a)    By Councillor Davey

 

This council agrees to review the issues highlighted within the following reports: RBWM Corporate Peer Review Challenge Sep 2017, CIPFA Review of Financial Governance of July 2019 & CIPFA Review of Governance Final Report of June 2020 and ensure they are fully addressed by March 2022.

 

b)   By Councillor Davies

 

Both Parliament and this Council have declared an Environmental and Climate Emergency. There is currently a Bill before Parliament, which, if enacted, would require the government to develop a strategy to address the emergency; enshrine the Paris Agreement and Leaders’ Pledge for Nature into law; and ensure the UK takes full responsibility for our entire greenhouse gas and ecological footprints.

 

This Council:

 

e)    Declares its support for the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (published as the “Climate and Ecology (No. 2) Bill”);

 

ii)     Requests that the Leader of the Council writes an open letter to the Members of Parliament for Maidenhead and Windsor (shared with our residents through local and social media) urging them to sign up to support the Bill; and

 

iii)   Further requests that the Leader of the Council writes to the CEE Bill Alliance, the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, expressing the Council’s support.

 

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

 

Motion a)

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. He explained that at the last full council meeting Councillor Johnson had said the administration was candid when it got things wrong and there was always room for improvement. From the responses given to the questions by himself and Councillor Knowles it was apparent that while officers were doing their best to facilitate the recommendations made by senior members of other councils, there was a level of cherry picking by the administration.

 

Councillor Davey stated that not making use of the best possible chairs to ensure thorough governance was, in his opinion, short sighted. By way of an example, if there was a hung council next time around he would strongly recommend Councillor Hilton as Chairman of Planning as he had shown exemplary leadership in this area. By making Councillor McWilliams Vice Chair on Planning went against many of the recommendations in those reports.

 

Councillor Davey commented that he was probably very naive and idealistic wanting council to be more accountable, more transparent and open to public criticism, actually ‘Putting Residents First’ not just being a soundbite. Every Councillor who took the time to read the reports would find their own issues which needed addressing and so it would be good to have those discussions, to identify those issues and look for cross-party agreement on how they might be resolved. Officers would be best placed to advise what had been addressed, what was in the pipeline and what had not been possible to achieve thus far.

 

Residents were crying out for the council to make contractors accountable. Tivoli had been allowed to not perform; every week there was another complaint from a resident about the grass not being cut.  Last week Councillor Davey had been told the shears they used to trim hedges were not working. He asked how was that the council’s problem? Did it just keep paying them or did it challenge and set an example? 

 

CIPFA were asked to review Governance on the £350,000 Clewer and Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements capital scheme that was allowed to go more than £50,000 over budget. Two years on, his first question to the council still seemed to get a regular mention at Full Council. Scrutiny not realising its potential was another comment.  He had written to the Chair of Infrastructure asking why no topics had been selected. At the last Council meeting Councillor Johnson had said that there was a lack of ambition in bringing forward credible ideas to scrutiny. The previous year, he had encouraged Members and residents to bring forward their ideas and issues that mattered to them. Over 40 topics had come forward, there were still a dozen or more on the work schedule. His reward was to be pushed to one side.

 

Councillor Johnson had said the administration was candid when it got things wrong and there was always room for improvement. He suggested Members be candid, vote for the motion and ensure each and every issue was challenged and addressed, putting residents first. That would be a major success for the administration.

 

Councillor Jones seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that the Corporate Peer Review took place four years previously and as the report from the June 2019 follow up meeting explained, was acted upon.  He quoted from that report: ‘The Council has clearly embraced the findings from the Corporate Peer Review Challenge in 2017 and evidenced its proactive response through an Action Plan, the implementation of which has been carefully monitored.’

 

Councillor Hilton continued that since the Peer Review, not only had the world changed but so had the Council. Crucially a new Chief Executive had taken up his post in February 2019 and began a review of the officer structure, capacity and financial governance. The Chief Executive commissioned CIPFA to carry out a review of financial governance. Their findings were established partly through a review of processes and interviewing both officers and Councillors but importantly through the hands-on process of developing the council’s 2020/21 budget. The final report was published in June 2020.

