Mr Sterne. Councillor Whatley stated that he had first got to know both Councillor Mike Sterne and his wife, Councillor Pat Sterne, as Labour Party activists many years ago. He recalled that Mr Sterne had a lifelong commitment to social justice which came from his upbringing in South Africa during the era of apartheid. He also had a passion for education and had spent much of his career in this field, as demonstrated by his work on the then Education Committee and as a dedicated school governor. Councillor Whatley described him as “always trying to do the best that he could for the young”. He had also been a formidable ward Councillor and put in a lot of effort to help his constituents. They had met for the last time at the recent funeral of former Councillor Jassar, and he had been very sad on learning the news of Mr Sterne’s death. Mr and Mrs Sterne had operated as a team both in politics and in life, and he gave his heartfelt sympathy to her. Councillor Sohan Sangha The Mayor then announced that Members were all deeply saddened to hear of the sad death last week of Councillor Sohan Sangha, who had been a Cranford Ward Councillor since 2002. Councillor Sanga had been born in 1942 and had worked as a lecturer during his professional career. After becoming a Councillor in the 2002 Council election, he had served on a great many committees including being Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2013/14 where he oversaw much good work. He then invited Councillor Harleen Atwal Hear to say a few words in remembrance of Councillor Sangha. Councillor Atwal Hear stated that although she had only known him for a few years, Councillor Sangha had always struck her as a nice man and much liked. She knew that he would be deeply missed. On behalf of all Members, the Mayor then expressed the thoughts and sympathies of the Council to Councillor Sangha’s wife, Balbir, and his family and friends at this difficult time. Members then stood in silence for one minute in remembrance of Mrs Flynn, former Councillor Sterne and Councillor Sangha. There were no further announcements. 3. Minutes Councillor John Todd advised that he had not yet received the clarification from Councillor Dennison that he had previously requested in relation to the proposal to drop certain performance indicators from the quarterly performance monitoring report that was presented to Cabinet.

ACTION BY: Councillor Theo Dennison Councillor Hearn observed that the word “history” and “statutory” as used on pages two, eleven and eighteen of the minutes had erroneous capitalisation of the letter t in the middle of each word. It was then RESOLVED – That, subject to the correction of the case of the letter t detailed above, the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 27th November 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor. TO NOTE: All 4. Petitions Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. The Mayor advised that, in addition to the petitions listed in the appendix to agenda item four, he had agreed to hear a further petition, numbered 18, at the meeting. The details of the petition were included in the tabled report which had been circulated to all Members. He explained that the reason that the petition had been referred to this meeting of the Council was that it was the last meeting at which the petition could be considered prior to the implementation of the proposed traffic management proposal in question. The following new petitions were then presented to the Mayor:

Councillor Mel Collins submitted a petition from residents in Chestnut Avenue seeking the introduction of a controlled parking zone in their area.

Councillor Lily Bath submitted a petition from residents in the Redwood Estate seeking a refurbishment of the local play facilities.

There were no further petitions presented to the Mayor. The Mayor then invited Members to note the referrals of previously received petitions as detailed in the report. The Mayor advised that there were two petitions for consideration by the Council itself. The first was listed at number 10 in the report and related to a request to resurface Wolsey Close. The second was numbered 18 and could be found in the tabled document and related to the proposed traffic arrangements in Church Street. He then invited Ms Susan Leggett and Ms Karen Davison to introduce the Wolsey Close petition. Ms Davison addressed Members and made the following points:

Wolsey Close was a cul-de-sac comprising 48 properties built in the 1950s.

The road surface in the Close was in an appalling state and she described it as “one of the worst surfaces in greater London”.

She considered the road surface to be a disgrace to the Borough.

Many of the residents of the street were elderly and had fears about falling when crossing the roadway.

The surface was bad for pedestrians, worse for cyclists and motorists and taxi drivers now refused to drive into the street.

The surface had loose stones and stone chippings covering it, as well as there being suspension failures.

An ambulance driver had recently also complained about the standard of the surfacing in the Close and this in turn had caused great stress to a resident in the street who had cancer and was worried that ambulances in future may find it impossible to enter the street.

These were not unfounded fears as she herself had recently been taken to hospital by ambulance and the paramedic with her had had to hold her down in her stretcher-bed when the vehicle drove along the road surface.

She added that residents felt neglected and ignored.

She noted that the proposed date for the refurbishment of the street surface in Wolsey Close kept moving and so she concluded by asking for a definite date in 2016 for the work to take place as “no road is more in need of attention”.

The Mayor then invited Councillor Steve Curran, as Leader of the Council, to respond to Ms Davison in the absence of Councillor Amrit Mann, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment. Councillor Curran thanked Ms Davison for bringing his attention to the issue. He stated that he accepted her frustration but confirmed that the road would be resurfaced in 2016 as she had asked. He added that the Council would try to ensure that the work took place in the earlier part of the year. Members noted the response. The Mayor then thanked both Ms Davison and Councillor Curran for their comments. He then invited Ms Tamsin Turner to introduce the Church Street petition. Ms Turner addressed Members and made the following points:

The petition requested halting the closure of Church Street, Isleworth, on 7th December 2015 and then seeking a wider public consultation on a different traffic management proposal and it now had 1718 signatories.

There was no dispute that work needed to be done to alleviate traffic issues locally but the current proposals made no sense.

The Council’s own data said that traffic displaced by the proposals to close Church Street would go onto the Twickenham Road, despite the latter already being at capacity.

The proposals also affected five schools, including a number that were being expanded to include more pupils in future, which in turn meant greater traffic pressure.

Traffic was also likely to be expanded by local development plans.

The proposals affected the West Middlesex University Hospital which was nearby.

These issues were reasonable ones to raise and had been presented to the Council but had been ignored.

She considered that there had been procedural defects in the way the decision had been made including the fact that the Council had not consulted with the Hospital, nor had it carried out a health and safety assessment or pollution impact study.

Businesses had also not properly been consulted.

The result of the closure would be increased traffic, moving at a slow speed and the resulting increase in car fumes was dangerous to adults and, moreso, to children.

DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) had issued guidance on air pollution only this week.

The mandate for the proposed closure came from 141 people who favoured it but it was likely to affect more than 2000 people every day.

She stated that the London Borough of Lambeth had abandoned a similar unpopular proposal recently and so asked the Council to do the same in this case.

The Mayor then invited Councillor Steve Curran, as Leader of the Council, to respond to Ms Turner in the absence of Councillor Amrit Mann, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment. Councillor Curran thanked Ms Turner for her comments and directed the attention of those in the Council Chamber to a written response to the petition, which was included in the tabled paper, as follows:

“The Council is aware that there are lots of different opinions about whether this road should stay open or not. Indeed, many of the concerns so well-articulated by the lead petitioner are shared by officers and elected Members, which is why no permanent decision is being taken. Rather, a trial is being conducted so that we can ascertain exactly what the actual impact will be. I appreciate that you and many others are not in favour of this going ahead. However, the Council feels that the concerns raised over many years by those who support the closure have some merit and the progression of a trial is a reasonable way of trying to answer, finally and for good, whether the road should be closed or not. I can’t stress enough that officers and Members have no strong or pre-formed judgements about what the final results of this trial may be. We do however feel that those making the case for closure have won the right to at least trial this proposal. We would like to ask that you and all those who have concerns bear with us as we work through that process. We have now written to all local residents to explain these plans and tell them how they can be kept informed as the trial progresses and we continue to update our dedicated website page in response to the questions that we are asked. The matter will return to the area forum for consideration next year. Safety concerns: In our works to improve Twickenham Road over the past four years we have sought to address many of the safety issues that could be identified, whilst

also trying to remove barriers to free flowing traffic (for example the removal of the traffic lights at Townfield Way). Even before the effect of these improvements will show in the data; looking broadly at the safety records of the two roads, and comparing this relative to flow, it is not possible to draw any conclusions as to whether one is safer than the other and therefore whether we risk more collisions from removing one as an option for drivers. In addition, extra vehicles using Twickenham Road in the peaks will likely mean slower speeds which will reduce the number and severity of any collisions that occur. Air quality: The Council recognises its responsibilities in regards to maintaining air quality and also reducing carbon emissions. We know that the closure of Church Street will remove the vast majority of vehicular trips from this residential area which will improve air quality. It may also lead to an absolute decrease in the number of cars using the network if people change how they travel. This would have air quality benefits both locally and potentially wider. It would also reduce carbon emissions. Additional vehicles on Twickenham Road may however have a detrimental impact air quality in the vicinity of the carriageway in this location. However the extent to which this will occur and the impact this may have on users and residents of this street is not known, hence the reason for a trial. Hospital Liaison: The Council is working with the hospital to ensure we get all relevant feedback about any impact the closure has on them. I have personally been in contact with the chief executive and I can assure you that, whilst they do have concerns, they are confident that any impact on their operations can be managed safely. Officers are comfortable that all due process and legal requirements relating to the closure have been complied with and this has been double checked and confirmed by the Council’s legal support team at HB Law.”

