To debate any motions submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.
Minutes:
The Mayor read out the first Council Debate Motion on behalf of the Administration:
“This Council recognises that Croydon’s system for local governance must always reflect the need for strong democratic engagement and accountability. This Council commits to consider a resolution, based on a detailed report to be presented to Council at an ECM, to hold a referendum on the council’s governance model in Autumn 2021, so that residents can decide the best model for Croydon. A directly elected mayoral model will be an option in this referendum, alongside the Leader and Cabinet model. In the event that the residents of Croydon vote for a change from the council’s current governance model the resulting election can take place at the next local elections scheduled for May 2022.”
Madam Mayor invited Councillor Hamida Ali to propose the motion.
Councillor Hamida Ali stated that in October 2020, the new Administration committed to being resident focussed, open and transparent whilst working on the changes the organisation required to stabilise the council’s finances and governance. The aim was to create a culture of transparency and accountability with value for money at the heart. In the spirit of those commitments, the Administration welcomed the debate on the best system of governance; whether the rules on which political administration in control was determined by the largest political group or by an individual determined by a popular vote. The date of this vote would be based on when public health grounds would allow, and should be considered as they were in the context of the country currently remaining in its third period of lockdown with no scheduled exit date.
It was noted that he Minister of State for Regional Growth and Local Government, Luke Hall MP, wrote to the organisation regarding a new relaxation of regulations and encouraged, rather than directed, to hold a referendum in May 2021. Following this later that week, the Prime Minister described the timings of relaxation as an open question, and as a result, the Minister of State for Constitution and Devolution, Chloe Smith MP, notified political parties that canvassing nor leafletting were permitted during lockdown. The judgement of the Administration was that holding elections in May 2021 was far from certain and the focus of the organisation was to stabilise its financial position by balancing the budget and removing the Section 114 Notice, which would enable them to facilitate and fund this debate and to hold the referendum in the Autumn 2021. She hoped that residents would understand the reasoning for this position and informed Members that there would be an Extraordinary Council Meeting to debate the strengths and shortcomings of each option. Councillor Hamida Ali moved the motion.
Councillor David Wood seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Jason Cummings stated that this motion was not about giving the people of Croydon what the record breaking petition deserved. Labour ignored the call by 1000’s of residents asking for a vote on a democratically elected mayor at the time it was initially submitted and the Administration did everything they could to block the request. The motion was not preparing the ground to fix an election date before MHCLG took the matter from their control. It was stated that Croydon Labour always ignored the will of the residents in the borough and pursued the interests of the Labour party. Furthermore, Councillor Jason Cummings stated that the previous political leadership, Councillors Tony Newman and Simon Hall, only a few days before had surfaced in the press by writing an article where they denied responsibility for the disaster they had created. He expressed dismay at how the current Labour leadership could authorise such an article which effectively blamed MHCLG for the council going bankrupt and let the disgraced ex leadership sit on the backbenches and keep the whip.
Councillor Jason Cummings stated that it was the hard working staff of the council and residents of the borough who were paying the price, suffering redundancies and the cutting of services, whilst the leadership of the Administration refused to take the pay cut the Opposition had already taken. He further suggested that the current leader was too weak to take control of the party and properly accept responsibility, manage their own councillors and face the electorate. The campaign for a democratically elected mayor demonstrated that the people of Croydon want their say on how the borough is run and they were unhappy with the actions of the Administration.
Councillor Ian Parker told Council that they were debating this motion for reasons which were routed in the failings of the Administration. Councillor Parker stated that the Administration had failed to listen and respond to the residents of Croydon in the area of Planning; the arrogance of consulting on Planning and then ignoring where objections were routinely overlooked. Seeing the closure of leisure facilities, recycling centres and libraries; community ward budgets frozen; and residents in LTNs ignored. Residents who were the electors were routinely ignored.
The reputational damage caused by the Labour Administration would take years to recover, however it could be done. It was stated that Croydon owed a huge debt of gratitude to the residents and their Residents Associations around Croydon for the massive role they had played in collecting signatures for the Democratically Elected Mayor of Croydon (DEMOC) petition, which the Administration did their upmost to block. The motion, it was stated, was a consequence of bottom-up pressure from residents and a direct result from an incompetent Labour Administration. Councillor Parker reported that the momentum for a DEMOC was growing as residents began to recognise the failings of Croydon Labour. This call for a DEMOC was about fairness in the system of electing Croydon’s leader and moving to a system where a vote was equal across the wards and towards a borough that represented all residents, beyond narrow party political interests. The current model of governance had failed this borough and a DEMOC would be a route to bring the change needed.
Councillor David Wood stated that as a committee member responsible for democratic participation he was pleased to second the motion and residents should be given a choice in how the council was governed. It was noted that after the new Leader took control in November 2020, she gave a commitment to listen to residents and hear their voice. She also gave an early commitment to meet petitioners and did so as soon as reasonably practical, now welcoming debate. In deciding the right time to hold the referendum they had to consider a range of factors in these unprecedented times, most notably Covid, and the Administration felt the best course of action was to plan the vote in Autumn 2021. Councillor Wood stated that this decision was not reasoned in any way as a rebuff to the government. To hold the vote in Autumn would mean that it would be less likely affected by Covid and reduce uncertainty following vaccinations, in terms of public health of residents and the risk of low turnout. Additionally, it was difficult to make the case that this discussion was what residents needed as the council’s priority was trying to manage the response to Covid and the financial challenges. Councillor Wood stated that the Administration was committed to delivering the referendum.
The motion was put to the vote and was unanimously carried.
