Labour councillor’s 20-point plan to reduce service cuts

CROYDON COMMENTARY: Unions are tonight staging a protest outside the Town Hall against the council’s plan for another £38million-worth of cuts.
Here, Labour councillor ANDREW PELLING, pictured left, outlines the ways he believes that the council can avoid causing harm to the most vulnerable in the borough

In these days of strained circumstances at the council, I’ve been hearing a phrase that I have not heard since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister: “There is no alternative”.

Under pressure: council officials have told councillors that cuts are the only way

It was a favourite of the Conservative Prime Minister that was jokingly abbreviated to “TINA”. TINA is today stalking the covid-emptied corridors and Members’ Room of Croydon Town Hall.

You can’t put to one side the proposed cuts, we are told, because there is no alternative.

But actually, there is.

We’re told there is no alternative as commissioners will be called in by the Conservative government to take control of the council, and there’s still £13million of cuts to find urgently, then £25million next year and £5million in each of the two years after that… There are no alternatives.

But actually, there are.

There are financial solutions that can bag the big swings in budget numbers that can avoid some of the cuts which hurt those most in need.

An example of hurting the needy, where I have very strong reservations, is the cuts to Council Tax benefits.

Some households will lose more than £120 per month. I just don’t see how Labour can, in all conscience, do this now. Especially when Labour itself locally is campaigning against Tory attacks on the money received by lower-paid workers.

Proper support: the council wants to take £5.7m away from the borough’s poorest

The timing of this £5.7million being taken out of the hands of the poorest in Croydon by a Labour council – I emphasise a Labour council – is just awful when people are struggling with crippling energy price hikes, furlough ending, the reversal of Universal Credit rises and a more than doubling in inflation.My councillor comrades know of my worries and have been kindly tolerant of them.

But all this is not necessary, at least not yet.

Savings can be found by returning to actually overseeing the implementation of contracts and inspecting the council’s contractors’ work.

We are told that contract oversight is in complete chaos. Information is missing. Contracts are being extended without checking whether the services are still needed in the form taken. The Regina Road debacle shows how contract performance is not followed through, even when concerns are flagged frequently.

Other costs balloon for the council when contracts fail.

A Labour council should treat their tenants with respect. Tenants’ needs increase if they are made to live in squalid conditions, increasing needs for rehousing, health and social care support, and increased educational support needs of their children.

Well-run contracts save huge overspends by the council. And then there’s the money to be got out of the private sector in penalties for non-performance. These private sector contracts should be made to sweat, to the big benefit of the council budget and frontline services.

Access to Axis: the Regina Road scandal highlighted how some outsourced council contracts are not providing proper services

I know that the council hopes to get to grips with the costs of temporary housing, which have long provided excessive profits to landlords for sometimes very inadequate accommodation.

The council has also been desperately slow in spending its separate capital housing money, where it still has cash. Lots of council blocks have broken doors. Safer secure blocks save costs by combatting vandalism, less costly mental health needs for insecure residents and lower heating bills.

A councillors’ weekly contracts overview committee is needed. Other councils have them, and Croydon used to have one. These frequent meetings help to improve value for money and also help to prevent malfeasance and corruption.

And talking of corruption, there’s no point having a new anti-fraud policy with obviously good officers if you don’t decide first how or whether to fund legal action.

The Town Hall’s trade unions complain about corrupt practices, including an historical allegation of £200,000 of council funds being siphoned off to build a home in the Caribbean. Stopping corruption protects front line services.

We should stop the flirtation – by both political parties – with arms-length operating companies. They have been the equivalent of financial death for Croydon Council. The Fairfield Halls Report In The Public Interest – expected sometime this month – will, I fear, raise serious concerns about inappropriate financial practice within the council. Just where has that £70million been spent? Uncertainties over an arms-length company are blocking the completion of two years of council accounts, and likely costing another small fortune in accounting costs.

Forensic accountants should be engaged to trace where the money has gone at the council and to pursue the litigation to recover it.