He concluded by stating that he had met Mrs Turner and other residents on this matter, as well as hearing discussions about the proposals at two meetings of the Area Forum and he was fully aware of their concerns. However, the scheme was for a trial period and a final decision on how to proceed would be made after the trial had concluded. Members noted the response. The Mayor then thanked both Ms Turner and Councillor Curran for their comments. The Mayor then invited Members to note the referrals of other previously received petitions as detailed in the report. It was then RESOLVED –

That the petitions that had been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority for consideration be noted; and

That the responses from Members to the two petitions referred to the Council also be noted.

ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All 5. Review of Licensing Policy (REG334) Members considered a report by Councillor Richard Foote, Cabinet Member for Community Protection, who introduced the item. In so doing, he made the following comments:

The policy had been last revised in 2010 and by law needed to be updated every five years.

It set out the Council’s vision for licensed premises within the Borough.

The Cumulative Impact Policy was a new inclusion within the statement of the Licensing Policy.

The report also identified crime and order problems arising from off-licences along with control measures for dealing with the issues.

It was intended that these measures would help overcome the growing problem arising from the increased availability of alcohol in the early morning and late at night.

The policy would require the sellers of alcohol to show to the Licensing Committee that their sales would not adversely affect local residents.

He then formally proposed the recommendations. Councillor David Hughes seconded the report and made the following comments:

The Council had been actively helping residents overcome alcohol related problems with the new Cumulative Impact Policy which gave power back to the community on the licensable activities within Hounslow.

The Council would take action against businesses that did not operate properly or appropriately for the community.

The newly revised Licensing Policy was good for both the Council and for the public and he supported it.

The Mayor then invited debate on the report and the following comments were made:

Councillor John Todd advised that the Conservative Group supported the revised policy. The Group had also sent some observations to Members of the Licensing Committee on the need for performance data. In addition, recent training for Councillors on how to oppose applications effectively and in accordance with legal criteria, showed how poorly this was usually done, and so he suggested that the information be more widely circulated as this would help residents and help overcome the disadvantages that they suffered when attending Licensing Panel meetings to object to licence applications. He observed that in recent years, nearly every confectionery shop had become an off-licence. He concluded by applauding the new detection force but he asked the Council to enhance how it carried out enforcement.

Councillor Gerald McGregor reiterated that the review was welcomed by the Conservative Group. He recalled how the Licensing Act 2003 had caused a lot of problems for Councils in its attempt to create a 24 hour café culture. However, he applauded the requirement for the licensing policy to be reviewed every five years. He

then also expressed some concerns about enforcement and lack of police involvement – although it seemed that the police often wrote reports on off-licences and licensing applications, they were rarely provided to the Licensing Panel. This meant that there was often insufficient evidence before Members to decline applications and consequently residents were not protected. He then asked for further clarification on the nature of the “agreement on enforcement action” referred to on page 67 of the agenda, and also the “agreement on joint inspection work”. He also note that there was reference to “intelligence led surveillance on high risk premises” and asked how the risk was measured in such cases. He then stressed that enforcement was a key part of the Licensing Act and needed to be done well; it was not clear if the “enforcement policy” referred to in the report was part of the wider licensing policy or something separate.

Councillor Ed Mayne stated that he had been the previous Cabinet portfolio holder for licensing matters and he agreed with the comments made by Councillor McGregor expressing concerns about lack of police involvement. The Council had taken steps to try to increase police involvement in licensing matters, including inviting the Police Licensing Officer to work in the Civic Centre which had helped. He agreed that the Licensing Act had not proven a good one but improvements had been made to it and its operation. The Council had increased its enforcement team to help the police, who were independent of the Council, to provide evidence to the Licensing Panel, but he acknowledged the frustrations felt by Members and residents.

There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Foote to sum up the debate. Councillor Foote did so by making the following comments:

He had previously spoken to Councillor Todd about his comments and he was grateful to him for raising them with him both in and outside the meeting.

There were difficulties with enforcement which were exacerbated by the Council’s financial situation.

The Enforcement Policy was considered by the Council at its September meeting – licensing enforcement was part but not all of this.

The Council worked with a number of agencies to help with enforcement issues.

He agreed with the concerns of Members about the lack of police involvement at Licensing Panel meetings but he took some cheer from the successes of the area safety team and the Police Licensing Officer now regularly attended meetings.

It was then unanimously RESOLVED – That the revised version of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy be agreed. ACTION BY: Executive Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (ReDE) 6. Article 4 Direction - Removal of Permitted Development Rights for Office to Residential Use in Certain Key Employment Locations in the Borough (REG357)

Members considered a report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration who introduced the report and made the following comments:

He did not think that all planning decisions made by the Government had always been in the best interests of the Council and its residents.

Whilst the Council needed more housing, including social housing, it also needed sustainable jobs and workplaces.

The report would help protect the employment sites within the Borough and stop offices being converted into housing without permission.

There had already been a developer in the Borough who had done this.

He therefore proposed the recommendations to help prevent a recurrence of this. Councillor Shantanu Rajawat seconded the recommendations. The Mayor then invited debate on the report and the following comments were made:

Councillor Peter Thompson considered the report to be both sensible and prudent and would help avoid recurrences of the situation to which Councillor Curran had referred, such as the recent Galliard Homes scheme for Chiswick which had been dreadful and unpopular. The Conservative Group therefore supported the report. He considered that all applications should be considered on their merit and that there were occasions when the conversion of an office to residential accommodation was sensible, but the recommendations in the report added a welcome safeguard to the process.

Councillor Katherine Dunne expressed her support for the proposal as it protected office space and employment opportunities, and it prevented the creation of substandard housing units. It also protected affordable housing. The protection the new arrangements would provide would allow the Council to specify if affordable housing should be built into any conversions. 512 units of affordable housing had been lost in Hounslow since 2013 when the Government had introduced a permitted development right, and this would help prevent the loss of any more.

Councillor Richard Foote stated that he wanted affordable housing in the Borough and he regretted that he could see nothing in the Government’s decision of 2013 that would help in this ambition. Most office premises were not suitable for housing purposes, not having been built with that use in mind. A lot of work was necessary to make effective housing units out of office accommodation, not least in introducing the necessary infrastructure.