The Mayor read out the second Council Debate Motion on behalf of the Opposition:
“This failing Council has bankrupted Croydon. To plug the £65 million annual black hole in its finances they have proposed a devastating cuts package that hits the most vulnerable residents in Croydon the hardest.
These terrible cuts will decimate vital services that the poorest in our borough rely upon. It will also severely cut funding to essential voluntary organisations and charities that have done so much to help local people to get through the pandemic.
In order to protect the most vulnerable in Croydon, this Council will cancel the proposed service cuts, and maintain funding for our vital voluntary and charitable sector.”
Madam Mayor invited Councillor Andy Stranack to propose the motion.
Councillor Andy Stranack told Council that last week was one of the most depressing weeks he had to endure as a local councillor; he had heard from charities what the cuts programme would mean for them. He reported that the council’s approach to making cuts to the voluntary sector was going to have a devastating impact on the heroic volunteer army who had supported the borough through this pandemic. More tragically, the cuts would decimate services for the most vulnerable in the borough. Councillor Stranack went on to name some of the potential impacts of the cuts programme; Disability Croydon would have to close; Croydon Carers would close their respite care programme; Croydon Vision staff were facing redundancies; services for the over 65s would be dramatically reduced; Woodside Bereavement Centre would need to close; and Croydon Hearing Resource Centre contracts with the council would end on 31 March 2021.
It was stated that it was clear the Labour Administration cuts programme was going to have the biggest impact on bereaved residents with disabilities and the elderly. It was reported by Councillor Stranack that during the previous week the CVA, in partnership with 20 other leading voluntary organisations in Croydon, had asked the council to pause the cuts programme and instead sit down with the voluntary sector to devise a road map of how they could work together going forward. Councillor Stranack explained an example of this working successfully, and that was his experience in managing a neighbourhood care charity that ran support services for older and vulnerable residents living in Selsdon. Thanks to his team of over 300 volunteers, they were able to provide a multitude of services on an annual budget of £60,000 per annum whilst only needing a council grant of £15,000. He explained that he wrote a paper which demonstrated that if the council or the NHS were to provide similar services, it would cost over a quarter of a million pounds to the taxpayer. They all recognised that the council needed to make financial savings, but he urged members to take up the CVAs offer and for the council to work with the voluntary sector in developing a partnership approach. Councillor Andy Stranack moved the motion.
Councillor Yvette Hopley seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.
Councillor Callton Young questioned when the Opposition began forming their newly discovered concern of the poor and vulnerable. The Administration had always sought to fund Croydon’s voluntary and community sector and nurture and encourage its growth. When Labour came into power in 2014, the funding to the voluntary sector was £1.2 million, and under this Administration the figure had risen to £2.7 million. It was reported that after the proposed cuts, the funding would still be £600,000 more than what the Administration inherited.
Councillor Callton Young explained that he became heavily involved in his local voluntary sector 10 years ago through the Croydon African Caribbean Family Organisation and the Thornton Heath Festival. When he became aware of the likely impact to the sector from the financial crisis in Croydon, he did not panic or scaremonger like he felt Opposition Members were, he looked at the sector as resilient and was confident that they would find a way through. The sector had already been addressing the fall-out of national Conservative austerity policy for the past decade. Additionally Councillor Young stated, Croydon Council should not be the sole source of funding to these organisations and they had written to charities to find solutions going forward. It was noted that there were many other sources of funding which would dwarf any funding that Croydon could offer, such as National Lottery grants, and charities could benefit from support in focussing on professional bid writing to secure those funds. Councillor Callton Young stated that the Opposition should focus energy on supporting the sector going forward and explore ways in which they could secure extra funding. He encouraged Members to vote down the motion.
Councillor Stuart King stated that the opening speech from the Opposition was heavy on condemnation, however light on responsibility. The responsible course of action for the council was to balance the budget. The motion before Council claimed to protect the most vulnerable in the borough by cancelling proposed cuts, not a targeted proposal to exempt individual organisations or groups where a specific concern may exist, but instead a complete blunt cancellation of over a one million pounds of savings and efficiency proposals. Those proposals were designed to minimise the impact on the most vulnerable and represented less than 2% of the entire savings programme, which demonstrated that the Administration had worked hard to ensure that the voluntary sector bared a small share of the savings programme as possible.
Councillor King explained that approving this proposal would undermine the entire carefully prepared recovery plan and the effort to secure the captialisation direction of £150 million which would allow the council to balance its budget; something the Opposition had always claimed to consider a priority. On this basis, the claim that the Opposition would like to protect the vulnerable remained thin as long as they continued to be selective on who they chose to stand for, whilst presenting no alternatives to the difficult decisions the Administration must take. By law, the council was required to set a balanced budget, therefore, Councillor King suggested, the Opposition must present alternative options on how to achieve the £1 million savings described in the motion. He urged Members to vote against the motion.
Councillor Yvette Hopley stated that the motion highlighted the devastating impacts on vulnerable residents in the borough as a result of the corporate blindness and incompetence of the Labour Administrating growing a debt of £1.5 billion through poor decision making. Impacts included the cutting of care packages by 20% and disbanding of services for disabled employment support and reductions to the Welfare Rights team, whose £2 million savings would result in £12 million of losses to the council which was lacking any business case – where no formal consultations were executed ahead of those decisions. It was stated that the voluntary sector would be expected to provide support where the council retreated and were expected to apply for National Lottery funding as a solution. It was noted that the budget must be balanced, however savings should be made in other areas such as selling Brick by Brick and the Colonnades or recovering the £200 million of outstanding loans. Councillor Yvette Hopley supported the motion.
The motion was put to the vote and fell.