Agenda item

a)    Public Questions (30 minutes)

To receive questions from the public gallery and questions submitted by residents in advance of the meeting.

 

b)    Leader and Cabinet Member Questions (105 minutes)

To receive questions from Councillors.

The Mayor explained that Croydon Question Time would be taken in two parts.

 

The first part was public questions to the Leader and Cabinet, which was followed by questions from Members to the Leader and Cabinet. Wherever possible, the Cabinet Member provided an answer during the meeting, but if a question required detail that the Cabinet Member did not have with them then a written response would be published on the Council website within the following three weeks.

 

Leader and Cabinet Member Questions

 

With the end of time allocated to questions from members of the public in attendance the Mayor moved on to public questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members.

 

Questions to the Leader

The Leader reminded Members that in November Cabinet began a search for a new Brick by Brick Board of Directors which would be led by both council officers and the existing Brick by Brick company directors. They had appointed an Executive Chair, Andrew Percival and a Non-Executive Director, Griff Marshalsay.

 

The Leader continued by informing Members that at the first Brick by Brick Cabinet Advisory Board members had brought their expertise to the table as they worked towards the decisions that Cabinet had made to complete the existing sites before winding down the company.

 

In his question, Councillor Perry asked whether the Leader believed that all those responsible had been held accountable, since the two Reports in the Public Interest.

In her response, the Leader stated that in the last 15 months, taking over as Leader the day before the first Report in the Public Interest was published, she believed that significant progress had been made by the council, as stated by the Minister of State.

 

The Leader continued by reminding Members that the first Report in the Public Interest regarded corporate failures and that everyone in the Chamber had had to reflect on this. The further Report in the Public Interest would be discussed on Thursday (3 February 2022). However, none of the former officers were now in place, had been suspended or had left the council. In addition, Members with responsibility were no longer councillors as they had resigned from their roles.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Perry askedagain whether the Leader believed that all those responsible had been held accountable.

 

In her response, the Leader stated that the council had used the powers that it could to take that action. Everyone shared the anger about what had happened, and all the officers no longer worked for the authority or were suspended, and all the senior councillors had resigned and had been referred to their membership bodies.

 

In her question, Councillor Henson welcomed the decision to pause the sale of Ashburton Lodge to allow the council and Oasis to explore the possibility of turning the lodge into a youth centre in memory of the young man who lost his life in Ashburton Park at the end of last year.

 

In her reply, the Leader stated that she was sure that all in the Chamber sent their condolences to the family of Zaian and thanked Councillor Henson for her role in representing the views of the family and the school and working with the Oasis Institution. The Leader also thanked Councillor King for removing Ashburton Lodge from the schedule of properties for auction and officers who had held a constructive meeting with Oasis to take this forward. Oasis had already begun its fundraising drive and the Leader wished it success with this.

 

In his question, Councillor Perry stated that the recent performance report showed that the Planning Department was trying to avoid special measures, and that the Housing Department was missing all its targets, and asked what the Leader and her Cabinet colleagues were doing to hold departments to account.

 

In her reply, the Leader stated that the performance report now came to Cabinet every month which highlighted what was going well but also areas where improvement was necessary. The area for improvement section was a new feature of the report, in light of the Council’s improvement and it was important that councillors and residents understood the changes being made and that officers were now being held to account.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Perry stated that the Leader was saying that everything was going as expected but that he had heard this before receiving the two Reports in the Public Interest and the Section 114 notices; so it appeared that this Cabinet was not taking full responsibility for what was happening. He asked once again whether this Council was taking responsibility.

 

In her response, the Leader stated it was a basic function of the council to look at the way it was performing and there were challenges across some of the services. The Leader continued by outlining the huge amount of activity that had taken place over the last 15 months to confront exactly what had been raised in the first Report in the Public Interest. The Government’s appointed Improvement and Assurance Panel whose letters were consistently showing how the council both managerially and politically had been doing the right things to ensure that the necessary decisions were noted, and the council was financially sustainable.

 

The Leader concluded that the Secretary of State was pleased with the progress made so it was not just her but others outside of the council who were happy with the progress that had been made.