Fairfield Halls: where has the £70m been spent?

We constantly miss out on government funding by just not bidding for them. Frankly, it’s annoying the way governments run some funding this way. It’s expensive and plays up to individual ministers’ personal vanities. Just allocating money based on need would be more efficient and fair.

But this is how it’s done these days. Our council needs a dedicated bidding team to help access millions of pounds of funding.

Cutting planning officers is just stupid. Deliver planning decisions in a timely fashion and you attract investment and increased tax revenues.

The council’s pension fund continues to outperform in markets that have themselves been very (over) strong. The fund should be asked to take even less in contributions from the council than it has recently considered taking. In good times, the fund should support a friend in need at the council, when the council has supported it in the past when it was a dreadfully poor performer (under the Tories, by the way, who assert that they are supposed to be better at finance).

Interest rates are at historic lows. The council should and will borrow over the long-term. You can secure significant financial annual accounting savings by extending the maturity profile of the council’s huge debt and discounting repayment at a lower rate by having more years to pay back. There’s more than £3million a year of savings here – as much as half of the amount the council is saving by making those dreadful Council Tax benefits cuts.

With the council’s huge £1.6billion debt, managing it should be a full-time job. For every 1per cent saved in interest rates paid, £16million a year can be saved, to spend on stopping those cuts.

Answer the phone: the council could save money by being more responsive to residents

The pension fund has grown from £863.2million in March 2016 to £1.65billion as of September 2021. Much like it used to be said that British Airways was a pension fund that also happened to fly planes, the size of the Croydon fund is pretty big nowadays compared to the council. Like British Airways, Croydon is a pension fund that also happens to provide council services.

The fund is now 107 per cent funded. But the fund’s head of pensions also has to run the council’s treasury. A £1.65billion pension fund needs 100 per cent attention. The fund’s success has a huge impact on the council’s finances and our excellent pension board and our external governance advisers support a full-time post and an urgent look at adequate resourcing. Frankly, there’s big money here.

Just getting the basics right could yield huge savings for the council.

If you neglect residents, their needs just get greater and much more costly. Blocking contact with residents just increases costs. The council thinks that one way to manage demand for services is to avoid answering the phone. When Jo Negrini was chief executive, they reduced the hours that phone lines were open, ending the day at 4pm.

Stop the cuts: Andrew Pelling (left, with megaphone) has helped with previous Town Hall protests against cuts

Yet when I go visiting residents, door to door, one after another says the council does not even respond to the council’s preferred route of contact, online and by email.

There are some examples of really good beneficial demand management in the council. Drop the blunt blocking demand management, treat residents with respect and help them help themselves; it will save millions.

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children (UASC) placements have taken a lot of money out of the council’s budget over many years. The government doesn’t fund all of it. Council services have to be cut to pay for what should be a national budget responsibility. Croydon’s understandably welcoming approach to those who come to our shores costs big money because we are a key port of entry with the Home Office immigration service here. We can’t take it anymore.

Croydon should be like Kent County Council and look to the courts to get the government to do its duty and decline to take more UASC, if necessary.

Sharing services with other councils is not supported by Croydon Labour, Katherine Kerswell, the chief executive, told me.

But this is not privatisation. We run the council to provide front line services, especially for the needy. Theological objections to sharing service organisation with other councils is parochial and fails to secure the kind of economies of scale that will pay for the services that are being cut.

Politicians go on about the government’s grant to Croydon being cut by 76 per cent since 2010. This is true. Lots of councils face such a grant cut. The government has put the burden back on the Council Tax-payer. Tax rises through sleight of hand.

Waste plan: properly supervising contracts, like the one with Veolia, could save Croydon millions

If the council genuinely has 76per cent less money per year, it would be shut, not broke. Other councils are not broke, and they have had similar cuts.

Based on the Retail Price Index, a more appropriate measure to council costs, the council has seen a bit over 20 per cent real terms cuts between 2010, when the Tories and Liberals started hacking away at councils, and 2019. This is the real cuts figure and it’s huge to cope with. Other councils are treated almost as badly.

