Three Wandsworth councillors have been banned from speaking up for their residents at Full Council meetings.
The ban means Cllr Malcolm Grimston, Cllr Mark Justin and Cllr Nick Austin cannot stand up and raise problems in their wards – whether that’s crime, potholes, planning decisions or anything else their residents care about. Only Labour and Conservative councillors can do that now.
Between them, the three represent around 18,000 residents across West Hill, Nine Elms and West Putney. Those residents voted for councillors who are now gagged.
Everyone involved says this was a mistake. But nobody will commit to fixing it.
How we got here
Cllr Grimston brought this problem to Putney.news after he was blocked from challenging Leader Simon Hogg over a misleading answer about complaints against the council.
Grimston has served on Wandsworth Council for over 30 years. Throughout that time, every councillor – regardless of party – could raise local issues at Full Council through what was called the adjournment debate.
Earlier this year, the council rewrote its rulebook. The policy documents were clear about what this change was meant to do. Paper 24-194 said the new system would “allow Members to raise local matters.” The council’s top lawyer told the committee it would “enable members to draw the Council’s attention” to issues.
But somewhere between policy and final text, new words appeared. The actual rule now says councillors can only speak “through their Group Whip.”
Only Labour and the Conservatives have whips. Everyone else is locked out.
At last Wednesday’s Full Council, Grimston told the chamber he’d spoken to councillors across parties before the changes were approved. None of them intended this.
“I’ve talked to the leader, I’ve talked to both Whips, I’ve talked to Councillor Osborn, I’ve talked to yourself, Mr Mayor, who were actually on that committee,” he said. “At no point was it ever suggested by any member that the outcome of this should be to exclude members who are not part of a group.”
So where did those words come from?
“I don’t know why and I don’t know where whoever drafted Standing Order 39A got the idea that that was what the committee wanted,” Grimston said. “There’s absolutely no justification for that in what was said by any member.”
He described it as a “two-hour meeting” where councillors were reviewing multiple complex changes. “A cynic would say this was slipped past the members. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention.”
A national party doesn’t count either
Cllr Mark Justin represents Reform UK – a national political party. He’s invited to pre-council meetings as head of a political party. But he still can’t speak for his residents.
The council’s Director of Law and Governance confirmed it in writing: “A group on the Council can be formed by two or more elected members. Membership of national parties without the minimum number of Councillors on the Council does not constitute a group.”
One councillor from a national party: silenced. One councillor who’s served 30 years: silenced. One councillor who exited the Conservatives: silenced.
Justin warned what this means for future elections: “God help any single Green party, single Independent or single Liberal who gets elected in May 2026.”
Leaders could fix this today. They haven’t.
Here’s what makes this remarkable: nobody defends what happened. But nobody will fix it either.
Mayor Jeremy Ambache, who sat on the committee that approved the changes, admitted in an email to Grimston that it was “a missed opportunity” to consider independents. He said there “may be good reason to review this Standing Order in future.”
But when Grimston raised it at Full Council, the Mayor offered nothing concrete: “Doesn’t stop it being looked at again in the future.”
No apology. No timeline. No promise to act.
The Leader or the Mayor could resolve this tomorrow. They could acknowledge the mistake publicly. They could commit to fixing it at the next General Purposes Committee. They could apologise to the residents whose councillors have been gagged.
They have done none of these things.
Why the parties might not care
Minutes before Grimston raised his complaint, Cllr Peter Graham, the Conservatives’ finance spokesman, was praising the same rule changes – because they gave his party something they wanted.
“It’s nice to be able to speak on these items for decision,” Graham said. “For many years we were under the impression that that was not permitted under the standing orders, but under the various changes – I suppose if I was being polite or nice, liberalisation – we are now allowed to do so.”
The irony was brutal: Graham celebrating new rights for party members, moments before Grimston would highlight how those same changes stripped rights from independents.
Labour got what it wanted from the changes. The Conservatives got what they wanted. The people who lost out have no bloc to fight for them.
What this means
If you live in West Hill, Nine Elms or West Putney, your councillor cannot raise your concerns at Full Council. They can ask written questions. They can speak if someone else raises a topic. But they cannot stand up and say: “There’s a problem in my ward and I want to talk about it.”
That right – which every councillor had for decades – has been taken away.
The council that promised to be “more open” under Simon Hogg’s leadership has instead created a system where only the two big parties get a voice.
It’s been a week since Grimston made this undeniable at Full Council. Still no apology. Still no timeline. Still no commitment to fix it.
The silence is the story.