 

In her question, Councillor Ben-Hasselstated that last week the council’s appointed auditors issued a second Report in the Public Interest relating to the Fairfield Halls governance and decisions dating back as far as 2016. Cllr Ben-Hassel asked the Leader to explain how such a publication had come about especially after such an extensive report had been produced by the same auditors in 2020.

 

In her reply, the Leader stated that in December 2020, she and the Chief Executive raised their concerns with the external auditors about what was emerging from the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls and commissioned the auditors to review this and the Report in the Public Interest that was delivered that previous week was the result. This showed an important shift in the culture as the first report from the auditors raised concerns that the council was not listening but this second report was a result of them being asked to look more closely into this issue. This showed that the council was better placed to raise concerns with the new leadership team that was being appointed.

 

In conclusion, the Leader stated that this report showed the council as it was previously and did not, in her view, show how the council was at present as those decisions were made more than 5 years ago and would not be taken today.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Ben-Hassel stated that anyone in the business of restoration of heritage buildings knew of the potential for over running costs and Fairfield Halls could be put into the context of the Barbican refurbishment. The issue that she encountered at Scrutiny was trying to obtain evidence that standard project management was being carried out. Councillor Ben-Hassel asked whether the Leader would provide residents with reassurance that such a situation could not happen again.

 

In reply, the Leader stated that the report had highlighted that £30 million would not be sufficient to deliver that project but agreed that the work carried out over the last 15 months would safeguard against this happening again in further projects. On Thursday (3 February) there would be an opportunity to look at it in more detail and the specific recommendations that the auditors had put forward. The Leader was confident that the changes being put in place would make the difference.

 

Pool 1

 

With the end of the time allocated for questions to the Leader, the Mayor moved to questions to the Cabinet Members in the first pool. Councillor Campbell, Councillor Lewis and Councillor Flemming were invited to make their announcements.

 

The Mayor confirmed that Councillor Mann was deputising for Councillor Campbell at this meeting.

 

Councillor Mann thanked and celebrated Annette McPartland being appointed as Corporate Director, Adult Social Care and Health on a permanent basis. Councillor Mann also congratulated the team for the work that had been carried out over the last few months and that the feedback from the Improvement Panel had been very strong.

 

Councillor Alisa Flemming had, with the Director of Social Care, visited Calley Down Crescent which recently won an award for the work that it did to support children and young people in the borough with complex needs and requested that her thanks were put on record.

 

Secondly Councillor Flemming highlighted the work that had recently restarted, post Covid, again launched in the Chamber, working with the young people through the Youth Parliament towards championing the voice of young people. They had collectively decided to make mental health their first focus working with partners across the borough to support young people to confidently receive support when required.

 

Councillor Lewis had no announcements.

 

Councillor Gatlandalso thanked Calley Down for its fantastic work. In her question, Councillor Gatland stated that the cuts to Early Help services would damage the life chances of children and families and asked whether the plan to cut Youth Services at a time of such tragic loss and youth violence was a step too far.

 

In her response, Councillor Flemming stated that she was proud of the investment made by the Administration into youth provision at a time when no one else was, even though it was not a statutory service. In regards to the cuts to Early Help, Councillor Flemming stated that national government had not invested in this area and highlighted the work that the Administration had done.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Gatland stated that her previous question had not been answered and quoted figures showing that referrals had increased as had the number of children in need plans and the number of children with protection plans to above the London average which she put down to the cuts in services.  Councillor Gatland asked again whether the Cabinet Member was cutting the funding for youth services.

 

In her response, Councillor Flemming stated that there were some proposals coming forward and confirmed that it had been expected that the number of referrals would increase post-Covid but that it was being monitored closely.

 

Councillor Flemming continued by informing Members of some of the key issues that lead to families being unable to cope, such as food poverty, the cost of fuel and the cost of living in the country and the borough, and stated that to be able to provide the support families needed required additional funding from central Government.

 

In his question, Councillor Clarkstated that he had met with a gentleman who was living in supported housing for people receiving support for drug and alcohol addiction. The accommodation was linked to his treatment which had an end date, so he knows that he would be homeless on a given date. He had been told that the only way was to present himself to council offices as homeless on the day and arrangements would be made to place him in temporary accommodation.