There being no more comments, and with Councillor Curran declining the opportunity to sum up the debate, the Mayor put the matter to the vote and it was unanimously RESOLVED – That the making of a non-immediate Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for change of use from office to residential at the following employment designations in Hounslow’s local Plan be approved: 1 Cargo Service Centre Feltham

2 Ascot Road Industrial Estate

3 Bedfont Lakes Business Park

4 Ashford Industrial Estate

5 Challenge Road Industrial Estate

6 Radius Park

7 Sun Life Trading Centre

8 Haslemere Heathrow Industrial Estate

9 Heathrow Causeway Estate

10 Heathrow International Trading Estate

11 North Feltham Trading Estate

12 Prologis Park

13 Feltham Town Centre

14 Maple Industrial Estate

15 Hanworth Trading Estate

16 Feltham Marshalling Yards

17 Bulls Bridge Industrial Estate

18 Harlequin Centre

19 Airlinks Industrial Estate

20 Parkway Trading Estate

21 Hounslow Town Centre

22 Worton Hall Industrial Estate

23 Victory Business Centre

24 Clock Tower Road Industrial Estate

25 Osterley Area

26 Commerce Road Industrial Estate, Brentford

27 Brentford Town Centre

28 Great West Road Area

29 Power Road Industrial Estate

30 Bollo Lane Industrial Estate

31 Chiswick Business Park

32 Chiswick Town Centre

ACTION BY: Executive Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (ReDE) 7. Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2015/16 (CEX99) Members considered a report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement, who introduced the item and made the following comments:

The report detailed the Treasury Management activity, borrowing and investments compared to budget, of the Council in the six months ended 30th September 2015.

The report also showed that the activity was in line with the Strategy agreed by Borough Council on 24th February 2015

There were currently no areas of concern regarding security or liquidity of investments;

Short-term investments at 30th September 2015 were £207.2m

External investment income to 30 September 2015 was £1.2m compared to a profiled budget of £0.6m.

In line with the Strategy no new long-term borrowing had been undertaken in this financial year and existing long term external borrowing is currently £194.5m;

No prudential indicators had been breached.

The weighted average rate of return on the temporary investment portfolio at 30th June 2015 was 0.86%, compared to the London club average of 0.82%.

He also drew Members’ attention to the appendix to the report, which was exempt from publication, and was to be found at agenda item 20. This was just for noting.

He wished to thank Lorelei Watson, Head of Treasury, Pensions and Capital, and her team for their hard work.

Councillor Steve Curran then seconded the report. Councillor Peter Thompson advised that the Conservative Group accepted the report and would vote in support of it. There being no more comments, and with Councillor Dennison declining the opportunity to sum up the debate, the Mayor put the matter to the vote and it was unanimously RESOLVED – To approve the Treasury Management Mid-Year Report for 2015-16. ACTION BY: Director of Finance and Corporate Services 8. Criminal Records Checks (Disclosure and Barring Service) for Members (CEX095) The Mayor advised that the Labour Group had stated that it wished to move an amendment to the recommendations in this report in accordance with Council Standing Order 11g as detailed in the Constitution. The proposed amendments to the recommendation in the report were included in the tabled paper. In the absence of Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care, the Mayor invited Councillor Steve Curran to introduce the report and the proposed amendment. Councillor Curran did so, and made the following comments:

The proposals in the report were overdue for the Council.

It was important that there were Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks in order to provide transparency to the public about their representatives.

It was the same requirement that many staff had to meet.

In his own professional life outside of the Council, he had been the subject of several such checks.

He considered the proposals to be a sensible move.

As Councillors often dealt with complex casework at surgeries, such checks were useful.

The proposed amendment to the recommendations strengthened the original wording, and followed strong feelings amongst Members of the Labour Group that this was the correct way forward and that such checks should be compulsory.

However, he acknowledged that the report was about the principle of the checks and that the policy on how to implement it would need to be developed.

He therefore formally proposed the recommendations in the report, as amended by the proposed change in the tabled paper.

The proposed amendment was as follows:

“That the recommendation be amended so that the reference to “voluntary criminal records checks” be replaced by “compulsory criminal records checks” and that associated references to such checks being voluntary in the rest of the report be similarly changed.

Councillor Katherine Dunne seconded the report and the proposal to amend the recommendations. The Mayor then put the issue of whether or not Members agreed to the recommendations being amended to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the recommendations in the report be amended as detailed above. The Mayor then invited discussion on the report, as amended, and the following comments were made:

Councillor Adrian Lee advised that whilst the Conservative Group could understand the point of view of the Labour Group in this matter, it did not share the same position. The Conservative Group agreed that those who came into the company of children should be checked for sexual offences and fraud convictions but it questioned the need and the benefit of doing it for everyone and on all criminal convictions. He raised the issue of someone who might have had a youthful indiscretion and asked whether it was fair or appropriate to “dig the matter up again”. He reminded Members that the checks being proposed were not just about sexual convictions but all criminal matters. He also noted that the report spoke about such information being stored and he asked who would be doing this, and how much of the information would be released to bodies such as the Standards Committee. He considered that it could cause unnecessary embarrassment and worked against the principle of rehabilitation. He also reminded Members that the law did not prevent convicted criminals from standing for office and the Council could not disbar people from the role as elected councillor either prior to or after election. He clarified that he was happy with DBS checks being undertaken for those who had direct contact with children but not for all Members. He worried too that such checks could be used as a “fishing exercise” and used for party political ends. He objected to the proposals on libertarian grounds. Consequently, the Conservative Group would be abstaining on the issue.

Councillor Samantha Davies echoed the concerns of Councillor Lee and explained that the Council could not legally make such checks compulsory and could not enforce any requirement for Members to undertake them. She also suggested that to try to do so

would contravene Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, which gave people the right to a private life. She observed that the Standards Committee had no real powers and so would not be able to enforce checks. She did not consider that the report addressed the issue of spent convictions properly and that the proposals did not assist in rehabilitation. She agreed that some specific professions such as teaching required DBS checks but most professions or organisations did not. She counselled that the Council should not proceed on the proposed path and reminded Members that they could not override legislation.

Councillor Peter Thompson clarified that when the issue was discussed by the Conservative Group, there had been a range of views expressed and so the Group would be abstaining on the issue. He explained that he personally had certificates for four DBS checks. He also noted an inconsistency in the report where in paragraph 3.5.2 it was stated that outcome of such checks would be given only to the Monitoring Officer and Deputy Monitoring Officer, but paragraph 4.1 stated that the Standards Committee would also see it. He also noted that the policy on how to carry out the principle of the checks was not included in the report and he asked to know what would happen if a DBS check brought up a matter of concern. He noted that many Boroughs only required such checks on a targeted basis rather than generally. He concluded by asking for reassurance on where the information would be stored and who would see it, and who would decide if the information arising from a check was relevant to a Member in a particular role. He also asked for clarification on how the recommendation as amended squared with the law, considering that consequences could only be agreed on a Political Group wide basis and not Council wide.

Councillor Elizabeth Hughes stated that the Standards Committee had discussed the issue as had the Labour Group and the lack of checks was considered to be a matter of concern to a number of Members. She reminded Members that they often met and worked with vulnerable adults within their communities; she explained how she was often entrusted with personal records from residents as they trusted her to use them appropriately, even though she had not asked to see them. She considered that Hounslow was in a minority for not carrying out DBS checks on Councillors. She had concerns about Councillors being elected with recent convictions for assault or domestic violence which could affect the integrity of the Council as a whole and its reputation in the community. She commended the proposals and observed that politics was largely about perception; Members managed a lot of money and had access to a lot of people’s intimate details and lives, and so should be checked.

Councillor John Todd considered that DBS checks were a complex issue. He had been DBS checked and he thought it right that others involved intimately involved with children, particularly those in care, should be too. He noted that minor convictions from under the age of eighteen were excluded from DBS checks. However, in the Soham case from a few years ago, it was a school caretaker who was preying on children and such checks would have helped prevent this. The police had often been slow or reluctant to prosecute in cases of child abuse, and perpetrators had been able to avoid prosecution by moving around the country, knowing that different police forces did not communicate well with each other. He accepted that DBS checks were an intrusion on people’s freedom and democracy but he considered that they were balanced by the horror of the crimes they could help prevent. As such, the matter was all about balance and the Council should consider the matter carefully, and bear in mind the need to set an example to the public.

