Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

The Depute Monitoring Officer advised the Council that the Lord Provost and Depute Provost were both unable to be present in the Chamber, although they were in attendance online, and therefore the Council was required to appoint a Convener in terms of Standing Order 19.1.3.

Councillor Radley moved, seconded by Councillor Greig:-

That the Council appoint Councillor Yuill as Convener.

Councillor Malik moved as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Graham:-

That the Council appoint Councillor Crockett as Convener.

On a division, there voted:-

For the motion  (22)  -  Lord Provost; and Councillors Al-Samarai, Allard, Alphonse, Buchanan, Hazel Cameron, Clark, Cooke, Copland, Cormie, Davidson, Fairfull, Greig, Henrickson, Hutchison, MacGregor, McLellan, McRae, Mennie, Radley, van Sweeden and Yuill.

For the amendment   (19)  -  Councillors Ali, Blake, Bonsell, Boulton, Brooks, Crockett, Cross, Farquhar, Graham, Grant, Lawrence, Macdonald, McLeod, Malik, Massey, Nicoll, Thomson, Tissera and Watson.

Absent from the division  (2)  -  Depute Provost and Councillor Kusznir.

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the motion and therefore appoint Councillor Yuill as Convener.

The Council had before it the wording of the written request for this special Council meeting which had been signed by 12 members in accordance with Standing Order 8.2.2:-

“The business to be transacted relates to the failure of the administration members of the Communities, Housing and Public Protection Committee on 26^th August 2025, to consider seeking advice on financial flexibilities to achieve a just and equitable settlement for RAAC homeowners in line with the Scottish Government position expressed most recently by the Cabinet Secretary for Housing Mairi McAllan on 27^th August 2025.”

The Convener advised that he had to address a procedural matter. In accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders, namely 8.2.3, any motion intended to be considered at this meeting must be submitted alongside the requisition notice. He noted that unfortunately, that requirement was not met in this instance. As such, the Convener determined that the motion in question could not proceed. He stated that this decision had been made to uphold the integrity of the Council’s procedures and ensure fairness and consistency in how meetings were conducted. The meeting was therefore concluded.