 

Councillor Clark continued by stating that it would make more sense for housing to be arranged in advance in areas such as this where there was a fixed known date rather than being treated as an unforeseen emergency and asked whether this was correct and if so could the system be changed.

 

In his response, Councillor Mann thanked Councillor Clark for bringing this case to his attention and confirmed that he had already raised this case with officers to see what could be done. He also agreed than when any service provider knows of an issue of this nature then preventative action should be taken to streamline the process and reduce the fear for the service user.

 

In his question, Councillor Bainsstated that there was a Report in the Public Interest regarding the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls under this Administration and asked whether Councillor Lewis would take this opportunity to apologise for what he had done?

 

In his response, Councillor Lewisstated that like many people across the borough, he felt anger and indignation about what had been said in the Report in the Public Interest and thanked the Leader and the Chief Executive for commissioning the report.

 

Councillor Lewis continued by stating that he thought it was important to get to the bottom of why this project was overspent by so much and that over a years’ work had gone into the report. The auditors had made it very clear where the responsibility for this lay and Councillor Lewis felt that it was important that those responsible for those failures should recognise that fact.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bains stated again that he felt that Councillor Lewis should apologise as the Cabinet Member who was ultimately responsible for the project.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis reiterated that the Report in the Public Interest was very clear, and the responsibility lay with Brick by Brick and the Cabinet Members who oversaw it and a lot of the issues began in 2016 before Councillor Lewis was a Cabinet Member.

 

Councillor Lewis continued by explaining that as Cabinet Member for Culture his responsibility was not around the capital investment in Fairfield Halls or the council’s relationship with Brick by Brick. His portfolio was responsible for the relationship with the operator and the cultural work that took place there.

 

In his question Councillor Fraserasked the Cabinet Member to comment on the leisure centre usage and activity since the end of lockdown last year and how it compared periods prior to Covid.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis stated that the leisure industry had been under severe pressure as a result of the global pandemic and had been poorly supported by Government. However, since restrictions had been relaxed the people of Croydon had been returning to the leisure and sporting facilities and usage was now about 80% of what it was pre-pandemic.

 

Councillor Lewis continued by stating that although that was a good position to be in, the council would continue to support the leisure operator to continue to operate the centres in a way that was safe, given the nature of the public health emergency. He hoped that as a result, the people of the borough had enough confidence in them to return to the leisure centres in greater numbers going forwards.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Fraser asked what scope was there to encourage those who had not been to a leisure centre for two years to return to improve their level of fitness and what the council could do with its leisure partner to promote the leisure centre offer.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis agreed that there was a lot that the council could do to support residents to use the centres and was pleased to confirm that the Administration would be investing £100,000 in Monks Hill Sports Centre to expand the size of the gym to give the residents in the south of the borough a greater fitness offer. The council’s leisure partner Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) had also been offering promotions and discounts to engage in fitness for the new year and Councillor Lewis hoped that residents would take advantage of those offers.

 

In his question, Councillor Streeterasked whether there was any aspect of the Fairfield Halls refurbishment that he would take personal responsibility for.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis reiterated his previous answer that a lot of work had gone into preparing the Report in the Public Interest which stated very clearly where responsibility for the failures in this project lay.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Streeter stated that Councillor Lewis had been involved in the Fairfield Halls project for a number of years including under the previous Leader, Councillor Newman, and asked again for him to apologise to the people of Croydon.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis stated again that it was important to get to the bottom of why the Fairfield Halls project was so overspent but that the Report in the Public Interest pointed to some significant failures in the governance of the project and how the project was commissioned. It was important that lessons were learned to improve future major projects. The project was always going to cost more than the initial £30 million and the council should now focus on supporting Fairfield Halls and supporting the operator to build an offer that was worthy of the support of the people of Croydon and could deliver top quality culture and entertainment.

 

In her question, Councillor Ben-Hasselasked whether the requirement for care home staff to have been vaccinated together with current staff sickness due to the Omicron variant was causing issues in council-run care homes or in any privately-run care home in the borough.