Councillor Katherine Dunne expressed her support for the recommendations, but she stated that she understood the concerns of Councillor Lee and others. She fully supported rehabilitation and the need not to allow a criminal conviction to follow a person around for the rest of their lives. However, this needed to be balanced against the need to protect vulnerable children and adults. Members often carried out casework in people’s homes, and she asked that if the checks were required for staff, why should they not also be needed for Members. She clarified that the Labour Group wished to make DBS checks compulsory for Members but she accepted that this needed to be done within the law and she hoped that the subsequent policy that was drawn up if the recommendations were agreed, would reflect this need.

Councillor Dunne then accepted an intervention from Councillor Lee who asked if she would support checks only on sexual or fraud convictions. She replied that she supported the enhanced checks which looked at all convictions but accepted that the Council needed to be careful how it dealt with the information that came out of such checks.

Councillor Theo Dennison light heartedly noted that both politics and crime needed no skill. However, he more seriously observed that Councillors met vulnerable people who trusted them with private information to help them, and it was important for the Council to live up to their expectations. However, he accepted the point from Councillor Lee that safeguards needed to be put in place. He recalled working at the London Borough of Lambeth some years ago when it was suffering from many problems; every party on the Council at the time (which had no party in overall control) agreed that all Members should undergo the then equivalent of a DBS check to help cleanse it of perpetrators of fraud and sexual offences. He considered Hounslow to be very much better than Lambeth was at that time, but believed the principle to be the same – the Council needed to live up to standards in public life in order to win and keep the trust of its residents. He respected and understood the decision by the Conservative Group to abstain on the vote, but he regretted it too and wished that it was not a party political matter.

Councillor Lily Bath stated that she had supported DBS checks for Members when she was the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and she still did. All Members were legally corporate parents, even if they did not serve on a Council body that worked with and for children. They also worked with the public who would want their Councillors to be DBS checked. She accepted that the Council had to address the issue of what to do if a Member declined a DBS check but given that many other Boroughs already carried out such checks, she did not think this was an insurmountable problem.

Councillor Gerald McGregor also wished that the issue had not become a party political issue but reminded Members that the amendment to the recommendations had come directly from the Labour Group and there had been no cross party consultation on it. He stated that he was a school governor and had been DBS checked but he still considered the call to make it compulsory a retrograde step. He considered it authoritarian. He reminded Members that they had all been freely elected and so the recommendations seemed to be an attack on their integrity. His concern was not the proposal for DBS checks for Members but the compulsory aspect of the proposal and this made it an attack on the liberty of the individual.

Councillor Sam Hearn asked what would happen to Members who were found to have youthful indiscretions in their past. Whilst DBS checks did not pick up convictions prior

to the age of eighteen, it was still the case that one third of males under the age of twenty five had a criminal conviction. He asked about the enforcement policy that was still to be developed and asked that if a party decided to deselect a Member after a DBS check that should not “rub it in his face” out of common courtesy. He also noted that the role of the Council was to represent the community and that was not being done if there were no Members with a conviction on the Council.

There being no more debate, the Mayor invited Councillor Curran to sum up. Councillor Curran did so and made the following comments:

He thought that Councillors Thompson and Todd seemed uncomfortable with the idea of their group abstaining on the recommendations.

The Labour Group were sure their position was correct.

Staff had to have DBS checks and they instilled confidence with the public.

All Labour Party candidates to become Councillors had to be interviewed and make a declaration that there was nothing in their past that might bring the party into disrepute.

It was for each party to look at any youthful indiscretions that arose from the checks and make a judgement on how to proceed, based on its relevance to the role of the Councillor.

He did not think that things like youthful fights should be acted upon, whereas things like fraud should be.

It was important to reassure residents that Members were beyond reproach.

He considered that if the Monitoring Officer had a concern, they would need to speak to the relevant party leader about the issue.

The checks were supported by the Labour Group and were good enough for everyone. It was then RESOLVED –

That compulsory criminal records checks via the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) for all Members be agreed;

That the Standards Committee to authorised to agree a Member Criminal Checks Procedure; and

Subject to the above, responsibility be delegated to the Head of Governance to amend the constitution to reflect the above.

This was a majority decision. ACTION BY: Head of Governance 9. Update to the Constitution (CEX099) The Mayor advised that the Conservative Group had stated that it wished to move two amendments to the recommendations in this report in accordance with Council Standing Order 11g as detailed in the Constitution. The proposed amendments to the recommendation in the report were included in the tabled paper.

In the absence of Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care, the Mayor invited Councillor Steve Curran to introduce the report. He briefly did so and then clarified that he was disappointed to learn that although he thought he had previously reached an agreement with Councillor Todd on a number of points, Councillor Todd was now raising them again as part of the proposed amendments to the recommendations. As such, Councillor Curran stated that he could not support the proposed amendment and so was formally proposing the recommendations in the report. Councillor Shantanu Rajawat then seconded the report. The Mayor then invited Councillor Todd formally to introduce and propose the tabled amendment to the recommendation, which read as follows: “Proposed by Councillor John Todd and seconded by Councillor Peter Thompson:

1. Delete the amended suggested number of Councillors required to exercise the call-in process from 10 to 5 instead of the 8 proposed in the report. (See page 126, part 5, paragraph c

2. Restore the ability of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee unilaterally to exercise the call-in procedure (This original proposed change is mentioned on page 122, report summary box item 1. Appendix A deletes the reference to the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee being able unilaterally to call-in at page 126, part 5, paragraph c)”

Councillor Todd introduced his proposed amendments and in doing so, he made the following comments:

He was a firm believer in accountability and he reminded all Members that they had all signed up to the Nolan Principles of public life which required Members to justify and explain decisions.

He considered that the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was the guardian of these requirements and needed to be challenging in his/her role.

There were areas of the Council’s operation however where there was not transparency.

One example was Lampton 360 Ltd, where requests to see minutes of the board and other financial details had been declined.

Another example was a Labour Group working party which gave advice on a Direct Labour Organisation issue, despite not having political proportionality, not inviting Members of other parties to contribute and not allowing its minutes to be published.

He charged the Labour Administration with not being transparent in its decision making processes.

He paid tribute to Councillor Curran for his time as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2010/11. However, he observed that since that time, the number of Members required to call in a matter to the Committee for consideration had risen from three to ten.

This was iniquitous for the Conservative Group, which having eleven Members found itself unable to call matters in if two of its Councillors went on holiday at the same time.

He reminded Members that the report on recent scandals relating to Rotherham City Council had criticised the Council for having inadequate scrutiny.

The author of the Rotherham report had criticised a threshold of six Members for call in, so he was proposing five in the revised recommendation.

He had also sought the rescinding of the proposal to reduce the power of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to call decisions in for scrutiny, a proposal initially rejected by the Members Constitution Working Party at its meeting in October, but now once again included in the report before Members.

He feared that the Council was falling into the discredited ways recently seen in action in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

He applauded the new Labour Leader of that Council, John Biggs, for his intention to overturn the previous political culture of secrecy and make the Borough open by 2017/18.

He concluded by stating that he could not believe that Councillor Curran was keen to inhibit scrutiny in Hounslow, and so he was formally proposing the amendments to the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Peter Thompson seconded the proposals and made the following comments:

The Conservative Group accepted that the proposals for the threshold for call in within the published report was an improvement on the previous situation but the proposed amendments would make them better again, not just in practical terms but in principle.

The size of the threshold was important to consider when there were small parties elected to a Council.

He regretted the suggestion that the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be stripped of his/her power to call matters in for scrutinisation.

The power was rarely used but it was important and should be retained.

The outcome would be a reduction in the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its Chair being able to act independently and without political bias.

The Mayor asked Councillor Curran if he was prepared to accept the proposed amendments to the original recommendations. Councillor Curran advised that he was not. The Mayor then invited Members to debate the proposed amendments. Councillor John Chatt, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, advised that he and Councillor Curran had acquiesced to the wishes of the Conservative Party to reduce the threshold for call in, and so were proposing to reduce it from ten to eight. In addition, he did not think it necessary for the Chair to have the power to call matters in, and that any Member could do it. He remembered how some Members of both the Labour and the Conservative Groups had recently worked together to call in an issue, which proved the process was working. There being no more debate on the proposed amendments, the Mayor put them to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the proposed amendments to the recommendations not be agreed. This was a majority decision.

