LAST time, I wrote about the GatHER satellite event we were about to have here in Inverclyde, encouraging women to take up their space in public life.

This was such a valuable event, which allowed questions to be asked and answered as well as experiences to be shared and explored in a really positive environment.

One of the questions on the day gave me great cause for reflection at the time, and I have continued to reflect on it since. In essence, it was about bringing your own personality and approach into meetings – in our case to the council chamber.

It is certainly true that we all, as elected representatives, each bring forward our personalities in how we express our values and our approach to the work that we do.

My response to the question, which was framed around having politics be less aggressive, was that I have never gone into our chamber, or a meeting, simply to have a fight or to get at someone.

I may go in with distinct points to make, and I definitely go in trying to make a difference because sometimes, simply making a point is not even remotely good enough for the matter at hand.

This was very much the context our group were in at our last Full Council meeting. An item was on the agenda which we felt was only making a point when there was the opportunity to make a difference. A motion was brought forward that amounted to communicating to River Clyde Homes (RCH) that we, as a council, were not happy with them.

Believing wholeheartedly, as I do, and as I know my group does, that the housing people live in is the single biggest social determinant of health and wellbeing, this motion fell way short of the effectiveness we wanted to see. So, we brought forward an amendment.

Our amendment requested that we ask direct questions of, not only RCH, but all our registered social landlords (RSLs) – after all, we represent all social tenants, not just those of RCH.

Our amendment would have required the RSLs to provide information in respect of their properties in five key areas, including quantifying their current backlogs in outstanding repairs. This would have given us robust information with which to hold them all to account for their rate of progress going forward.

On the day, the motion, telling one RSL that we are not happy with them – with no substantial further action behind this – won. We had the opportunity to make a difference, and instead the choice was made to make a point. The majority decision in the chamber that day brought no material change to the accountability of RSLs, rather than bringing more, on behalf of our constituents.

READ MORE: River Clyde Homes slammed by council over 'slum' housing

As the wording of our unsuccessful amendment was not publicly available (which is often the case) in the same way that the wording of the original motion was, we ensured that this was communicated with the Greenock Telegraph as the matter continued, post meeting. To date, I do not think this has been published. This is unfortunate, as it means some subsequent comments have been made without our additional information being known.

Frustration was a word that was returned to several times during our debate around this motion. The frustration is real, both from tenants and elected members. That is indisputable. The debate is about the route to solutions. Whether it be via a dedicated email address, regular ward-specific engagements or through the relationships we have with officers in RCH as an individual organisation, there are routes to a solution – we have to use them. Where we feel they are not working, we have to be direct about the change we want to see and call for it to be made.

At all times we must work in partnership with the other organisations serving the people of Inverclyde: respectfully holding each other to account, being solution focused, and crucially using every opportunity we have to bring about change. Making a point when there are actions to be taken is an empty gesture. That is in no way what you have elected us to do.