 

In his response, Councillor Mann stated that Croydon had the greatest number of care homes of any London borough so this issue would hit Croydon hard, but at present staffing levels remained strong and he was confident that any outbreaks within homes could be handled.

 

He continued by stating that the issue of vaccinations was a very delicate one as it affected the health of vulnerable residents and low paid workers, and noted that over the weekend the Government proposed a potential change of direction in this matter. However, vaccination rates amongst staff closely mirrored other London boroughs and was slowly increasing.

 

In concluding Councillor Mann reiterated the advice to be double vaccinated and to take up the booster as soon as it was offered.

 

In his question, Councillor Millson stated that Councillor Lewis became the Cabinet Member responsible for Fairfield Halls in May 2018 and asked when he had first questioned the senior leadership team or the Leader and Deputy Leader regarding the governance and over spending on the Fairfield Halls refurbishment.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis stated that Councillor Millson was correct that he did become the Cabinet Member for Culture in May 2018 but reminded Members that his responsibility did not cover Brick by Brick. In the report the auditors stated that it had been difficult for Cabinet to obtain information from senior officers of Brick by Brick and the council. Councillor Lewis continued by stating that it was important that officers from both Brick by Brick and the council behaved with integrity and openness and provided councillors with information when requested.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Millson acknowledged that Councillor Lewis was not the Cabinet Member responsible for the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls and his acknowledgement that lessons had to be learnt but stated that in January 2020 Councillor Tim Pollard had presented evidence to Members that the project was going to cost more than double the original budget.  Councillor Millson stated that Cabinet Members at the time should have been raising concerns and demanding information from officers and Cabinet colleagues and asked whether the failing of Cabinet Members to raise questions of officers was negligent of their duties to the people of Croydon or whether they were complicit in the unlawful expenditure.

 

In his response, Councillor Lewis reiterated that the Report in the Public Interest included a very detailed explanation and was very clear in stating where the responsibilities lay and who was at fault for these failings.

 

Pool 2

 

With the end of time allocated to questions to the Cabinet Members in the first pool, the Mayor signalled he was moving on to questions to Cabinet Members in the second pool. Councillor Hay-Justice, Councillor Shahul-Hameed and Councillor Muhammad Ali were invited to make their announcements.

 

Councillor Muhammad Ali had no announcements.

 

Councillor Hay-Justice had no announcements.

 

Councillor Shahul-Hameed confirmed that the Community Safety Strategy was implemented on 1 January 2022 and performance measures were currently being worked on. With regards to business recovery, Councillor Shahul-Hameed and officers had met with the Croydon Business Network the previous week to hear views on current and future needs of the business community which would inform the council on planning for the next round of Additional Restriction Grant funding. The council had now received £1.68 million in funding to deliver the Omicron Grant to hospitality and leisure businesses. Grants of up to £6000 were available and to apply businesses needed to complete an online application before 28 February 2022. In addition a further £250,000 is available for businesses in the creative industries.

 

 

In her question, Councillor Hale stated that in the latest Performance Report, tenant satisfaction with the Housing Service had continued to fall and asked the Cabinet Member why the service was still in trouble with falling satisfaction figures.

 

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice stated that she was not happy with the current situation; however, she thought it should be acknowledged that improvement was taking place. Officers were working exceptionally hard to ensure that those figures improved, and a recruitment drive was currently underway to fill posts where capacity was low.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hale stated that in addition to routine repair, urgent repairs and significant jobs had also seen a fall in performance and worryingly the one for urgent repairs was the worst of all with only half having been attended on time. In addition the length of time that properties were empty whilst repairs were carried out had increased. Councillor Hale asked whether in light of all these issues, the Cabinet Member thought that she was doing a good job as Cabinet Member for Homes in this borough.

 

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice stated that the most urgent repairs were being done on time but acknowledged that the three other categories were not and that improvements were slower than anticipated. Councillor Hay-Justice continued by stating that she had been pushing hard for improvements and officers had been working additional hours including weekends, so she did believe that she was doing a good job as the Cabinet Member ensuring that residents’ homes were safe, warm and dry.

