The deadline for public questions (which must be directly related to the budget) is 5pm on Wednesday 16 February 2022.  A supplement listing valid questions received will be added to the agenda after the deadline.

(The Council will set aside a period of 30 minutes to deal with public questions, which may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor in exceptional circumstances. The Member who provides the initial response will do so in writing. The written response will be published as a supplement to the agenda by 5pm one working day before the meeting. The questioner shall be allowed up to one minute to put a supplementary question at the meeting. The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply provided and shall not have the effect of introducing any new subject matter. A Member responding to a supplementary question will have two minutes to respond).

a)    Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ascot:

Will the Lead Member advise when RBWM will repay its’ short-term debt and how this will impact the Council’s revenue budget?

Written response: Based on the current forecast of future capital cashflows the Council is projecting to have repaid all of its short-term debt by the end of 2035/36.  Based on current assumptions of future interest rates the cost of this debt is projected to peak at £2.540m per year in 2024/25 before gradually decreasing to zero by 2036/37.  The average cost of short-term debt is projected to be £1.470m per year from 2022/23 to 2035/36.

By way of a supplementary question, Ed Wilson commented that the fact the borough had a plan to repay its short term debt would be news to many residents. He asked how Councillor Hilton was proposing to share the news with residents?

Councillor Hilton responded that, as always, the council was very open and transparent in its financial dealings. The report included the capital cashflow document which showed that over the medium term (to 2035/36) the projected receipts would be £163m more than the projected spend. This was the reason why it was believed that in the medium term debt could be zero. He would consider whether more should be done to promote this, including in Around the Royal Borough.

b)   Ed Wilson of Clewer and Dedworth West ward asked the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

What steps has RBWM taken to ensure that it does not follow the example of Slough Borough Council and become bankrupt?

Written response: One of the core messages from the Slough Governance review for the Secretary of State was the importance of good financial governance. This is a message already understood by RBWM from the CIPFA review presented to Cabinet in June 2020. As such, many actions have been taken to strengthen financial governance. These include:

·         Establishment of a robust medium-term financial strategy that underpins our budget setting. This allows us to budget in the context of challenges in future years, rather than narrowly focusing on the year in question.

·         Development of a transformation plan which will link to this medium-term financial strategy, as it will be a key enabler of achieving the significant savings required in future years.

·         Establishment of a Capital Board and the strengthening of links between capital and revenue budgets, so the impact of capital schemes on the revenue budget is understood.

·         On debt, reporting of debt has been strengthened and bad debt provisions reviewed to ensure they are appropriate.

·         Partnership arrangements have been reviewed and actions implemented, including Optalis, AfC and the Property Company.

·         New internal auditors have been appointed, allowing a fresh pair of eyes on our processes.

·         Audit and Governance Committee has been established to facilitate greater Member scrutiny of financial matters.

As well as these specific actions from the CIPFA action plan, the finance team has been reviewed and strengthened, with the recent appointments of a new Chief Accountant and Senior Finance Business Partner. The finance team recognises that further change and improvements will be required to achieve the excellent financial management standards to which we aspire.

By way of a supplementary question, Ed Wilson commented that Slough Borough Council had gone bust despite having one of the highest council tax levels in the Thames Valley. The written response had not referred to council tax. He asked if RBWM would not raise council tax in the way seen in Slough and avoid the fate of that once proud council.

Councillor Johnson responded that the Royal Borough was in no way in a similar position to Slough. The council had a sound and credible financial plan. On the core issue of council tax, he was proud that during a cost of living crisis, the borough charged residents less than a failed socialist council. This meant hundreds of pounds in residents’ pockets.

c)    John Affleck (not a resident of the borough) asked the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

What is the proposed total expenditure per head for each child in care in 2022/23 and how many children are currently in care?

Written response: The total budget 2022/23 for Children in Care direct costs is £9.8m which, based on the current total number of Children in Care of 134, equates to £73,000 per child. In addition to these direct costs are the cost of staffing and other associated operational costs.