 

One of the Chief Executive’s earliest actions to improve financial governance was to recruit a Head of Resources and S151 officer. Adele Taylor joined the Council in March 2020 and she in turn recruited Andrew Vallance as Head of Finance; both were appointments that greatly strengthened the council’s finance capability. So as not to lose sight of the recommendations in the CIPFA review, the Director of Resources developed a CIPFA Review of Governance Action Plan. An action plan that has led to significant improvements to financial governance. Progress on the action plan was reported to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel on a quarterly basis so challenge on the rate of progress was invited.

 

There were 25 individual actions in the plan of which all but six been completed.

Of those outstanding.

 

·         There were two that related to training of officers and Members that would continue into the future

·         The review of the Property Company would be presented to Cabinet on 22 July 2020.

·         Internal audit of reconciliations was planned for completion in September.

·         Improved reporting of debt management to be included in budget monitoring reports had happened. However, this issue was complex with debt emanating from multiple sources. Some such as Housing Benefit Overpayment and Council Tax were robustly managed but a new process for managing Adult Social Care debt had fairly recently been established and was delivering a return.  Action in the area of debt management was on-going.

·         A specific project to identify opportunities to increase the use of purchase orders was also ongoing.

Councillor Hilton highlighted that good governance was not static but processes needed to change as the world around changed. Relatively recently, to strengthen governance, a new Monitoring Officer had joined to head the department; she had already reorganised her team and was having a positive impact on the way the council did business.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that Councillor Davey should be aware the administration was determined to continually improve and act upon good advice and guidance such as that included in the CIPFA report. It was already doing what Councillor Davey’s motion asked it to do and more and Councillor Hilton thanked Councillor Davey for giving him the opportunity to explain this to a wider audience. The only issue he had with the motion was setting a timeline of March 2022 for completion. In these uncertain times, it would be very wrong to fetter the finance team’s ability to manage and change their priorities. He therefore could not support the motion.

 

Councillor Johnson highlighted the response to Member question b where it confirmed the council was in discussion with the LGA to timetable a peer review in the next calendar year to continue on the improvement journey. He appreciated that this information was not known to the proposer of the motion at the time of submission. The council had never been more open. He had received many positive comments, particularly from residents who had attended Cabinet to hold the Cabinet to account and ask questions. The administration had taken the decision to undertake a forensic scrutiny of governance structures. As had been discussed at the June 2020 Cabinet meeting, the key findings had been endorsed. As he had said at the last meeting, there was always room for improvement, particularly in relation to scrutiny. Part of that onus fell on individual Members of the Panels. Overall, the general direction was good, and challenge was welcomed to ensure better outcomes for residents.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that several Members of the Opposition had commented on improved transparency and as Councillor Hilton had said, so much had already been addressed. She knew as a Cabinet Member how stretched officers were and to be going over things that had already been addressed was a waste of resources.

 

Councillor Larcombe commented that one of the issues he had was the funding of the River Thames Scheme. It seemed to him that the CIPFA report had never looked at the scheme. He could not be certain but he did know that Datchet Parish Council were not told until August 2020 that the River Thames Scheme was unaffordable. The victims were waiting for the next flood and nothing had been done in nearly 20 years. There was a lot of talk about transparency, but he was still waiting.

 

Councillor Knowles stated that at the heart of the issue was good management practice of setting an end date for a process. It would not be unreasonable for members of the public to expect some sort of conclusion well before three years after the initial report. It would be worthwhile to add some impetus to get through the recommendations and allow a line to be drawn under the reports in good time before the next elections.