 

In her question, Councillor Patsy Cummings stated that she was pleased to see the Cabinet report on Croydon Race Matters, now renamed the George Floyd Race Matters and Equalities Pledge and asked how the Cabinet Member was going to ensure that the council continued to work with the voluntary sector partners and others to promote the pledges amongst the organisations within the borough.

 

In her response, Councillor Shahul-Hameed thanked Councillor Cummings for her help and support regarding the pledges and stated that the Cabinet Report showed how closely the council was working with the voluntary sector in engaging with residents, businesses and the community. Councillor Shahul-Hameed continued by outlining the aims of the pledges and said that the progress would be reported in the annual Equalities Report. Community organisations would also submit an annual report and be monitored, and she welcomed support from Members to promote the pledge.

 

In her question, Councillor Hopleyoutlined a number of cuts that she said were affecting the most vulnerable in the borough and that there had been a worrying increase in the number of people who did not have a safe place to live. Councillor Hopley asked what the Cabinet Member intended to do about it.

 

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice questioned the criteria being used regarding homelessness and confirmed that at the last count there were 16 people registered as homeless. The council had been working with Crisis and that week she attended a meeting of London lead officers from councils who wanted to know about the work that Croydon Council did to reduce the levels of homelessness, in spite of the lack of funding and the national issues imposed by Government. The work was being carried out in conjunction with the voluntary sector as a result of a lack of funding.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hopley questioned the figure of 16 homeless people and she stated that she knew of more than 16 people in the underpass at the Whitgift Centre with more people sheltering in car parks, shop doorways and living outside the assistance centres. In light of this, Councillor Hopley asked if Councillor Hay-Justice was ashamed of this situation.

 

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice stated that her Deputy and officers had visited one site and every individual had been offered accommodation but that there were some people who did not wish to accept that accommodation.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Hay-Justice offered to ask officers to provide Councillor Hopley with a full report into the visit and asked that if she wanted to raise any particular case then could she do so outside of the meeting so that action could be taken.

 

In her question, Councillor Henson stated that earlier this year the council had lost some residents to a tragic house fire whichwas a reminder that all fire protections should be put in place in all forms of public and private buildings and asked the Cabinet Member to advise what was being done in regard to fire safety for council tenants.

 

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice firstly sent her condolences to the family of those who died for their tragic loss. Councillor Hay-Justice continued by stating that the council had a fire risk assessment programme which was carried out with the frequency based on the risk and in high-risk properties the assessments were carried out annually, medium risk every two years and low risk every three years which compiled with industry standard practice. Work was carried out on any issues identified during the assessments. In addition, staff responsible for those buildings could also bring issues to light.

 

In concluding Councillor Hay-Justice offered to send Councillor Henson more details of the work being carried out including the installation of sprinkler systems.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Henson stated that the case that she referred to was in a private property and asked what the council could do to help residents in private properties.

 

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice stated that about a third of the council properties were privately rented and the council was able to do work with this sector before the Secretary of State withdrew the council’s licence. However, work was still carried out with landlords to ensure that they were complying with their responsibilities. In terms of owner occupiers, Councillor Hay-Justice confirmed that no work had yet been carried out to reach out to these residents. However, it could be possible to consider having a fire prevention communications strategy and within that a reminder to test fire alarms perhaps to include carbon monoxide alarms.

 

In his question, Councillor Stranack stated that Croydon had the highest level of serious youth violence in London and very high levels of anti-social behaviour. Fairfield Ward had the highest level of crime and a particular hotspot was the underground car park and asked what the Cabinet Member could do to make the area safe.

 

In her response, Councillor Shahul-Hameed stated that last year 5 young people had lost their lives as a result of knife crime and working with the Police was one of the priorities. The development of the Community Safety Strategy had been a piece of collaborative working where all the Community Safety Partnership members had an input together with views from the community and those organisations involved in supporting victims or helping to divert people away from crime.

 

Councillor Shahul-Hameed continued by explaining about the grants that the council had obtained with partners and the work that would be carried out as a result.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Stranack stated the Violence Reduction Unit was formed in 2019 and asked whether the Fairfield car park features within their key strategy for this year.

