‘Not good enough’ chair of scrutiny could yet stay in post

CROYDON IN CRISIS: Despite his committee being accused of lacking an ‘understanding of the urgency of the financial position’, one key Labour councillor shows no intention of standing down.
By political editor WALTER CRONXITE

Can’t take a hint: £42,000 a year scrutiny chair Sean Fitzsimons

For many residents and front-line council workers in Croydon, a thorough cleaning of the Augean stables at the Labour-controlled Town Hall is well-overdue.

Since November, when the council was forced to declare itself effectively bankrupt, no elected councillors have been sacked or had the party whip withdrawn.

In the month before the Section 114 notice was issued,  two senior figures resigned their posts – Tony Newman, the leader, and Simon Hall, the cabinet member for finance. Both have since been suspended by the Labour Party, but they remain as councillors.

For the rest, it’s as if nothing ever happened. They have carried on, many still with the same positions – and still-generous allowances – that they held throughout the period which led to the council’s financial collapse.

The sense that many Blairite members of the local Labour Party remain in denial over their own part in bankrupting the borough was made crystal clear at last week’s local party meeting, when Newman supporters and friends were elected to key positions of influence.

There is another opportunity for the Town Hall’s ruling group to try to put things right, and replace some of those in cabinet positions when the Labour group of councillors – 39 of them, if you exclude Newman and Hall – stages its own annual meeting over two evenings later this month – on March 17 and 24.

But if Sean Fitzsimons is anything to go by, the signs are not good of any willingness to muck out those stables, or for anyone to accept responsibility for the monumental mess that has been created of the council’s finances.

Tony Newman: seemed to like the slack scrutiny offered by Fitzsimon’s committee

Fitzsimons played a vital role in the running of the council under Newman.

Although never a member of Newman’s cabinet, Fitzsimons was put on the equivalent of a council cabinet member’s salary – £42,633.96 – after a £7,000 pay hike in 2018 for his role as chair of the council’s scrutiny and overview committee.

The position is not appointed by the council leader, but supposedly elected by the Labour group.

Thing is, during the Newman regime, the group always seemed to make sure it chose candidates that the leader wanted.

Fitzsimons has been chair of scrutiny since May 2014. And judging by his remarks this week, he intends to continue in that role until 2022.

That’s despite withering criticism of the part played by the lack-of-scrutiny committee, and therefore Fitzsimons himself, in reports published last year by the council’s auditors and a government-appointed inspector.

Even as the council’s financial collapse was going on around him, according to Grant Thornton’s Report In The Public Interest, Fitzsimons and his committee were failing in their vital task of holding Newman and his cabinet to account.

When the £65million budget gap was called-in to scrutiny in August last year, the auditors say that Fitzsimons’ committee failed to refer “the significant fact that the budget gap exceeded the available reserves to Full Council. In our view this was a failure of governance and showed a lack of understanding of the urgency of the financial position”.

This is but one of around a dozen criticisms of Fitzsimons’ committee’s performance in the Grant Thornton report, which also highlights no less than 10 separate areas where the scrutiny committee failed in its duty to challenge the financial games being played by those running Brick by Brick, the failed housing developer, and its supporters on the council.

The scrutiny committee, Grant Thornton’s accountants wrote, needed “… to show greater rigour in challenging underlying assumptions before approving the budget including understanding the track record of savings delivery”.

It was the Grant Thornton report which accused Croydon Council of having “corporate blindness”.

That might be polite, auditor-speak for accusing some of turning a blind eye.

They may have had one particular episode in mind, from the scrutiny committee meeting on August 25 last year. Faced with a doom-laden financial review, committee members, “raised a number of pertinent questions”. But when the council’s then finance director, Lisa Taylor, told the committee that she could not guarantee that she could avoid issuing a Section 114 notice – declaring the council bust – “Members of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee accepted the responses received and did not refer the matter to Full Council.

“In our view,” Grant Thornton say, “this did not demonstrate an understanding of the urgency of the financial position.”

The litany of failures of the scrutiny committee under Fitzsimons goes on, including the lack of oversight of the £100million asset acquisition fund that was used to buy the Croydon Park Hotel and Colonnades, which the auditors say, “indicates again the level of scrutiny and challenge by Members in respect of significant expenditure was not good enough”.

In instances going back to 2015, the scrutiny committee under Fitzsimons repeatedly showed “a lack of understanding”.

