The Mayor has agreed to allow public questions in relation to item 4 only (Motions on Notice). The deadline for receipt of questions is 12noon, Wednesday 24 January 2018. Questions should be submitted to:

democratic.services@rbwm.gov.uk

For further information on public questions, please see Part 2 C9 of the council constitution:

https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/downloads/file/2871/council_constitution

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

a)    Ewan Larcombe of Datchet asked the following question of Councillor Targowska, Principal Member for HR, Legal and IT:

Can you please explain in simple terms what Councillor Dudley has done to bring the council and councillors into disrepute?

Councillor Targowska responded that she understood that the question had originally been directed to Councillor Stretton but as Councillor Stretton did not hold a relevant Cabinet or Chairman position as required by the constitution for public questions, it had now been passed to her to answer. The question referred to the motion put forward alleging that Councillor Dudley had brought the council and councillors into disrepute because of statements on Twitter and a letter to the PCC during the week commencing 1/1/18.  Councillor Targowska stated that unfortunately she was unable to make any comment on the motion or give her personal feelings at this stage in the proceedings as the motion had yet to be put forward. She believed that Councillor Stretton would putting the case for her motion to the meeting during the debate.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Larcombe commented that it was indicative of the way that the council operated that there was a rule that meant he could not pose the question to Councillor Stretton. Elected to represent a Maidenhead ward, Councillor Dudley had highlighted an issue that singlehandedly  tarnished the name of Royal Windsor and had attracted global media attention. In his opinion Councillor Dudley not only brought reputational harm to Royal Windsor but the entire borough. Royal Windsor would recover over time but he felt that that an apology was insufficient. He felt that councillors failing to declare a prejudicial interest and trying to defend the indefensible would only prolong the argument, attract further criticism and reinforce the rotten borough image. He asked Councillor Targowska what she though.

Councillor Targowska responded that she was Chairman of the Constitution Sub Committee and highlighted that a full review of the constitution was underway. She welcomed comments on the review either at the meeting in April 2018 when it would be presented, or by direct email.

b)    Andrew Hill of Boyn Hill ward asked the following question of Councillor Dudley, Leader of the Council:

In your letter to Commissioner Anthony Stansfeld you state that TVP "...made a verbal commitment to fund 50 per cent" of the £2.5m Windsor security measures. You state, however, that TVP left the full cost to RBWM. Was their verbal commitment given to you personally, and what reasons did TVP give RBWM for subsequently withdrawing their £1.25m verbal offer?

Councillor Dudley responded that RBWM Officers and Members, including himself, were advised at a meeting held in the spring of last year, that Thames Valley Police wanted the support of key partners to install integrated and permanent Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures, following the rapid deployment of the temporary National Barrier Asset immediately after the Westminster attack in March 2017.

Following to the Westminster attacks and others in Europe, TVP and the Met Police reviewed their assessment of the risks and threat levels for Windsor, due to the regular events in the town including the Guard Change, which involved large numbers of residents, visitors, military and security personnel.

TVP Officers confirmed they would be applying for a contribution from TVP resources and it was proposed that they were seeking financial support from the council and other partners to meet the costs on a shared 50/50 basis. At that time it was expected that the permanent scheme would cost in the region of £1.9m.

Council officers had worked with TVP on this basis, along with the Royal Collection Trust which managed the visitors to the Castle, to develop the details of the long term mitigation measures to replace the temporary ones currently deployed in Windsor town. 

As Leader of the Council, he had requested officers take forward the appropriate measures to extend the protection the permanent and integrated proposals would provide, to include increased protection for castle visitors, provided by the additional temporary measures which were installed in October 2017. He had also asked that the main shopping area of Peascod Street be included, to maximise the benefit of the scheme to a larger area and for much longer periods of the day, and crucially for shoppers be they residents or tourists.

By September 2017 the costs of the revised permanent Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures became clearer and he requested confirmation from TVP on their contribution level, as the core scheme was now estimated to cost £2.5m, £600,000 more than the original cost although some of this was a result of the increased protection for shoppers. At a board meeting to consider the way forward, TVP confirmed to RBWM they had no resource allocated for this scheme.

Since that time, much more recently TVP had confirmed they could have a small amount of funding available to contribute to Hostile Vehicle Mitigations measures, approximately 10% of the revised core scheme, but on the basis that their identified funding was not required for any other protection work in Windsor associated with state events.

By way of a supplementary question, Mr Hill commented that the motion concerned the letter to the PCC and a number of tweets. In the December tweets, Grace Witherden of the Maidenhead Advertiser had linked to an article interviewing a specific named homeless man and then Councillor Dudley had stated the council had received reports about this man and proceeded to make an allegation. Mr Hill felt this was an example of sensitive data which covered allegations and offences. He therefore asked if Councillor Dudley believed it was appropriate to make such comments in a tweet and would he be self-referring to the ICO?

The Monitoring Officer advised that Mr Hill’s supplementary question did not arise directly out of the original question or reply, however Councillor Dudley agreed to respond.

Councillor Dudley responded that the council had received reports, which had been corroborated in the Sunday Times, about a shift pattern that operated around River Street car park. Two individuals put in an Advantage Card number and helped people exit the car park, taking money in receipt. A large number of residents had contacted him about this and it had been reported to TVP, alongside a number of further reports since he had highlighted the issue.