For historical reasons and outdated demographic information, Croydon receives a lot less grant per head than more prosperous inner London boroughs. We need to employ the best lobbyists if we want a better grant. If we fail to bid for other funds anyway, government can use that as an excuse for not increasing our grant.

And, of course, ask the public and council staff for savings ideas. They often know best. Devolving budgets to communities will likely deliver major savings.

So we don’t need to be hurting the most needy in our town.

My 20-point solution is…

  1. Oversee contracts properly
  2. Don’t extend contracts without checking current need
  3. Good contract management reduces increase of residents’ other costly needs
  4. Apply contract financial penalties
  5. Make the private sector contractors perform better financially
  6. Create a weekly contracts committee
  7. Fund legal action to pursue fraud cases and combat corruption
  8. Stop using arms-length companies
  9. Employ forensic accountants to trace where the money has gone at the council and pursue the litigation to recover it
  10. A dedicated bidding team should capture all available government and agency funding
  11. Deliver timely planning decisions to bring investment and extra tax income
  12. Secure money from the overperforming pension fund
  13. Have a full-time treasury officer and a full-time pensions officer
  14. Manage debt to reduce interest costs, thus saving many millions
  15. Lengthen debt maturity profile and account for this over longer time span to aid budget significantly
  16. Change blunt demand management. Get the basics right. Answer the phone
  17. Tell government we’ll go to court to recover Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Children costs or else refuse to take more
  18. Share services with other councils
  19. Lobby professionally for a fair government grant
  20. Trust council staff and the public to identify savings and pilot devolving budgets to more cost-conscious local communities.

One last thing that surprises me. Croydon Conservatives voted for the council’s budgets in 2019 and 2020. They used to present alternative budgets (I know this, because I used to do it for them in the Town Hall and City Hall).

I think this shows that Croydon’s Tories have no ideas about how to recover Croydon’s budget and nor how to stop some of these cuts to services and payments to the needy.

Tories made a mistake in rushing to choose their Mayoral candidate in the form of an uninspiring current leader of their council group. The Tories, it seems, are happy to have no ideas and rely on just repeating the mantra “bankruptcy, bankruptcy, bankruptcy” to try to get elected.

It may prove insufficient to be the “No Ideas Party”.

  • Andrew Pelling has been a Labour councillor for Waddon since 2014. He chairs the council’s pensions committee

Croydon Commentary is a platform for all our readers to offer their personal views about what matters to them in and around the borough. To submit an article for publication, just email us at inside.croydon@btinternet.com, or post your comment to an Inside Croydon article that has caught your attention

Become a Patron!


  • If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or 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, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
  • 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

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 Andrew Pelling, Council Tax, Croydon Council, Katherine Kerswell, Planning, Refuse collection, RIPI II: Fairfield Halls, Section 114 notice, Veolia, Waddon and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Labour councillor’s 20-point plan to reduce service cuts

  1. CentralCroydon says:

    Meanwhile, in the real world……….

  2. Mary Jones says:

    Definitely agree with the contracts bit in relation to Conway and gulley drains management.
    Highways dept don’t seem to follow up on reports of blocked gulleys or check to see if the contractor is carrying out contracted work. I have reported numerous blocked drains over the last 10 months in local roads. Most remain blocked.
    It sounds as if you have some good ideas. Are your council leaders listening?

  3. Frank Ward says:

    Despite being a wicked politician Andrew is actually a very astute person doing exactly what his voters put him into the town hall to do.

    • As a Labour Councillor since 2014, why hasn’t Andrew Pelling encouraged his fellow members of the ruling Labour Council to implement many of the initiatives in his 20 point plan many years ago ?
      If so Croydon Council maybe would not be in such dire straights as they are today.

    • Marzia+Nicodemi+Ehikioya says:

      Andrew is a professional person. See “The pension fund has grown from £863.2million in March 2016 to £1.65billion as of September 2021.”
      Croydon needs a professional to sort out the mess we are in.
      Andrew has been warning the Council of risks for 8 years.