The Mayor then invited debate on the recommendations in the report, clarifying that they were unchanged. Councillor John Todd considered that Councillor Chatt had not properly read the proposed amendments. He added that he could cite senior and credible people who had done reviews on what made effective scrutiny arrangements. He then asked how the number of eight had been arrived at and suggested that it had been entirely arbitrary. There being no further debate, the Mayor invited Councillor Curran to sum up. Councillor Curran did so and made the following comments:

He observed that the Conservative Group stated that it was seeking openness but it had objected to the introduction of DBS checks in the discussion on the last agenda item.

He considered that their keenness to reduce the call in threshold was about electoral advantage in the run up to the next Council election.

He was pleased with how well the scrutiny arrangements in Hounslow operated already and used the recent cross party support for a call in on the Brent Lea Planning Application as a good example of Councillors coming together on a shared concern.

He considered that it was unfair to use the Rotherham City Council report in the debate.

The Labour Group believed that the Cabinet should not put pressure on the chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations would help safeguard that.

He considered that a call in threshold of eight was reasonable when the smallest party on the Council had eleven Members.

It was then RESOLVED –

That the changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules as set out in Appendix A of the report be agreed;

That the variations to the Contract Procedure Rules as set out in Appendix B of the report be agreed;

That authority be delegated to the Director of Finance and Corporate Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care to make any further minor changes to the Contract Procedure Rules as may be needed from time to time to reflect changes to post titles/Council structure, minor legislative changes and/or to remove any anomalies that may become apparent through the practical application of the Rules;

That authority be delegated to the Head of Governance to make the necessary changes to the Constitution; and

That it be noted that the changes in Appendix A have been considered and approved by both by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Members Constitution Working Party and the changes in Appendix B by the Members Constitution Working Party.

This was a majority decision.

ACTION BY: Director of Finance and Corporate Services/Head of Governance 10. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. The Mayor drew Members’ attention to the nominations for appointment included in the tabled paper. There being no additional nominations, it was RESOLVED – That the following appointments be made:

Gunnersbury Development Trust: The appointment of Councillor Sue Sampson to be the Borough’s nominated representative on the Gunnersbury Development Trust.

Thomas Layton Trust: The appointment of Councillor Guy Lambert to the Membership of the Trust, and also the re-appointment of sitting lay Member, Andrea Cameron.

ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services 11. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any) Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services It was RESOLVED – That the information be noted. TO NOTE: All Questions from Members 12. Councillor Peter Thompson to ask Councillor Amrit Mann, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment In the absence of Councillor Amrit Mann, Councillor Peter Thompson asked Councillor Steve Curran, the Leader of the Council, the following question.

“Does the Cabinet Member for Environment realise that five rail or tube footbridges in the Borough have lighting issues which raise concerns for pedestrian safety, (especially of women) and that staff at the London Borough of Hounslow Strategic Commissioning – Highways are struggling to get our partners to effectively join with the relevant outside bodies (Transport for London, Network Rail, South West Trains, London Underground Limited etc.) to focus on a long-term permanent solution for footbridge lighting?” Councillor Peter Thompson also thanked Councillor Curran for providing a written response (below) in the tabled paper circulated to Members present at the meeting. He also confirmed that he had no supplementary question. Councillor Steve Curran’s written response to the question was as follows: “In relation to the first part of the question relating to footbridges & their lighting:

“There are 16 footbridges in number (16x no.) owned and managed by the London Borough of Hounslow. These footbridges are all lit for pedestrian use and their lighting is currently maintained under contract with Hounslow Highways – and upon recent inspection is functioning well. There are an additional 39 bridges in the Borough listed as ‘Third Party Structures’ – 9 of which are footbridges that span rail lines. These bridges are ALL privately owned and managed by ‘third parties’ - that is to say; Network Rail, London Underground and Transport for London, etc. Some of these private bridges have pedestrian lighting while some do not.”

In relation to the second part of the question relating to a footbridge lighting solution

“Although it is an obvious desire to have all footbridges well-lit, there are some stumbling blocks: There is not a legal requirement to provide lighting for footbridges. It should be understood that street lighting in general is not actually a requirement, that it is an option for the local authority to provide street lighting. All local authorities in the UK do provide street lighting to a degree: it is accepted as standard practice to provide good street lighting in all towns and cities though a great many of more remote areas sometimes opt to provide street lighting only during specific hours and in rural areas outside of towns and cities, the majority of UK country road networks remains unlit. The London Borough of Hounslow has lit all of the streets and adjacent footways under local authority ownership. It only remains to try and have those bridges that are owned and maintained privately to be served with adequate pedestrian lighting. The London Borough of Hounslow is working with Hounslow Highways to remain in discussion with Network Rail, London Underground and others to agree a solution by which we can have our wish to have lighting to all footway bridges provided. There have been arguments between the authority and the rail providers, slowing the process with a disagreement over specific ownership of these bridges - However, as these bridges are not owned by the authority we are not able to force the rail providers to install the lighting. In fact, the rail providers typically don’t wish to provide lighting anywhere near

the bridges that span the rail lines out of concern for the danger of introducing ‘light glare’ that could obscure the train driver’s safe and clear view of the tracks in all weather conditions, night and day. This is a concern that conflicts with the authority’s want for well-lit foot bridges and is still a problem for almost every London Borough. The rail companies are quite within their rights to simply refuse to light these bridges. Our Strategic Commissioning Team here at the civic centre have been working with Hounslow Highways in a determined effort to find an agreeable solution whereby we might be able to gain permission to provide pedestrian lighting over rail bridges and also to satisfy the technical problems associated with the requirement to maintain safe rail lines for the drivers and line operators. Strategic Commissioning will continue ceaselessly in attempts to persuade the rail companies to come to a joint agreement of some kind”

The Mayor thanked Councillors Thompson and Curran. 13. Councillor Paul Lynch to ask Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education and Children's Services Councillor Paul Lynch asked Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education and Children's Services, the following question: “To what extent does the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services consider that staff have caught up on the backlog of written plans for young people with Special Educational Needs, as they progress from school provision to adult provision, and have any measures been taken to mitigate the effects of the delay on these very disadvantaged families?” In response, Councillor Bruce advised that it was right for the delays to be highlighted as an issue. The last Government had reformed special educational needs support which had resulted in such children being in a staggered transition to a new regime. However, this was causing trouble for all local authorities, a fact which had been recognised by the Minister for Children and Families. In the case of Hounslow, Councillor Bruce considered that the Council had good plans in place but acknowledged that it had not met the necessary deadlines. However, the Authority was therefore taking on more staff to deal with the issue and the situation this year was already ahead of where the Council had been at the same time last year. He was also able to confirm that no young person had missed out on the opportunity to start a post-16 or post-18 course or job this term. The move from the old arrangements to the new had proven difficult at all levels but the Council was doing what it could to ensure that it was done well and he reiterated that no-one had been disadvantaged by the delays. Councillor Lynch then asked a supplementary question: He had spent time talking families who had been affected by the uncertainty and were suffering stress resulting from the transition. He also accepted Councillor Bruce’s acknowledgement of the difficulties that had been faced so far. However, he asked what Councillor Bruce would say to the families in

