The General Purposes Committee of Wandsworth Council met on Monday 18 November 2024 to review polling districts and places and to discuss proposed changes to procurement governance. The committee agreed to the proposed polling scheme for 2025-2029 and recommended significant changes to the council's constitution regarding procurement thresholds and officer delegation limits.

Polling Districts and Places Review

The committee reviewed the proposed polling scheme for 2025-2029, which will take effect from 1 February 2025. Mr Andrew Smith, Head of Electoral Services and Elections, presented the report, highlighting that the review was a statutory requirement every five years. The proposed changes were minimal, primarily involving tidying up polling district labelling in Balham and East Putney wards, confirming the venue for the LVA polling district in Lavender ward, and maintaining the current polling places in Nine Elms ward.

During the discussion, Councillor Lynsey Hedges of Balham Ward welcomed the changes to polling district labelling, noting that previous arrangements had caused confusion. Councillor Jeremy Ambache, Mayor of Wandsworth and representing West Putney Ward, raised concerns about disabled access to polling stations. Mr Smith assured the committee that accessibility was a priority, with ramps available and inspectors conducting access checklists. He acknowledged that some older buildings presented challenges but stated that no issues had been reported in the past year. Councillor Peter Graham of West Hill Ward raised a point about the LVB polling station in Lavender Ward being located outside the ward boundary, and requested an ongoing effort to find more suitable venues. Mr Smith agreed to continue reviewing such locations, balancing the need for continuity with convenience for voters. Councillor Angela Ireland questioned the cost of hiring venues, and was informed that for local elections, the council covered these costs. Councillor Sarah Apps of Sheffield Queenstown Ward inquired about the use of venues from other faiths, and Mr Smith confirmed the council was open to using any suitable venue, not just churches.

The committee resolved to agree to the polling districts and polling places scheme as set out in the report and to note that the new scheme would be kept under review.

Procurement Governance Update and Changes

The committee then discussed proposed changes to the council's procurement governance, presented by Mr Mark Glaister, Assistant Director of Procurement. The report detailed overdue updates to internal procurement regulations, aligning them with the new Procurement Act and increasing thresholds for seeking quotes and tenders, which had not been updated for over 12 years.

Key proposals included:

• Introduction of a Procurement Scoping Report sensitivity analysis: This would help determine which contracts require scrutiny by Overview and Scrutiny Committees (OSCs) and which could be delegated to the Procurement Board. Biannual procurement forward plans would also be introduced for OSCs.
• Amendments to thresholds for seeking quotes and tenders: The threshold for seeking quotes would increase from £1,500 to £20,000, and the upper limit for seeking multiple quotes would rise from £50,000 to £100,000.
• Changes to officer delegation limits for contract awards: The limit for officers to approve contract awards would increase from £214,000 to £3 million for the lifetime value of a contract. While engagement with Cabinet Members would still occur, their formal sign-off would not be required for contracts within this new limit.
• Introduction of Contract Classifications: Contracts would be classified as Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze to adopt a more targeted approach to contract management.
• Establishment of a new Strategic Commissioning Board: This board, along with the Tollgate Zero process, aims to improve cross-directorate collaboration and early member engagement in commissioning.
• General updates to internal Procurement Regulations: These included renaming them to Contract Standing Orders and updating job titles and references to reflect current legislation.

Councillor Graeme Henderson, Cabinet Member for Health, supported the proposed changes, emphasizing the need for streamlined processes while maintaining scrutiny. He noted that the current SO83(A) process was often seen as a formality and needed reform. Councillor Ireland questioned how members would be involved at an early stage, and was informed about the enhanced forward planning process and engagement with OSC chairs.

Councillor Peter Graham expressed concerns about the proposed changes, particularly regarding the increase in delegation limits and the potential for contracts to be signed off without sufficient member oversight. He argued that the constitutional changes themselves were not fully detailed in the paper. He also raised a point about the Cost of Living Programme Board's delegated powers still requiring SO83(A) approval for key decisions, questioning the consistency of the proposed changes.

Four amendments were proposed by the opposition:

• Amendment 1: To ensure updated versions of the Constitution include an explanatory note listing changes. This was lost.
• Amendment 2: To clarify that restrictions on communication with contractors should only apply to those directly related to procurement activity. This was lost.
• Amendment 3: To ensure any contract with an annual value above £200,000 is subject to sign-off by the relevant Cabinet Member. This was lost.
• Amendment 4: To ensure that any changes to the Constitution are approved by Full Council and that a list of proposed changes is provided. This was lost.

Despite the debate and the proposed amendments, the committee resolved to recommend to Full Council the approval of the proposed changes to procurement governance, including the introduction of a sensitivity analysis, updated thresholds, increased officer delegation limits, new contract classifications, the establishment of a Strategic Commissioning Board, and general updates to the Procurement Regulations. The committee also recommended delegating authority to the Director of Law and Governance to make consequential changes to the Constitution.