Agenda item

The Scrutiny & Overview Committee will be provided with an update from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Hamida Ali.

The Committee considered a presentation from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Hamida Ali, which provided an overview of the previous eight months since Councillor Ali was appointed as Leader and looked forward to the year ahead. A copy of the presentation delivered by the Leader can be found on the following link:-

https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/documents/b8909/Item%204%20Leader%20of%20the%20Council%20-%20Presentation%2015th-Jun-2021%2018.30%20Scrutiny%20Overview%20Committee.pdf?T=9

During the presentation the following information was noted: -

·         Credit was given to council staff and Members for the scale of change delivered over the preceding six months, while it was acknowledged that there was still a considerable journey ahead.

·         Since Councillor Ali was appointed as Leader, the Council had responded well to its precarious position and with the support of others such as the Local Government Association, had been able to balance its budget through capitalisation.

·         There had been a range of work aimed at changing the culture of the organisation including the Leader and the Chief Executive attending frequent staff briefings and Cabinet Members attending staff roadshow events.

·         The conditions found in the flats at the council block on Regina Road had resulted from a breakdown in systems designed to support residents. There was now a focus on delivering a quick response to address both the repairs needed on the block and the Council’s relationship with the residents.

·         The appointment of Katherine Kerswell as the permanent Chief Executive was due to be considered by the Council on the 5 July. Providing this appointment was confirmed, a new structure for the Council could start being implemented.

·         The Administration had been revisiting its priorities and had included the following new ones: -          

o   Warm, safe and dry homes for everyone

o   Tackling the climate emergency

o   Supporting Croydon’s health and economic recovery from Covid-19.

·         In order to deliver the priorities there would be a focus on the Council living within its means, having a strong relationship with residents, speaking up for Croydon and the issues that affected local communities, and having an open and transparent council.

Following the presentation, the Committee was given the opportunity to question the Leader on the information provided. The first question noted that there had been criticism in the Report in the Public Interest (RIPI) of the concentration of power within a small group of Councillors. As the Council had new leadership, it was questioned whether there was now a more collective approach to decision making. It was confirmed that through development work with the local government sector and the Local Government Association (LGA), the Cabinet had been able to develop its team dynamic which had led to a new culture of sharing of information to ensure collection resolutions were found for the more challenging issues.

Although it was acknowledged that the issues leading to poor housing conditions at Regina Road were long standing, it was questioned how going forward the Cabinet would be able to satisfy itself that residents were receiving a good service from the Council. The Leader confirmed that the issue had first been reported four years ago, but as it had not been addressed it had developed into a significant risk for residents. Going forward it was essential that performance reporting identified the correct indicators to spot any potential issues. There was also a need to review how the Council worked with its residents to ensure it was listening and hearing what they were saying. Responses from residents would also need to be triangulated with other sources of information to provide a rounded picture.

In response, it was highlighted that performance reports did not always give a line of sight over service delivery, with it questioned whether other ways of checking performance, such as in-person evidence gathering, had been considered. It was agreed that a mixed approach was required, which the Cabinet had been employing in the response to Regina Road, with visits to residents to help understand their circumstances and the support they required from the Council. Looking forward, the Cabinet was keen to increase its visibility through meeting residents, partners and community groups to get a better understanding of what was happening in the borough.  

In response to a question about whether the Council was on the right track to become more evidence and impact led, it was confirmed that this was the direction the Council was moving towards. The Renewal Plan had a three to six year delivery schedule and although there had already been a significant amount of progress in changing the culture of the Council to date, there was still a lot to be delivered.

As it was noted that the Council needed to identify savings of £63m, it was questioned whether this could be achieved while still delivering good outcomes for residents. It was advised that a range of methods would be used, such as looking at other authorities with a record of providing good quality services, to find a balance between achieving the savings and maintaining service quality. There also needed to be a greater level of analysis of what the Council was doing and if workstreams were not achieving the required outcomes, it was important to look for alternative solutions to ensure resources were used to the best effect.