question who still did not know if the process was complete, despite systems being in place since September 2014. Councillor Bruce responded by stating that it was distressing to learn that families were in stress and he asked Councillor Lynch to provide him with more details outside of the meeting, if he were permitted to do so, so that he (Councillor Bruce) could write to apologise to them. He undertook to write to all families concerned to apologise that the Council had not overseen the transition well enough. However, he was pleased to report that now, most cases had been finalised and that all should be completed by February 2016 which was within the deadline of 31st May 2016. He acknowledged again that the Council had not done well in this situation but that things were now much better, but he regretted any distress to families. ACTION BY: Councillor Tom Bruce 14. Councillor Shaida Mehrban to ask Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement Councillor Shaida Mehrban asked Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement, the following question: “In light of the new electoral registration process in place whereby every individual will need to register rather than households, how will the Cabinet Member tackle this very important issue?” In response, Councillor Dennison confirmed that there widespread concerns about the impact of the changes, including the need to provide identification documentation which could act as a barrier to participation. He considered that the best way forward was for there to be a firm plan on how to best ensure that as many people as possible were on the register. However, he then related two stories about the difficulties faced by the Elections Team. Officers in the team had contacted residents on five occasions to encourage them to register, yet about 8000 had still not responded afterwards. Similarly, at the start of the annual electoral canvass, every household was sent a letter, followed by a second one, and then a personal visit if they had not yet replied. Overall, the process had identified about 12000 new electors, but deleted about 15000 previously registered voters as they no longer lived in Hounslow. He undertook to provide a written brief to her. ACTION BY: Councillor Theo Dennison Councillor Mehrban declined the opportunity of a supplementary question. The Mayor thanked all Members for their questions and responses. Motions At this point, Councillor Shantanu Rajawat observed that the two and a half hour limit for the duration of the meeting was nearing and proposed that, in accordance with the Constitution, the relevant standing order be waived to allow the meeting to continue to permit the

consideration of the remaining items on the agenda. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Curran. The proposal was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the relevant standing order be waived to allow the meeting to continue to permit the consideration of the remaining items on the agenda. This was a majority decision. 15. Proposed by Councillor Elizabeth Hughes and Seconded by Councillor Alan Mitchell The Mayor invited Councillor Elizabeth Hughes to introduce the motion, which read as

follows:

“Tax Credits: This Council notes that over three million families will be affected by the

Government’s proposed cuts to tax credits. In Hounslow alone, around 12,000 working

families will lose on average £1,300 a year as a result of the proposed changes.

This Council believes that if the Government is serious about providing more help to

working families, its only option is to reverse these proposed cuts in the Chancellor’s

Autumn Statement.

This Council therefore resolves to call on the Chancellor to reverse his tax credits cuts in full as the fairest way of protecting the incomes of thousands of low and middle income working families in Hounslow.”

In introducing the motion, Councillor Hughes stated that the motion was very important and affected a lot of people in the Borough. The motion was seconded by Councillor Alan Mitchell who made the following comments:

He considered that any proposal to cut tax credits was wrong, until such time that wages were higher and housing costs were lower.

There had not been cuts of this scale since the days of rationing after the Second World War.

Whilst the Government was proposing to increase the minimum wage, this rise would benefit too few and in too small a way to offset the tax credits cut.

It would have an adverse impact on inequality.

The income gap was best closed with higher in-work benefits.

The outcome would be a rise in poverty.

The cuts would undermine families in Britain.

He asked Members to support residents in Hounslow who would be affected by the cuts.

It was shameful that such proposals were being made in 2015.

The Mayor then invited debate on the motion and the following comments were made:

Councillor David Hughes suggested that we now lived in a country where there was socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor – in that rich people got Government benefits and hand-outs whereas poor people got cuts and poor wages. Most normal working people had not seen wages rise in ten years. In Hounslow, there was a low wage economy whilst costs increased annually. He related the story of a neighbour who had wanted to move into private rented accommodation but as he did not earn the £33000 per annum needed, he could not do so. He declared that the economy itself was the thing from which people were suffering. He asked Members not to support the creation of more poverty in order to pay for the mistakes of the banks.

Councillor Peter Thompson expressed his view that doing nothing about tax credits was not an option and he reminded Members that it was Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Alastair Darling, who had said that tax credits were subsidising employers who did not pay their staff enough. This was a deplorable situation and needed to be addressed. He also clarified that there was no talk of scrapping tax credits. However, given than spending on tax credits trebled during ten years of Labour Governments whilst in-work poverty increased at the same time by 10%, the system needed to be reformed. He welcomed the increase in the living wage by the Government and noted that reviews of the effects of the tax credit reform had not taken into account extra free childcare worth £2000 per annum, nor the removal of the fuel duty escalator, wage increases, zero inflation and other relevant factors. He suggested that people were not looking at the whole package of reforms and were concentrating on just one. However, it was necessary to consider how things were paid for. He acknowledged that the timing on when the changes would be introduced was a reasonable concern and he hoped that Mr George Osborne, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, would address this shortly when making his Autumn Statement to the House of Commons. He then stated that it was his view that the Country was moving to a better system of higher wages and lower welfare costs, and reminded Members that the United Kingdom spent more on tax credits than our European neighbours such as France and Germany. To do nothing to reform tax credits would be unwise, and as this was seemingly what the motion was seeking, he could not support it.

Councillor Lily Bath expressed her support for the motion and her concerns about the tax credit proposals. She observed that the credits had been introduced to help those in work stay in work – whereas to lower the threshold of income by reducing tax credits also reduced the incentives to stay in paid employment if they were not paid a decent wage. She welcomed the increase in the living wage but did not consider it enough to compensate for the financial loss arising from the tax credit cuts. She also noted that the changes disproportionately affected single parents. She also lamented that it appeared to result in the poorest losing out most. She objected to the cuts as they were unfair and adversely affected vulnerable families and children living in the Borough.

Councillor Katherine Dunne charged the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, with breaking a promise as he had previously stated that he would not cut tax credits. Doing so would adversely affect the people the Government claimed that it wanted to support. In her view, the cuts were a disincentive to work and would affect more than three million families in the country, and about 12000 families in Hounslow. She

applauded moves to a higher wage economy with a consequential lessening of the reliance on benefits, but the increase in the minimum wage would not make this happen: the minimum wage was not a living wage, and by one calculation, the London Living Wage needed to increase to £11.65 to compensate for the tax credit cuts. Even with the proposed increase in the minimum wage, a quarter of workers would remain in poverty. The tax credit cuts would see an increase in child poverty of 200000 by next year. She predicted that with the ongoing welfare reforms, the need for support would be extended to many more people who were in employment.

Councillor Sachin Gupta noted that whilst Councillor Thompson had predicted that the National Living Wage would reduce the impact of the tax credit cuts, he (Councillor Gupta) did not think the cuts would make businesses increase their wages. He called on the Government to listen to the people and give money where it was needed.

Councillor Sue Sampson asked Councillor Thompson to confirm if the external consultants used by the 2006-2010 Council Administration that he led, had suggested paying the London Living Wage to Council staff.

Councillor Candice Atterton expressed her support for the motion. She knew many people who would be adversely affected by the reduction in tax credits. Some wanted to return to part time work after maternity leave but the cuts meant that the families would struggle to survive unless both parents worked full time. She predicted that the issue of children and young people going without time with their parents would become a problem for society. She then recalled the experiences of her mother, who had raised three children, all of whom were now contributing to society, but who had needed tax credits to help make work worthwhile for her as she did so. She asked Members to note the impact that the cuts would have on lone parents.

Councillor Shaida Mehrban argued that tax credits helped lots of people both get back to work and to improve their lives at home by sustaining family life. She feared that the removal of the credits would drive people out of employment as they could no longer afford to work in low paid jobs. She said that the credits were a lifeline and should be properly resourced.

Councillor Tom Bruce stated that it was clear that the people who would be hardest hit would be the poor. He recalled that in 1999, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Gordon Brown, had argued that introducing tax credits without also having a minimum wage would subsidise employers. However, the reverse was also true, namely that cutting tax credits would affect working households, particularly those with children. The cuts disproportionately affected different groups with single parents and families with children suffering the most. He reminded Members that 63% of children living in poverty were part of families with someone in work. As such he could not support the Government’s plans in relation to cutting tax credits.

There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Elizabeth Hughes to sum up. She did so by making the following comments:

The Labour Group were of one mind on the issue.

Tax credits were designed to get people into work and had been successful.