 

In her response, Councillor Shahul-Hameed stated that extra police officers had been deployed to the town centre and the council was working with the Metropolitan Police in this area and others which were experiencing rising levels of crime. Further funding for the Violence Reduction unit had been made through The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to replace the current funding which was due to expire in March 2022 and the priority would be around prevention.

 

Pool 3

 

With the end of time allocated to questions to the Cabinet Members in the second pool, the Mayor signalled he was moving on to questions to Cabinet Members in the third pool. Councillor King and Councillor Young were invited to make their announcements.

 

Councillor King had intended to announce the work being undertaken with Oasis regarding Ashburton Lodge but the Leader had already covered this in detail earlier in the meeting. However, he did show his appreciation to Councillor Henson for the support she had given to the project and the residents of Addiscombe East.

Councillor Young had no announcements.

 

In his question, Councillor Jason Cummingsasked whether the reduction in borrowing published in the recent Capital Strategy for the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MFTS) had included the money lent to Brick by Brick and the money that the council had taken on in long term borrowing after the failed Fairfield Hall fiasco.

 

In his response, Councillor King stated that those figures were not included in the report.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Cummings asked whether it was justified that the report celebrated the borrowing level reduction when the only reason a decrease in borrowing was shown was because the period did not include those amounts which went out immediately prior to its production which had resulted in the loss of millions of pounds to the council.

 

In his response, Councillor King questioned the use of the word celebrating but the report rightly noted that the council’s borrowing was reducing by a not insignificant amount that he hoped Councillor Cummings would welcome.

 

In his question, Councillor Fraser asked whether the Government’s Local Government Settlement finally respond to the cross-party consensus and demand for fair funding, a settlement for over one year and a reversal of underfunding for the last decade, inflicted on this and other local authorities.

 

In his response, Councillor King stated that the settlement failed on all three counts. It was once again a one-year settlement which undermined local authority’s abilities to effectively set three-year budgets. It also failed to deliver on fair funding, which had left residents in places like Croydon disadvantaged compared to other areas.

 

In conclusion Councillor King stated that the council was now in the second decade of austerity with an 81% cut in grant funding, and he hoped that all Members appreciated that this was not in residents’ interests.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Fraser asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed with him, that Croydon and other local authorities had seen a levelling down of their funding in recent years and austerity due to the underfunding from the Government.

 

In his response, Councillor King reiterated his earlier point regarding being in a second decade of austerity and that this authority and its residents had endured a huge cut in funding which did not reflect the needs of the borough.

 

Councillor King continued by stating that he applauded the Government’s “Levelling Up” agenda but was worried that London would miss out as the perception was that levelling up would apply to the north of England and yet some parts of London had appalling levels of poverty, and he hoped that politicians across London would work together.

 

In his question, Councillor Koladestated that in October last year the Cabinet Member talked about the ongoing review of contracts and asked whether he could provide an update on progress of these contract reviews.

 

In his response, Councillor Young stated that as a result of the work, £18 million of risk assessed savings were due to be made over time through the MTFS, and that £2 million of this was new and the challenge now would be delivery. The Council’s commission and procurement function had been reviewed and a new staff structure was now in place with a new Head of Profession post being created, which was headed by Scott Funnell.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Kolade stated that there was a potential £11 million gap in the MTFS and that there should be greater urgency in reviewing the £7 million savings and asked when a plan on these potential savings would be made available.

 

In his response, Councillor Young stated that all contracts were reviewed, and officers were challenged to find savings. He stated that the £7 million referred to was a random figure which was to be looked at more carefully as there had been some double counting. As stated earlier £18 million of savings were identified with £2 million of new savings; not the £7 million quoted.

 

In her question, Councillor Croos asked what savings were now expected to be made through council contracts and how the council was approaching this.

 

In his response, Councillor Young stated that this appeared to be the same question so repeated his previous answer. However, with regards to delivery, Councillor Young explained that the new structure had been put in place with the Head of Profession and that commissioning for Adults and Children sat within those service areas. Being better focussed the system should improve service delivery for residents.