 

Councillor Jones commented that Councillor Hilton had misunderstood the intention of the motion. Addressing the recommendations by March 2022 did not mean completing them by then. Those that were in progress or were not taken forward would require an explanation as to why the decision had been taken. There were more recommendations across the organisation than just those of a financial nature. The motion would underline the council’s commitment to transparency and good governance. It would also put a line under all three reports. She would be more than willing to take part in a Member group to undertake the review.

 

Councillor Davey wanted to reinforce that council officers were doing a fantastic job. Opposition challenges were holding the administration to account, for example he had seen press releases issued after an issue had been raised. The key point was the reports stated that Cabinet Members should not be on panels or committees but a Cabinet Member had just been appointed as Vice Chairman of a Development Management Committee.

 

Councillor McWilliams requested a personal explanation. The Mayor ruled it was not a personal explanation.

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 13 Councillors voted for the motion; 20 Councillors voted against the motion. The motion therefore fell.

 

CONTINUATION OF MEETING

 

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the council’s constitution, the Chairman called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 9.30pm. Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

 

 

Motion b)

 

Councillor Davies introduced her motion. She explained that humans had already caused irreversible climate change, the impacts of which were being felt in the UK and around the world.  The distressing scenes of severe flooding in Germany and Belgium in the previous week and the hot weather in the UK were just two of the most recent examples. Global temperatures had increased by 1.2 degrees from pre-industrial levels and the natural world had reached crisis point, with 28% of plants and animals currently threatened with extinction.

 

Unless there was a drastic change in course, the world was set to exceed the Paris Agreement’s safe 1.5 degree limit. Pledges like the Paris Agreement and updated emissions targets were not legally binding.  The gap between pledges and policies left the world on course for catastrophic warming of nearly 3 degrees.  As the IPCC’s 2018 report made clear, every half a degree made a world of difference: severe climate impacts with 1.5 degrees of warming, such as extreme weather patterns causing flooding and heat waves, got significantly worse with 2 degrees.  According to the IPCC, limiting heating to 1.5 degrees may still be possible with ambitious action from national and local authorities, civil society, the private sector, and local communities.  

 

The UK was also one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world; more than one in seven of its plants and animals faced extinction and more than 40% were in decline.   95% of much-loved hedgehogs had been lost.  The UK needed a legally-enforceable nature target so that by 2030 nature was visibly and measurably on the path to recovery, in line with the Global Goal for Nature and the Leaders' Pledge for Nature .  

 

The UK was the first country to enter legally binding, long-term carbon budgets into law, as part of the 2008 Climate Change Act. In June 2019, the Conservative Government led the way on amending the Climate Change Act with the more ambitious target of achieving a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by 2050. Theresa May MP stated that the UK had a ‘moral duty to leave this world in a better condition than what we inherited’. This was an important and commendable start, but the problem with the current net zero target was that it was no longer in step with the current science and the rapidly changing world.

 

The Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, if it became law, would require the government to develop a strategy to address the emergency that would ensure:

 

·         The ecological emergency was tackled shoulder to shoulder with the climate crisis in a joined-up approach

·         The Paris Agreement and the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature were enshrined into law

·         The UK took full responsibility for its entire greenhouse gas and ecological footprint

·         An independent, temporary Climate and Nature Assembly was set up, representative of the UK’s population, to engage with the UK Parliament and UK Government to help develop the emergency strategy.

110 MPs from seven political parties had co-sponsored or supported the Bill; joined by 28 peers, including Conservative peer Baroness Verma, former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; and 80 councils had passed a motion in support of the Bill, including over a dozen Conservative-led county, district, city and borough councils. Councillor Davies urged that the borough joined these local authorities in declaring its support for the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill and asking the two local MPs to sign up to support the Bill in Parliament.

 

Councillor Brar seconded the motion put froward by Councillor Davies because she believed it was importantthe local authority should be leading to support the CEE bill as it had done sowhen it had declared a climate and environmental emergency in June 2019. She felt itshould be lobbying the government and the local MPs to support this to make it a law.