By way of a supplementary question, John Affleck asked if the council would, to further protect the 134 children in care, break the non-disclosure agreement made in 2006, as the council had now compensated 15 children for the abuse they suffered, with the last settlement just two months previously. He asked if the council would continue to spend a miniscule amount of the 2022 budget to prove or disprove his claim of corruption outlined in a document he had offered to councillors and on his website ‘www.rbwm.exposed’

Councillor Carroll responded that any allegation of child abuse should be taken extremely seriously. Safeguarding would always be a number one priority for the borough. In terms of the specific allegations, he urged Mr Affleck to take any evidence he had to the police. Councillor Carroll explained that he had explored the legal position with officers and there were legal specifications and stipulations which he could not breach in his response as he would be breaching the law.

d)   John Affleck (not a resident of the borough) will ask the following question of Councillor Carroll, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health:

There have been 24 successful claims of sexual abuse at the Green Field House children’s home, RBWM agreed the latest settlement two months ago in December 2021, does the council have a budget to pay any future compensation claims?

Written response: The Council inherited the responsibility for dealing with claims arising from the Berkshire County Council children's home and has suitable insurance arrangements in place to ensure claims are appropriately settled. 

We hold an earmarked reserve for legal claims. The value of this is estimated at £1.1m at the end of this financial year. It is externally valued every 2 years (the last one in 2020) and the current level of reserves is sufficient on the light of this valuation.

By way of a supplementary question, John Affleck commented that he wished the record to show that his previous supplementary question had not been answered. He commented that if the council did the honourable thing to break the non-disclosure agreement and refund the money in full, unfortunately the refund would exceed the council’s reserve of £1.1m. In July 2014 the Home Secretary and Maidenhead MP, Theresa May, made three promises to the nation: a full investigation into child abuse, maximum transparency, and exposure of individuals and institutions that had failed to protect children. He asked if the 2022 Conservative Council would do the right thing and break the corrupt non-disclosure agreement.

Councillor Carroll reiterated that any allegation or evidence of corruption needed to be taken to the police for full investigation. He took any allegation of child abuse very seriously but he had already explained the context of the legal situation. The council had invested significantly in safeguarding and children’s services. The budget before Members that evening included further increased investment in this area.

e)   Mark Loader of Oldfield ward asked the following question of Councillor Hilton, Cabinet Member for Finance and Ascot:

On page 242 of the package we have ‘Major Capital Cashflows - Proposed and agreed’. Under Capital receipts it shows 6. Development partnership receipts it shows total receipts of £329 million being received cumulatively up to 2035/36. Please can you provide the breakdown by source of those capital receipts and are you confident they are realisable? 

Written response: This information is commercially sensitive and therefore not available to release.

By way of a supplementary question, Mark Loader commented that he had taken part in the budget consultation. It had been difficult to know if the appropriate level of services were being delivered without the detail of KPIs or comparisons with other councils. The report showed the development partnerships receipts as £329m up to 2035/36. He thought that sources of that figure should be transparent as a matter of public interest but the written answer had stated the information was commercially sensitive. Mr Loader commented that the housing quota would require investment in infrastructure. He asked how people could therefore be confident that the projected net capital receipts would be realised.

Councillor Hilton responded that he had a level of confidence that they would be realised. This was based on forecasts made by professional officers who understood land values, values which had historically continued to rise. It was unlikely that the figure would be exactly £329m but it would be close. The margin allowed between income from those receipts and the planned spending was £162m which gave some headroom.

f)     Adam Bermange of Boyn Hill ward will ask the following question of Councillor Johnson, Leader of the Council:

I am concerned to see that there does not appear to be any funding in the Capital Budget for the community facilities relocation project described in the withdrawn Cabinet report from September 2021. Please could the Leader give an update on this project?

Written response: The report was referred to the Communities Overview & Scrutiny Panel; the Panel is currently developing a scoping document to ensure appropriate scrutiny takes place.

By way of a supplementary question, Adam Bermange commented that he was pleased that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel were looking at the issue but he remained concerned for the future of the community groups on the council land at Holmanleaze, including the mosque that was in desperate need of more space and had been treated poorly.  There were 120 more homes to be squeezed onto BLP allocation site AL9 and he could only assume that the £1.75m capital receipt from the JV partner was included in the Treasury Management strategy even whilst the new facility investment was not. Mr Bermange therefore asked Councillor Johnson if he agreed that the ‘do nothing’ option was simply not an option and would he share which of the proposals already presented he preferred.

Councillor Johnson responded that the council remained committed to deliver the objectives in the report including providing better facilities for community groups currently on the site and facilitating the expansion of the educational offering in relation to Maidenhead Mosque and the fantastic work it did for the community. He provided assurance that the council was committed to all of the objectives in the paper. However he highlighted that the council could not begin to allocate funding envelopes until discussions with leaseholders had progressed further. The report would be brought forward as soon as was practically possible.