The Whitehall rapid review, which reported to Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick last month, was no less unkind in its opinion Fitzsimons’ scrutiny performance. After the committee failed to get even a sniff of what had happened to the council’s vanishing cash, they said that Croydon scrutiny was found “not to have worked”, was “unchallenging” (just the way Tony Newman liked it) and that the committee, “… were not forceful in their challenge and did not refer key decisions back for the consideration of full Council.”

‘Not good enough’: auditors criticised the scrutiny of the Croydon Park Hotel purchase

Yet despite all that, it seems that Fitzsimons intends to carry on.

Asked three times whether he would be seeking re-election at the Labour group meeting, Fitzsimons failed to offer a straightforward reply. He clearly has not taken the hint, from Grant Thornton or the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

“I have not given any thought to what will happen next year,” he tweeted, a tad disingenuously some might think.

“As with the rest of the Labour group, I’m concentrating on council financial matters currently, and will make decisions regarding the next municipal year closer to our AGM.” Just a shame that he hadn’t concentrated on those financial matters a little sooner, others might suggest.

Read more: Council Tax-payers pay for politicians’ game of cat-and-mouse
Read more: Council forced to declare itself bankrupt
Read more: Officials to investigate possible wrong-doing at council


  • If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
  • Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
  • Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and BBC London News
  • ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named the country’s rottenest borough in 2020 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine – the fourth successive year that Inside Croydon has been the source for such award-winning nominations
  • Inside Croydon: 3million page views in 2020. Seen by 1.4million unique visitors
  • Content on this site is also licensed via Ping! News. To access content for copying in full or in part,  please visit https://pingnews.uk/

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email inside.croydon@btinternet.com
This entry was posted in Croydon Council, Report in the Public Interest, Sean Fitzsimons, Section 114 notice, Tony Newman and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to ‘Not good enough’ chair of scrutiny could yet stay in post

  1. Either Scrutiny committee members knew that things were bad but deliberately said and did nothing, or they did not understand what they were looking at and believed without question what they read and were told.

    Devious or dim?

    Considering some of the attendees and their contributions, it’s clear they aren’t up to the demands of the job, and haven’t troubled themselves to become competent at it. An example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where they are too stupid / arrogant to know they are stupid.

    With the others, maybe they covered up the truth out of party loyalty, or perhaps they were too frightened to speak out. As we’ve seen, Pelling and Young paid the price for sticking up for what was right rather than, in their case, kowtowing to racist policing and greedy property developers.

  2. The definition of ‘scrutiny’ is ‘critical observation or examination.’

    Fitzsimons did neither of these things while sitting in the front passenger seat as Tony Newman drove Croydon Council off a cliff.

    This council will never begin to regain credibility whilst this serial non-performer remains as chair of the scrutiny committee.

    This is now an embarrassment for Croydon Council. Fitzsimons, go.

  3. Chris Myers says:

    Augean 🐂 nice one

  4. It’s what I have been saying for ages: this Council will have no credibility or legitimacy until every vestige of the Newman/Scott/Butler & co cabal has been eradicated. What’s happening now is so typical of the Labour Party. Instead of being realistic about how they can achieve or retain power they go in for incessant intra-party vendettas and feuds, quarrel amongst themselves and give the awestruck populace a view of a party that cannot control itself, let alone manage a country or a council. It’s much the same with the Labour Party nationally. Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn simply refuse to accept the democratic vote that led to the election of a new leader.( Where else has that happened recently?) I nstead they attack the new leader viciously and incessantly, take no account of current circumstances, are childishly impatient and irritable and give the same impression to the country as they do in Croydon : being more interested in infighting than actually winning again. Sad.

    • Kevin Croucher says:

      Sadly, I think they are well aware that they have every chance of clinging to power in Croydon regardless of the candidates that they put forward.

      • Unfortunately, Kevin, that’s not exactly what I meant. What I’d like to see is the Labour old guard booted out and replaced with more vigorous, less self-obsessed new and existing Labour councillors. The local Tories are really not any improvement on the previous lot and would be in fealty to the government which means more unnecessary and unsuitable residential development and austerity all round. True, the government would release more funds to them than they do to a Labour controlled council but I have no more faith in them to spend it wisely than I would have in Newman and co.

  5. moyagordon says:

    Surely the Scrutiny Committee is the linchpin of the council, ensuring good management of council finances and performance levels. Had it been functioning in the manner it is intended then poor decisions would have been avoided. The people working within the Scrutiny Committee must hold a large part of the responsibility for failing to maintain standards.

Leave a Reply