Agenda item

The Democratic Services Lead introduced a report to formally advise the Overview & Scrutiny Committee of a Petition titled “Resignation or Vote of No Confidence” that had been received under the Council’s Petitions Scheme.

The Petition contained 1,112 signatures, all of which were submitted online via the e-petition facility on the Council’s website:

“We the undersigned petition the council to demand our councillors discuss and request the following at Full Council on 22nd July 2021 in response to the Section 114 issued: - Resignation of CEO Josie Wragg with immediate effect - Resignation and withdrawal from Cabinet of Leader Cllr James Swindlehurst with immediate effect - If resignations not forthcoming, we want a vote of no confidence in both to be initiated.

The CEO and Leader have been in charge and allowed the finances to get so bad that a Section 114 is now necessary. We believe they are responsible and should be held to account. We do not have confidence in them to correct the situation.

We want an inquiry to know how and why Slough is in this financial mess.

We want to know what will be done to ensure it doesn't happen again.

We want the public to be notified of the result on the inquiry and given

access in full to the report.”

As the petition received between 750-1,499 signatures it was a requirement of the scheme that the response be considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.  A proposed response was set out in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.8 of the report which, in summary, stated that the issues considered, debated and voted on at the meeting of Council on 22^nd July 2021 directly responded to the matters raised, notably that a vote to remove the Leader of the Council had taken place in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee agreed with the proposed response with the additional comment that two external, independent reviews by CIPFA and MHCLG were taking place and that it was expected those reports would be published by the Government.

Councillor Smith expressed the view that there had been a lack of accountability and proposed a motion that read as follows:

“The Slough Borough Council Executive/Cabinet apologises to the citizens of Slough for its poor financial management and unsustainable levels of borrowing, as well as for its resulting withdrawal of local welfare provision,  It commits to reinstate a scheme of local welfare provision that is adequate and sustainable, as soon as possible, funding by savings elsewhere in the Council.  In the interim, a fund should be created to offer emergency help to the most needy and vulnerable of Slough’s citizens that would be administered by SBC’s social workers in support of their clients, replacing in some measure the discretionary fund that each social worker used to have to help hardship cases, previously withdrawn.  It urges the Cabinet to consider following the example of the Cabinet members on Liverpool City Council and foregoing their special responsibility allowances as an act of contrition and a means of helping to create such a fund.”

The proposal was not seconded and therefore not put to the vote.  Other members of the committee did comment that the Leader of the Council had issued an apology to residents at the Council meeting in July 2021.

At the conclusion of the discussion the response was agreed as set out in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.8 of the report, with the additional comment that two independent reviews had been carried out and it was expected would be published by the Government in due course.

Resolved –  That the response to the position be agreed as set out in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.8 of the report, plus reference to the independent reviews, that:

“The matters raised in the petition related specifically to the Council meeting held on 22nd July 2021 and the actions requested are considered to have been completed through the proper procedures set out in the Council’s Constitution.

The petition requested that a “vote of no confidence” in the Leader of the Council be held at that meeting if a resignation had not been submitted. Following the submission of the petition, a motion to this effect was submitted by 6 councillors, debated and voted on in the Council meeting on 22nd July. The motion to remove the Leader of the Council (see Appendix A to the report) was not carried. There were 6 votes in favour of the motion to remove the Leader, 31 votes against and 2 abstentions.

The other requests made in the petition were also complied with at the Council meeting on 22nd July 2021 which included:

·  A detailed Section 114 report from the Section 151 Officer setting out the severity of the financial situation facing the Council and the proposed actions to address the position.

·  The Chief Executive’s response to the Section 114 report which included proposals to control in-year spending and set the budget for 2022/23 and beyond, which would include a strong role for Member scrutiny and public consultation.

·  A report on further statutory recommendations from the Council’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, and the management response.

·  Several questions from electors on the financial position put directly to the Leader of the Council.

·  A motion on ‘financial recovery’ relating to the management and leadership of the Council.

The Council meeting was held in public, live streamed and the recording published immediately after the meeting. The Council suspended various procedure rules during the meeting to ensure that all matters could be considered in public  Part I of the meeting to ensure maximum transparency.

All documents relating to the meeting are published on the Council website and the recording is also available published, which will show the matters contained in the petition were considered at the meeting.”