Hounslow Labour loses its majority and must protect scrutiny

Hounslow Labour no longer holds an overall majority. The council’s current councillor directory lists 31 Labour and Labour and Co-operative members among its 62 councillors. Councillor Gurbachan Athwal, who represents Heston East, is now listed as Independent. For residents in Isleworth and Osterley, the practical question is how the administration will govern and how its decisions will be challenged.

Athwal faces a charge of fraud by abuse of position. The Metropolitan Police said he was charged by postal requisition on 25 September 2026 and is due at Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday 27 October. The case concerns his former role as treasurer of Sri Guru Singh Sabha Southall. He is presumed innocent; a charge is not a finding of guilt.

In his public statement, Athwal described his Labour suspension as an “administrative suspension” and said: “I am participating fully in the process of clearing my name.” He also said he would continue supporting Labour and the local Labour administration while carrying out his council duties.

That stated support matters politically. If all 31 Labour councillors and Athwal vote together, they would have 32 votes against a maximum of 30 from the remaining councillors. This is an illustration of the numbers, not a prediction of attendance or any particular vote. His support does not turn an Independent seat back into a Labour seat, nor does it guarantee agreement on every decision.

A council with no overall control can still have an administration. Losing a party majority does not, by itself, announce a change of leader or a new coalition. But residents deserve a clear account of the support on which Councillor Shantanu Rajawat’s administration intends to rely. Any agreement affecting policy or governance should be explained publicly, including what has been agreed and where councillors retain freedom to disagree.

Conservative group leader Councillor Jack Emsley has called for constitutional changes to be paused, arguing that the minority administration should not reduce scrutiny. That is an opposition position, not a settled finding about the council’s powers. Its underlying concern nevertheless deserves attention: the rules governing questions and debate affect every resident, whoever holds office.

Rajawat previously defended the changes as a way to keep meetings focused and said that political group leaders had been invited to discuss them.

The council’s own record shows that its Audit and Governance Committee recommended revised procedure rules on 8 September, with the council and committee rules each passing that stage by four votes to two. The changes then appeared on the 15 September Borough Council agenda. An agenda establishes what was scheduled, not the final outcome.

TW7.info’s view is that the council should explain the present status of those changes and review any provisions that would limit meaningful questioning or debate. Meetings need to be manageable, and repetition can waste everyone’s time. Efficiency should be judged by whether councillors can reach informed decisions after proper challenge. A shorter meeting is not automatically a better meeting.

Any review should involve the different political groups and be easy for residents to follow. It should explain how questions are allocated, how competing motions reach the agenda and what happens when important business needs more time. Those arrangements should be fair enough to command confidence even if the governing party changes. The administration should be able to defend them on that basis.

The criminal proceedings require a separate discipline. We will not speculate about evidence, motives or the outcome of Athwal’s case. Neither his party status nor a vote cast at the town hall establishes anything about the allegation. The accusation against one individual should not be used to cast suspicion on a Sikh institution or the wider community.

Residents can expect councillors to continue dealing with housing, services and other local concerns while that process takes its course. Opposition members should test proposals and offer workable alternatives. The administration should answer challenges and make its reasons visible. A finely balanced chamber can encourage cooperation, but that benefit depends on how its members choose to behave.

Labour may retain enough support to carry its business through the council. It should use that position to build confidence through clear decisions, fair procedures and effective scrutiny. Residents should be able to see who supported a proposal, why it was adopted and how its results will be assessed. That is the standard TW7.info would expect from any administration in Hounslow.