They were only claimable by people in work who were still poor – single people on incomes lower than £14 000 per annum or people on incomes lower than £19000 per annum if they had children to support.

It was much cheaper to pay this benefit than many others.

The average household income in the Borough was £23000 per annum but £1300 would be lost every year for those who claimed tax credits.

This could affect 23500 children in the Borough as well as vulnerable adults and disabled people.

She noted that both Mr Boris Johnson and Mr Zach Goldsmith, as London Mayor and Conservative Candidate for Mayor in May 2016, had expressed concerns about the effect of the cuts in London, as had up to seventy other Conservative Members of Parliament.

She asked Members to support the motion to urge the Government to rethink the proposals and stop working families suffering a heavy financial blow.

The Mayor then put the motion to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the following be agreed:

“Tax Credits: This Council notes that over three million families will be affected by the

Government’s proposed cuts to tax credits. In Hounslow alone, around 12,000 working

families will lose on average £1,300 a year as a result of the proposed changes.

This Council believes that if the Government is serious about providing more help to

working families, its only option is to reverse these proposed cuts in the Chancellor’s

Autumn Statement.

This Council therefore resolves to call on the Chancellor to reverse his tax credits cuts in full as the fairest way of protecting the incomes of thousands of low and middle income working families in Hounslow.”

This was a majority decision. 16. Proposed by Councillor Katherine Dunne and Seconded by Councillor Keith Anderson The Mayor invited Councillor Katherine Dunne to introduce the motion, which read as follows:

“Trade Union Bill: That this Council recognises the positive contribution that trade unions and trade union Members make in our workplaces. This Council values the constructive relationship that we have with our trade unions and we recognise their commitment, and the commitment of all our staff, to the delivery of good quality public services. This Council notes with concern the Trade Union Bill which is currently being proposed by the Government and would affect this Council’s relationship with our trade unions and our workforce as a whole. This Council rejects this Bill’s attack on local democracy and the attack on our right to manage our own affairs.

This Council resolves to support the campaign against the unnecessary, anti-democratic and bureaucratic Trade Union Bill. This Council further resolves to seek to continue its own locally agreed industrial relations strategy and will take every measure possible to maintain its autonomy with regard to facility time and the continuing use of check-off.”

In introducing the motion, Councillor Dunne made the following statement:

“Along with many of the Members on this side of the chamber, and at least some on the other, I am a Member of a trade union because unions are there to protect people’s rights in the workplace. Workers who are Members of trade unions or who benefit from a unionised workplace are paid more and are happier and more productive at work. They also suffer fewer workplace related injuries because of the important work that unions put into health and safety. Unions ensure that changes in the workplace are carried out in a fair manner and that agreed procedures are followed. Public sector workplaces in particular have benefitted from union presence. For example, research has shown that staff turnover is almost three times lower and the industrial tribunal rate 14 times lower in NHS (National Health Service) workplaces with union representatives compared to those without. So don’t be under any illusions, the Tory Trade Union Bill is not about making workplaces more efficient or redressing the balance against unions that have become “too powerful”. It is an ideologically driven piece of legislation designed to attack working people and take away our rights. It is an assault on the right to strike and peaceful protest, and on the right to facility time and then there is the unnecessary meddling that seeks to end check-off in the public sector. I am a trade union representative at work but here at the Council I sit on the other side of the table. This has confirmed for me what I always knew: that good employers also benefit from unions. Of course there are sometimes disagreements, and we don’t always get things right, but staff engagement is key to harmonious outcomes in the workplace and this Council appreciates the important role that trade unions play in that. This Government, on the other hand, seems determined to push through changes that employers don’t even want. Local Government employers weren’t asked whether we wanted to restrict facility time and end check-off. It’s an unnecessary disruption that we weren’t consulted on. Once again a Government that preaches localism is undermining its own rhetoric by pursuing a draconian, centralist agenda. Surely local authorities should be allowed to decide whether they want to continue with arrangements that have worked for decades? The Government’s arguments against check-off don’t make sense and are inconsistent. Why should it be illegal to deduct union subs at source but not payments for childcare vouchers, bike schemes, season ticket loans and social clubs? Why are public sector employers being dictated to when the private sector is not? The idea that ending check-off will save administration fees for the public sector is unfounded because employers can charge unions a fee to cover this.

Likewise, we value our own arrangements regarding facility time. Whilst the unions here are supported by professional full time regional officers, it is important for staff morale to have local representatives on site. Given appropriate facility time, shop stewards can often deal with a problem before things escalate into something more serious. Is this something we want to lose? Ultimately, unions are about solidarity. That’s why this Council, along with many others, with Labour MPs, and with workers up and down the country, will speak out against the Trade Union Bill. We support the campaigns of UNISON, the GMB and the TUC to oppose the bill and join with other employers to ask the Government not to drive through these changes that will be to the detriment of our relationship with our workers.”

Councillor Keith Anderson seconded the motion. The Mayor then invited debate on the motion and the following comments were made:

Councillor Peter Thompson suggested that to claim that the Trade Union Bill was an attack on trades unions was nonsense. However, the freedom to strike should not be unconditional and it was reasonable to require a 50% turnout in a vote for big industrial action. He also considered it reasonable to require a 40% threshold for votes in key public services. He noted that there had been a health professionals related strike where only 19% of the eligible staff had voted, which meant that strike action had occurred when only 10% had wanted it. He considered that the objection to changes to check-off to be odd. He was a Member of a trade union and paid his fees by direct debit. There was a cost of the check-off scheme as Councillor Dunne had admitted and he asked if it was right for the Council to pay it instead of charging trade union Members the cost of the service; it was in effect a subsidy to the union. He did not see why paying by direct debit was problematic: to charge public bodies for union subscription arrangements no longer made sense. He also noted that the Bill’s proposal to have a union representative present at industrial action to prevent intimidation was merely regularising what already happened. He suggested that the concerns and anger at the bill were synthetic and the claims were a case of “over-egging the pudding”.

Councillor Ed Mayne quoted former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, who said ““Trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life” and whilst he (Sir Winston) had been no friend of unions, he had met with trades union leaders and business leaders alike when in Government. In 1964 the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) had televised a debate between Labour and Conservative supporting trades unionists and there were still many countries where politically right leaning parties supported unions. Given the long standing role of unions in mainstream politics in Britain, and the historic connection between them and the main political parties, he questioned why the current Government was attacking unionised labour. He reminded Members that fewer days were lost to industrial action in the country than ever before. He regretted that neither the Mayor of London nor the Prime Minister would now meet union leaders, even though they both willingly met business leaders. He stated that union Members accepted the need for compromise on issues raised by Councillor Thompson; Mr Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, had also been worried over voting numbers in workplace ballots but his proposals on how this might be dealt with were not considered by the Prime Minister.

He (Councillor Mayne) saw no need for the Bill and, observing that Councillor McGregor had previously spoken about how well the 2006-2010 Conservative led Administration of the Council had liaised with trades unions, he considered that this showed there was no need for stronger measures. He also considered that a deal could easily be done to improve industrial relations with the unions who worked on London Underground. He concluded by supporting the motion.

Councillor Bob Whatley considered that if the proportions being proposed in the Bill for votes to be valid were applied to Council elections, a large number of Members currently sitting in the Chamber would not have been elected. He considered that the outcome of the Bill would be for Britain to have the most draconian union legislation in the democratic world. He observed that the Council’s own relationship with the unions was a good example of how things could work well – he considered the unions to be partners with the Council, and far from always going on strike, they often helped assist the Authority in preventing small issues escalating into something bigger. He accepted that there were arguments for doing away with check-off arrangements but he stated that these arguments were not the ones being used in the case of the Trade Union Bill. In his view, the proposed legislation was being introduced to weaken the trades union movement. He regretted that the Conservative Party had not moved on from the time of Margaret Thatcher thirty years ago, and still saw unions as “the enemy within”. In his view, the trades union movement helped resolve problems rather than cause them. Nor did he think that the London Transport unions were in any way an example of how the trades union movement usually operated. He therefore supported the motion.

