RBWM Lib Dems Propose Report into Historic Council Financial Failings

At Full Council on 23 April 2025, Cllr Mark Wilson moved an amendment to the Conservatives' ill-thought-out demand for a name-and-shame report into the council's financial mismanagement under Conservative control. 

Cllr Wilson's speech, which details the amendment and explains why the original motion could not be allowed to stand, is given below: 

"I would like to propose an amendment to the motion as published, to read:

Residents are rightly concerned about the Council’s financial state 

This council:

Acknowledges the work the current administration has undertaken to resolve the financial problems caused by previous administrations, and

With the commitment of this administration to transparency, requests a report - on the  CIPFA reviews and auditor’s comments regarding the failures of financial governance and management - is brought to full council, including outlining the potential costs, benefits, scope and feasibility of a further investigation.

Like many residents, I want the people responsible for the state of the finances inherited by this administration to be properly held to account. I am frustrated that there has not been sufficient accountability shown so far – it is hard to hold people to account once they are gone - the members responsible for poor decisions were soundly rejected at the ballot box, and key officers have left the council - but these seem inadequate relative to the financial state of the Council we have uncovered. 

The request of the original motion, for a full investigation of all errors, all individuals who failed, and governance and decision-making errors, is open-ended in scope and would likely be lengthy, time-consuming, and extremely costly to residents. The chances of any payback seem negligible. The motion does not specify an outcome, and as such, I believe it is unworkable, it is not costed, and it would be poor governance to proceed with it. 

To me, it is already clear where responsibility lies for the disastrous financial situation that this administration inherited. The 2020 CIPFA review of financial governance was very revealing. I described some findings here on 5^th March – dominant members, wildly optimistic capital forecasts, and a lack of financial transparency are some choice phrases from that report that stick in the mind. 

The Maidenhead Advertiser on 2^nd July 2020 reported from a cabinet meeting where the CIPFA review was considered – and I quote – “Cllr Johnson (Con, Hurley and Walthams) said “It was in fact a cultural failure of epic proportions. The allegations of undue pressure, circumvented process, closing down or indeed blocking those who raised genuine concerns, created a toxic culture which spread throughout the organisation.” That’s quite clear. 

More recently, the three CIPFA reviews from last year, along with the Grant Thornton value for money audit review clearly show that no progress was made in the intervening four years – just more fudging and pseudo-balancing of budgets while cutting maintenance further and hollowing out services. 

CIPFA were clear that historic decisions to repeatedly cut council tax, along with the build-up of debt from failed property deals and the absence of effective transformation and performance management, led the council to a perilous financial position. This administration is now focused on fixing the mess, restoring services and moving forwards, however, we do hear the calls for more historic accountability. 

I am proposing that Council requests a report be presented to all members at a future meeting that covers two things – first, it summarises the results of the independent reviews that have been conducted in recent years, following the identification of serious issues in 2019 – and second, it describes in detail the cost, benefit, scope and feasibility of a further investigation. 

To consider investigating further than the existing reports, and to attempt to hold individuals to account, council needs a clear understanding of what is being asked, the associated costing and ultimately must make an evidence-based decision. Council also needs to understand what power such an investigation would have in order to compel former members and former officers to take part, in order to obtain the desired information. 

It is also worth noting that other councils that have embarked on investigations to hold people to account, including Croydon and Northampton, have spent very large sums of money and achieved very little over a long period of time, in circumstances where evidence of specific wrongdoing was quite obvious. 

So, I would like to see relevant information gathered and presented so that council can consider and make an informed, evidence-based decision, that is good governance and this is what my amendment sets out to achieve."

The amendment was debated and carried 29 for, 7 against. 

To read more about CIPFA's findings see here