Given the scale of the challenge facing the Council, the Leader was asked whether she felt there was the right political and corporate leadership team in place to deliver. The Leader stated that there was a strong Cabinet team in place and the progress delivered to date would not have been achieved without them. It would also not have been possible to deliver such a strong application for capitalisation without the commitment of council staff. The lack of permanency within the senior management of the Council was an issue, but a more permanent structure would be brought forward by the Chief Executive in the very near future.

As a follow up it was questioned whether the new officer structure would respond to previous concerns about the structure being too top heavy. It was confirmed that it would to some degree, but at the same time the structure was designed to ensure the Croydon Renewal Plan could be delivered.  Many of the prior issues found at the Council were in part caused by the lack of basic monitoring and reporting. As monthly reporting had been introduced, this would start to change the culture of the Council. Cabinet Members had participated in a series of feedback sessions with staff to consider how to ensure there was a collective endeavour to change the culture within the organisation.

Reassurance was sought from the Leader that she would be seeking to address the culture of the organisation toward access to information, as there was significant concern about the current provision of information. It was confirmed that the Cabinet was seeking to make information more publicly available through Cabinet discussions around areas such as finance, performance and risk. Resident contacts and complaints were being proactively reviewed as a means of identifying emerging issues and to improve residents’ interactions with the Council. Work was also underway to improve the Council’s Forward Plan, which would ensure that agendas were planned much further in advance. It was again highlighted that the Croydon Renewal Plan had a three to five year timeline for delivery and it was important to ensure that what was delivered was both manageable and sustainable, as it was not possible to bring forward every improvement immediately. The Leader gave support to principle of Scrutiny being able to access performance information to satisfy itself that the Council was performing as expected.

There was concern raised that the Government not granting an extension to the Landlord Licensing Scheme, would create a significant shortfall in the Council’s budget. As this had not previously been listed on the Council’s risk register it was questioned whether there could be other items not identified that may challenge the delivery of the budget. It was advised that allowance had been made in the budget for a potential negative outcome from the Government on the Landlord Licensing Scheme. As the response had now been received, it would be accounted for accordingly. It was important to now focus on what the Council could do as an alternative to the Landlord Licensing Scheme. Reassurance was given that risk was now routinely discussed as part of the financial reporting process particularly high-risk items such as the funding for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

As it had previously been stated that the Cabinet was working on a collective basis with shared responsibility for decision making, it was questioned whether this approach could be seen throughout the organisation. It was acknowledged that the tendency for services to work within silos needed to be challenged and it would take time to deliver a more collaborative approach to working. Every member of staff had been involved in the recent consultation process which would help to ensure they understood the new corporate priorities and ways of working.

Given all the challenges facing the Council, it was questioned whether there was sufficient head space for new opportunities to be identified, with the possible co-location of libraries and children’s centres given as an example. It was highlighted that the Council was keen to work with residents to co-produce a plan that would address the issues highlighted within the Housing Services. An e-citizens panel was also being considered as a means to renew the Council’s relationship with residents.

In response to concerns raised about the Council’s approach to project management, it was highlighted that there was a new approach being used that would allow for increased reporting. However, it was accepted that full reassurance about this could only be provided through the production of regular project monitoring reports.

It was stated that there was a perception of the Council that it was officer led and reassurance was sought that the political and corporate leadership were working together as one team. The Leader assured the Committee that the Cabinet worked very closely with the executive leadership and that the Council was a democratically led organisation. The priorities of the Council were set by the Administration and it was the executive role to lead on delivery.

It was highlighted that there had been reports in the press about Kent County Council taking action against the Government due to concerns about its funding for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) and as such it was questioned whether the Council should take a similar approach. It was confirmed that the Cabinet would be having further conversations about how it dealt with the historic underfunding for UASC and at the moment all options were being considered.

At the conclusion of this item the Chair thanked the Leader of the Council for her engagement with the Committee. It was also noted that access to information and the line of sight of the political and corporate leadership over the organisation were likely to be themes for revisiting during the forthcoming year.