  4. Ian Kierans says:

    Andrew makes a compelling argument on all points and they are all valid. However first and foremost they all require a collective approach by all elected representatives. I t then requires those collective (and cross party) Councillors to present a united front to the Administrators and Ministry.

    This includes the new Mayor whomever this may be.

    There should also be a collective residents approach to Government.
    We the residents did not create this fiasco. We the residents did not change legislation allowing idiocy and the frittering away of finance.
    We the residents of Croydon should not be bearing the whole brunt of wide and wholesale cuts that others are not enduring.
    So if all of both parties Councillors campaign to reverse this situation then the least we 400,000 residents can do is assist in protesting direct to this Government.

  5. Andrew is doing what Katherine Kerswell should be doing.

    Does KK exist – or is she a hologram controlled by Michael Gove?

  6. Lewis White says:

    So very reassuring –Andrew Pelling’s article- to know that there are Labour Councillors with intelligence and ability to see through the murky waters and work out what needs to be done to address these vital points. I wish him well, and hope that his ideas are embraced by the incoming Elected Mayor. I am sure that there are others too, as evidenced by Robert Canning’s recent actions reported in Inside Croydon.

    Among the many excellent points made in the article were the stupidity of cutting the number of planning officers. Yes, he’s quite right, it is vital to have quick responses to planning applications….and enough planners to more than cope with the workload. Whilst that does not sort out the issue of planning policy, nor the interpretation of such by senior managers, which are two essentials needing to be revised, the truth is that, without enough good staff, the whole service will collapse.

    Also, the need to bring back the ability of residents to phone the council and speak direct to the person most likely to deal with their issue.

    Andrew mentions the need to treat residents with respect.

    In fact, almost everything boils down to the need for respect– which is actually a 2 way street, with obligations on both residents and council officers to listen and be reasonable, and for officers to be clear and as helpful as reasonably possible.

    Respect means respect in Communications. The “Help Centre” is an abysmal thing. I don’t blame the call handlers although everything goes at glacial pace. A request for a real conversation with a real council officer in the relevant team who can advise, or get the responsible officer to call back, or sort the problem out, very rarely results in a real call back.

    There are always some aggressive members of the public, who need to understand that council officers are human too, but it is a simple truth that a perfectly polite and understanding member of the public can eventually become angry if their enquiry ends up going round a Kafkaesque loop of non-reply.

    Even years ago under the Conservative administration, there were real problems of faceless management. I recall with pain the so-called consultation about the Future of Croydon parks.
    Give us yoir ideas ! was the invitation.

    When I sent in a number of ideas, and wanted to discuss them with a real person. I experienced a wall of silence, a non-response. My perfectly rational proposal was rejected, partly on totally spurious grounds. Eventually, a local councillor spent his own time surveying local resident opinion about the idea (a skatepark in a Coulsdon park). I have no complaint about his actions, but I am to this day hopping mad about the way I was treated by the parks officers. I eventually got one to leave their office and meet me and the councilor on site, but it was soooo wary, and grudging.

    As a former Parks officer in another council a decade before that, and as professional in 2 others involved in landscape and conservation, and project manager whose every public consultation letter or poster (and I did over 10 every year ) was finished with my name, office phone and mobile number and an invitation to contact me with any questions, I have never treated the public with other than due respect. That does not mean excessive, fulsome respect, nor saying yes to everything. It is about being treated openly as one would want to be treated. But if the answer is to be no, the real reasons need to be sound, and then imparted politely.

    The policies and strategy need of course to be right. Officers at all levels need to take responsibility.

    I hope that the new Mayor will reverse the tide of non-communication.
    I suspect that many council officers are dedicated to public service, but are being stifled.

    My hope is that valuing the council staff, and improving the professional standards of council officers and public service is central to the new Mayor’s philosophy.

    Huge thanks to Cllr Pelling for giving me hope.

Leave a Reply