 

In his question, Councillor Jason Cummingsstated that the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was under continuing pressure this year principally relating to repairs which was predicted to cause an overspend which would need to be covered by reserves. Given that this pressure was unlikely to ease over the short term he asked the Cabinet Member how he was intending to bring this back into balance avoiding the erosion of reserves in the HRA.

 

In his response, Councillor King reminded Members that early in the financial year the possible overspend was why the HRA was initially within the scope of the Spending Control Panel but was removed although still monitored regularly. Councillor King continued that he had discussed with colleagues the possibility of returning the HRA to the Spending Review Panel restrictions, but he personally did not think that it was necessary at this time, although the situation was being monitored closely.

 

Councillor King also stated that the proposal to increase council tenants’ rents by 4.1% was due to come before Cabinet shortly and that this would help to reduce the overspend and that other avenues were also being explored to bring the HRA back within budget.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Cummings asked whether the proposed rent increase would only reduce inflationary pressures and questioned whether it was correct that tenants would be expected to pay for overspends in the system.

 

In his response, Councillor King confirmed that residents were not going to be expected to pay for the overspend but the council did need to ensure that inflationary pressures did not make the overspend worse. Work was going on to identify areas for savings but reassured Members that there were sufficient reserves to cover the current forecast overspend.

 

In his question, Councillor Koladestated that contract inflationary pressures were a growing risk to the MTFS and asked what the Cabinet Member was doing to make sure that this was absorbed.

 

In his response, Councillor Young stated that no assumptions were being made and that the council would be negotiating hard, but he was aware that it would not be possible in all circumstances; therefore, the Section 151 Officer had ensured reserves were available for inflationary pressures.

 

In her question, Councillor Jewitt asked how it could be fair that Croydon received about half as much funding from Central Government compared to inner London boroughs and asked what the current situation regarding cross-party working were.

 

In his response, Councillor King stated that the Government had consistently failed to deliver on its fair funding commitment since 2010. Councillor King compared Croydon with Lambeth which received £210 per head more despite having similar demography and challenges.

 

Councillor King continued by outlining the cross-party work which was being co-ordinated by London Councils and despite the political differences much collaborative work was being undertaken to get a better funding deal.

 

In his question, Councillor Jason Cummingsstated in response that there was also a significant number of London boroughs that received less funding per head than Croydon and they had not been issued Section 114 Notices; therefore, not all the issues in Croydon were down to a lack of Government funding.

 

Councillor Cummings continued by stating that the level of debt taken on regarding the Fairfield Halls refurbishment resulted in an additional £1.5 million of pressure every year. He asked the Cabinet Member what questions he had asked whilst this debt was rising.

 

In response, Councillor King stated that since he had become Deputy Leader, he had been focussed on addressing the council’s finances and assisting the Leader in addressing the problems of the recent past. The independent auditor had spent a year looking into this matter and the report had been very clear in identifying the individuals who were culpable.  Councillor King continued by stating that he was confident that the changes put in place would stop this situation happening again.

 

Councillor King concluded by stating that residents were justified in their anger that their money was not properly safeguarded and as Deputy Leader he apologised for that.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Cummings welcomed Councillor King’s apology but stated that his question related to the fact that the Cabinet Member was in Cabinet meetings, not public ones, of which there were no records; so they would not appear in any report; therefore, he asked again what questions Councillor King raised about this issue in Cabinet.

 

In his response, Councillor King stated that as set out in the report information was not brought before Cabinet in the way that it should have been and that those were the failings that the auditor identified in her report, but that a lot of work had been undertaken to ensure that this could not happen again.

 

In her question, Councillor Jewittasked what the guiding principles of the CroydonInterim Asset Disposal Strategy were, and what progress had been made.

 

In his response, Councillor Young stated that given the financial situation of the council it was important to achieve the best possible results from any disposals and he outlined some of the circumstances which were taken into consideration before agreeing a disposal.

 

Councillor Young concluded by outlining some of the recent disposals and that further disposals would make an important contribution to balancing the books and to living within the council’s means.

 

With an end to the time allocated to questions to Cabinet Members in the third pool, the Mayor brought Croydon Question Time to a close.