The international communitywas trying to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The climate and natural world was changing fast and action was needed now; the government needed to play its part. At the current level the planet would heat by 2.4 degrees. That may not sound like a lot but every time it increased it would bring more destructionlike flooding and cropfailure allover the world. At 4 degrees the heat alone would kill hundreds of thousands every year. It was not too late; catastrophe could be prevented by shifting to a zero carbon economy in a way that protected jobs and upgraded democracy. This was where the CEE bill came in and it had been written with help from topscientists. Now parliament needed to make it law; for that it needed the support of the majority of MPs. The council could support the bill and should also support the spirit of the bill with practical actions to increase and support biodiversity and reduce carbon emissions.

The council had adopted an Environment and Climate Strategy which included the commitments to support biodiversity and achieve biodiversity gain. Supporting biodiversity not only helped wildlife but also contributed to carbon reduction. It was therefore disappointing that the council was still planning to go ahead with plans to put a new footpath through a sensitive wetland area at Battlemead. Every decision the council made should help it achieve the strategy, but the proposal for a new footpath went against the strategy. This proposal wouldmake it even harderfor the council todeliverits strategy. Councillor Brar wanted to make sure nature was there for her new granddaughter. It would require the government to rapidly reduce the entire carbon footprint and keep from crossing the 1.5 degree threshold.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that the previous week she had had a long and frank conversation with Councillor Davies about the CEE Bill. The Bill was introduced as a Private Members Bill. It did not yet have the support of a single Conservative MP. She wanted to find out why so spoke to a number of people. Three key issues prevented it from ever becoming law. She also thought it would slow down progress on addressing climate change. One of the key parts was the inclusion of a citizens’ assembly, which would slow the process when the issue was an emergency. The bill had been amended several times already to take account of action by the government.

 

On a personal level Councillor Stimson said she was happy to work with residents in the borough to develop a biodiversity strategy. An Action Plan would be forthcoming. The borough was now one of 100 councils and the C40 cities signed up to carbon neutral before 2050.

 

Councillor Del Campo highlighted the findings of the Climate Change Committee’s Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk, which had been published in June 2021, and suggested that the country was not quite on the road yet. In summary, new evidence showed that the gap between the level of risk faced and the level of adaptation underway had widened. The UK had the capacity and the resources to respond effectively to these risks but had not yet done so. 61 risks and opportunities had been identified, and they needed to be addressed urgently as a nation. It was not true to say enough was being done.

 

Councillor Davey commented that the council include 5G as part of its climate strategy, yet it used 20-30 times the electricity and required slave labour to produce the batteries.

 

Councillor Bowden highlighted that 20% of the world’s electricity usage was for the internet. Light pollution from cities was still on the increase. A bitcoin mining operation had been identified as a significant heat sources in the Midlands. He commented that silly ideas got involved in drawing out electricity. There was a need to reduce internet usage, streetlights and other uses to reduce carbon emissions.

 

Councillor Jones commented that although she applauded that the council had signed up to reduce carbon usage by 2050, she highlighted that Councillor Davies had proposed the target at full Council previously but had been voted down.

 

Councillor Davies commented that she had approached Councillor Stimson for information after the papers had come out therefore she had been speaking to her under the impression she was aware of the motion in the agenda. She valued her conversations with Councillor Stimson. According to experts, the bill was designed specifically to reverse the impact of climate change. The bill required the UK to take responsibility for its fair share of greenhouse gas emissions, restore biodiverse habitats. The Environment Bill was an important post Brexit bill which filled the gap in legislation, but it was not far reaching enough to address the urgency of the current situation. The pace of climate change was outstripping the actions taken to mitigate it. She was glad to hear about the move to carbon neutral to 2050 and the government’s climate initiatives, but this did not mean the foot could be taken off the gas. The temporary citizens assembly run by independent experts and representative of the UK population would work directly with the Climate Change Committee before the strategy was taken before Parliament for approval.

 

A named vote was taken. 13 Councillors voted for the motion; 20 Councillors voted against the motion. The motion therefore fell.