Agenda item

Philip Meadowcroft had asked the Leader of the Council the following question which was answered by the Executive Member for Finance and Housing:

 

Question

At the last Executive meeting on January 28, you claimed it was an honest mistake that the composition of the Standards Committee was not compliant with the WBC Constitution.  As Leader of the Council, you took responsibility since the buck stopped with you on this matter.  But, you did not accept when I put it to you that it was symptomatic of a wider disregard of Constitutional rules.

 

I watched the Audit Committee on February 1, during which Members realised that the Constitution had been flouted because the numbers in the Treasury Management Report which the Audit Committee had agreed in November 2020, and then forwarded to the Executive were replaced by new and materially different numbers whilst the approved November numbers were relegated to an appendix.

 

Were the changes which amended the Audit Committee’s approved, as received, Treasury Management Report caused either by another honest mistake (as you admitted regarding the Standards Committee issue) or is this further evidence which suggests that compliance with the Constitution takes second place to the political convenience of the ruling group?

Minutes:

 

Question

At the last Executive meeting on January 28, you claimed it was an honest mistake that the composition of the Standards Committee was not compliant with the WBC Constitution.  As Leader of the Council, you took responsibility since the buck stopped with you on this matter.  But, you did not accept when I put it to you that it was symptomatic of a wider disregard of Constitutional rules.

 

I watched the Audit Committee on February 1, during which Members realised that the Constitution had been flouted because the numbers in the Treasury Management Report, which the Audit Committee had agreed in November 2020, and then forwarded to the Executive were replaced by new and materially different numbers whilst the approved November numbers were relegated to an appendix.

 

Were the changes which amended the Audit Committee’s approved, as received, Treasury Management Report caused either by another honest mistake (as you admitted regarding the Standards Committee issue) or is this further evidence which suggests that compliance with the Constitution takes second place to the political convenience of the ruling group?

 

Answer

Councillor Halsall has already explained to you that there was no Constitutional breach with regards to the composition of the Standards Committee and why this was so.

 

The other part of your question, this is why the reason I am answering it is because I also attended the meeting and it is same posed by the two Liberal Democrat members at the meeting, and as you watched the meeting you would have heard the Officers reply to those allegations.

 

You have, like the Liberal Democrats at that meeting, suggested that the report considered by the Audit Committee, at the meeting of 23rd November was changed before being presented to the Executive on 28th January.  I can categorically confirm this was not the case.

 

The report reviewed by the Audit Committee was presented to the Executive fully and unabridged as required in the Constitution.  Audit Committee is required to review progress against Treasury Management indicators (which they did on this case) and note further information in the report.

 

At the Executive on 28th January it was asked (and did):

 

 note Appendix A, which was the Treasury Management Mid-Year report which was agreed at the Audit Committee on 23rd November 2020”. 

 

This stated quite clearly in the covering report recommendations, and furthermore is covered in more detail at the second paragraph of the executive summary to the Executive report.

 

Therefore, the report the Audit Committee debated and agreed democratically is the one being presented to the Council and does not need to be presented back to the Audit Committee.

 

However, in passing the report. noted by the Audit Committee to the Executive, our statutory Chief Financial Officer thought it would be helpful for the Executive and the public to be aware of the broader impact of the treasury management activities by including the income generated by our commercial activities funded by the borrowing. This information was conveyed by way of a covering report and I would consider it to be extremely helpful, particularly given the recent media debate around the cost of the Council ‘s debt to the local taxpayer.  So, the Treasury Mid-Term report presented at the Audit Committee was not changed, the Audit Committee discharged their responsibility under the Constitution and the Chief Financial Officer, who is required to provide a covering report in the passing of the Mid-Year report on to the Executive. So there is no Constitutional breach here whatsoever.

 

What I do find alarming however is there is a real issue here, it is not the alleged breach in the Constitution but the fact that our finances, our borrowings, and our financial returns from our borrowings are in an incredibly healthy state, and that is despite the impact of Covid-19. There are those making alarmist claims that our borrowing is reckless, even to the extent of costing households £10,000.  This is of course absolute nonsense and merely irresponsible politics.  You can see clearly from the public report produced by our statutory Chief Financial Officer the impact of all our borrowing activities for schools, roads, care homes, housing and everything else comes at a credit to each household at each year.  Let me say again, we get our roads, schools and other essential assets for our community at no cost to the Council Taxpayer, in fact they receive a credit.  This is achieved because the income from our commercial and investment activities not only funds but exceeds all of the Council’s borrowing costs.

 

This is a remarkable achievement and should be applauded. We should both be assured and delighted about yet another indicator of the strong financial management, which is vital to us being able to meet the needs of our community, particularly during Covid-19.  But incredulously this isn’t the issue being talked about and this isn’t what questions are being asked about, I wonder why?  Do you think that it is our Opposition finds it galling that we are holding up so well during this pandemic and we aren’t plummeting into any form of financial crisis?  This is so wrong and makes no sense to me, petty politics to detract from the fundamental issues.  We are strong, ready and capable of being able to continue to step up and meet the needs of our community in delivering the services at the high level that we do.

 

Supplementary Question

Thank you, Councillor Kaiser for answering my question.  My supplementary is directed to you, Councillor Halsall.   The criticisms voiced by the Audit Committee I think result from the continuing determination of the ruling group to bulldoze through their needs irrespective of the Constitution.  Firstly, it was the Standards Committee and now it is the Audit Committee.  Both issues show for me that you have not stuck to the rules like you instruct residents to do so on those Covid signs on lampposts through the Borough.  You have undermined the respect, Councillor Halsall, and authority required of your leadership and the compelling need for the affairs of this Council to be seen and conducted in a transparent and lawful manner.  The only way forward, Councillor Halsall, since you fulsomely assured at the last Council meeting that you are democrat and that the buck stops with you is for you to stand down.  It would be the first step in putting things right.  Will you please do that?

 

Supplementary Answer from Councillor Halsall

Thank you Philip your opinion.