At 10.40pm, the Mayor briefly left the Council Chamber, and so Councillor Myra Savin, as Deputy Mayor, assumed the Chair. The Mayor returned to the Chamber at 10.45pm and resumed his role as Chair of the meeting.

Councillor Paul Lynch observed light-heartedly that following the declarations of union Membership at the beginning of the meeting, the Council was lucky to have so many boilermakers in the room, particularly with winter on hand. He then addressed the motion and observed that Labour Party Members had spoken about a systematic attack on unions, whereas Mr McCluskey had identified the same issues as those concerning the Government and even prepared a response to resolve them. Therefore, it was his view that the Government’s was right to have highlighted the issues. Consequently, he found himself in the rare position of agreeing with Mr McCluskey in thinking that the numbers of people taking part in workplace ballots should be increased. He then observed that strong willed unions, who wrongly thought that they had a mandate, often caused huge damage to jobs and industries. He had spent some time working in the mining industry and he hoped never to see a strike like the one in 1984 led by Mr Arthur Scargill. Similarly, he recalled how Mr Jack Dash, the dockers’ leader, had initiated industrial action that had destroyed the London docks as a business in the 1960s. Felixstowe was a non-unionised port at the time, and was now the biggest one in Britain. He did not recognize the picture of the forward looking trades unions that some Members were trying to paint. His experience showed that unions often destroyed jobs and needed to be kept in check by legislation. He himself was a Member of a union but he knew that nearly everybody had a “union horror story” and he recalled a time when the BBC was recording an episode of Songs of Praise in a hospice and the filming was halted as a vase of flowers needed to be moved for a shot but as the prop mover’s shift had ended, and no-one else was permitted to move it for

fear of a demarcation dispute and an immediate walk out. He concluded by saying that once unionized workers in Councils were seemingly more important than residents, but this had now changed due to appropriate legislation.

Councillor Gerald McGregor recalled how the public sector unions had done themselves no favours by organising the “winter of discontent”, with a series of sustained industrial actions. He also noted that two Members had referred to the legislation as draconian, and yet Mr Ernest Bevin, the former Labour Party’s wartime Minister of Labour, had used conscription to get miners. Similarly, Mr Herbert Morrison, the former Labour Home Secretary, during the Second World War, had threatened striking miners with the Defence of the Realm Act. He noted that more recently, the positive attributes of trades unions that many Members had been extolling, were not visible in the London Underground unions. He had been happy to engage with unions when he had been a Cabinet Member in the past, but he was of the view that minority votes which forced people who did not want to take industrial action into doing do, were wrong. He accepted that collective responses made unions strong but individual freedoms and liberty also needed to be maintained. He believed in the world of Tom Payne and the American Constitution rather than the philosophy of collectivism which suggested “led to the Gulag”.

Councillor Sachin Gupta considered that the Bill was an attack on working class families. In addition, he did not consider unions to be the destroyer of jobs. He recalled the LSG Skychefs strike in 1998, when the company sacked 300 people in Hounslow who had joined a one day protest at changes to their working conditions. Consequently, the protest lasted eighteen months. The staff were reinstated only after the unions fought for it. He knew of other similar stories where workers were sacked for striking over working conditions and the unions had helped resolve the strike and get the workers reinstated. He concluded by reiterating his view that the Bill would adversely affect working class families.

Councillor David Hughes paid tribute to Mr Bill Morris and Ms Mary Turner as great union leaders of the past and present. He said that unions still had an important role in ensuring that people were well treated at work and this was all the more necessary given the erosion of workers’ rights under successive Conservative Governments. He has been harassed for being a trade union activist in his workplace. Contrastingly, in Germany, companies took trade unions seriously which resulted in better productivity. Conversely in Britain, companies were sold off and lawyers were used to prevent workers fighting back. Unions however gave the power back to employees to fight abuses of power.

Councillor Candice Atterton argued that in the last thirty years, the trades unions had been equal partners with local authorities to help reduce budgets, even if it was done with a heavy heart. However, the Conservatives saw unions as “the enemy within” which was a misrepresentation of truth. In her view, trades unions worked tirelessly to keep services running and cost effective, despite cuts in Council funding. However, this benefit to the Council would reduce if facility time were reduced as a result of the Bill. She considered the Trade Union Bill as a way of gagging the working majority. However, only through mutual respect could everyone succeed.

Councillor Richard Foote observed that the Government in the 1980s had emasculated trades unions through legislation. Since then, inequality had spiralled out of control resulting in people like teachers being unable to afford to buy a house in the capital,

and things like tax credits had had to be introduced to make working financially viable. He therefore supported the motion.

Councillor Sam Hearn stated that he was in a quandary; he agreed with many of the Labour Group’s comments that a responsible and strong trades union movement had much to be said for it. However, he also had significant concerns about workplace ballot turn out figures. A local sector strike had the power to affect greater numbers of residents than Members ever could. He also observed that whilst Thatcherite trades union legislation had been described as iniquitous, none of it has been repealed by subsequently Labour Governments. He asked if the Labour Party would be seeking to overturn the Bill in its manifesto, if it were to become law. He suggested that if it did, it would not be reflective of what the British people wanted.

Councillor Hanif Khan argued that if people were not allowed to negotiate and talk, industrial relations would suffer. In his view, unions did not lose jobs, they saved lives.

Councillor Elizabeth Hughes stated that she did not recognise much of the trades union activities described by Conservative Members. At the GMB union conference this year, most delegates were under the age of twenty-five, and the union was democratic and inclusive, although it also had lots of “old fashioned committee structures”. The unions were pursuing a social justice agenda, and trying to give people a voice and an education. Mary Turner, the GMB President, had previously been a dinner lady and the union had helped her. The union had a profit making law firm, but was very overworked at airports, particularly in relation to American airline companies which tended to ignore workers’ rights. At heart, trades unions were organised labour which was not a bad thing, and this helped people to work together to improve their situation.

There being no more debate, the Mayor invited Councillor Dunne to sum up. In doing so, Councillor Dunne made the following comments:

She accepted that there were “horror stories” relating to unions and like any organisations, trades unions often had shortcomings.

However, trades unions usually acted responsibly for the rights of workers, which had to be fought for in the past as they were not forthcoming from employers.

In Hounslow, the relationship with unions was modern and forward looking.

Unions wanted to increase workplace ballot turnout but were not allowed to do so.

The Government was forcing through changes undermining the right to strike and make peaceful protests.

The Government had also increased fees for making applications to industrial tribunals which had reduced the number of cases.

By doing so, the Government also undermined pregnant women who were discriminated against at work.

She therefore commended the motion to Members. The Mayor then put the motion to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the following be agreed:

“Trade Union Bill: That this Council recognises the positive contribution that trade unions and trade union Members make in our workplaces. This Council values the constructive relationship that we have with our trade unions and we recognise their commitment, and the commitment of all our staff, to the delivery of good quality public services. This Council notes with concern the Trade Union Bill which is currently being proposed by the Government and would affect this Council’s relationship with our trade unions and our workforce as a whole. This Council rejects this Bill’s attack on local democracy and the attack on our right to manage our own affairs. This Council resolves to support the campaign against the unnecessary, anti-democratic and bureaucratic Trade Union Bill. This Council further resolves to seek to continue its own locally agreed industrial relations strategy and will take every measure possible to maintain its autonomy with regard to facility time and the continuing use of check-off.”

This was a majority decision. 17. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent There were no such items. 18. Date of Next Meeting Members noted that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled for 26th January 2016 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber 19. Exclusion of Press and Public It was

RESOLVED –

That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

20. Appendix to Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2015/16 (CEX99) Members noted that part 2 appendix to the report at agenda item 7, Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2015/16 (CEX99)

21. Any Other Items Which The Mayor Considers Urgent And Are Exempt From Publication There were no such items. The meeting concluded at 11.15pm