Crisis-hit Croydon Council needs reset, MP says
A "short and sharp reset" is required for Croydon Council to recover from poor performance and high debt levels, the minister for housing, communities and local government has announced.
Jim McMahon has told the House of Commons the council's financial position is "deteriorating rapidly" after a report highlighted concerns about its ability to improve.
McMahon said that failing to change course "would condemn Croydon's residents to a worsening position without an exit strategy" and he was "minded to" send in commissioners to run the council.
Executive mayor of Croydon, Jason Perry, said he and the council "had done everything possible" to fix the finances "whilst protecting vital services".
Perry added: "We have generated over £230m in capital receipts, including £130m of asset sales and have plans to sell a further £68m assets this year.
"The council also raised council tax by 10% over the cap in 2023, to help meet the panel's demand that we close the gap in the council's finances."
The council had been under review by the government's improvement and assurance panel, set up to provide external advice, challenge and expertise.
McMahon said the council's general fund debt sits at around £1.4bn and it relies on the allocation of Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) through in-principle capitalisation directions to balance its budget.
The panel's report has said there has been a lack of pace throughout the intervention, but the deteriorating financial position, which is not being gripped and tackled adequately by the council, is reaching a "financial crisis".
McMahon added: "I am satisfied that the London Borough of Croydon is failing to comply with its Best Value Duty. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1999 to implement an intervention package."
Perry said, via a statement: "If at any time the panel or government felt that there was any action the council should be taking and was not, they had the power to instruct us. They never did.
"Surely that means we are doing everything possible, and they agree with our actions? We have already made very difficult decisions and in my view the residents of Croydon have felt enough pain.
"Despite all the improvements that have been delivered by the council and its staff, it appears the government wants to centralise control into the hands of commissioners."
He said the council would consider all options before submitting its formal response to the government, the deadline for which is 25 June.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk
Croydon Council asks for £136m government bailout
Council to make cuts to services to save £30m
Croydon approves council tax rise of 15%
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Bill C-5 passes in the House, as Carney vows to consult Indigenous groups
OTTAWA — Facing concerns and warnings of Indigenous resistance against a key part of his governing agenda, Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged Friday that 'more fulsome conversations are needed' to choose the development projects his government wants to fast-track through controversial new legislation, Bill C-5. Speaking moments after the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons, Carney pledged to hold meetings in the coming weeks with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and experts in a series of summits to 'launch the implementation of this legislation in the right way' in 'full partnership' with Indigenous communities. This will be the 'first step' in the process to choose which projects will be chosen through the new legislation for the fast-track to approval within the government's goal of two years. The Liberal government's major projects bill has passed the House of Commons thanks to help from the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Mark Carney calls the legislation the core of his government's domestic economic response to U.S. tariffs (June 20, 2025 / The Canadian Press) Carney also repeated pledges earlier this week, as the Liberal government rammed the bill through the House over the objections of some Indigenous , environmental groups and opposition parties, that the new process will respect Indigenous rights to consultation and 'free, prior and informed consent' under the United Nations Declaration to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government House Leader said this week they expect the bill to pass in the Senate next week. 'These projects will be built with Indigenous nations and communities. This is not an aspiration. It is the plan embedded in the bill itself,' Carney said Friday. 'We all agree that more fulsome conversations are needed to select the nation-building projects and to determine the conditions that they must fulfil. In other words, the real work begins now.' In the April 28 election, Carney's Liberals won a minority government while promising to fast-track development projects like mines, pipelines and ports to boost economic growth, make Canada a 'superpower' in clean power and fossil fuels, and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian goods. Carney acknowledged the bill sailed through the Commons quickly, but argued Friday that speed was needed to confront the 'crisis' of the American trade war. 'This is the response. This is us being in charge of our destiny. That's why we pushed it,' Carney said. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty — a former grand chief of Eeyou Istchee in Quebec — said the promised summits are a 'serious signal' that Indigenous communities are going to be 'at the table' in deciding how projects will be chosen under the new process. 'There have been more projects selected. It is something that we will define together,' she said. The bill passed through the House of Commons Friday in two votes, after House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia ruled to split the legislation into two parts. All parties supported a less contentious section to lift federal barriers to trade and labour movement inside Canada. The other, more controversial part dealing with major projects also passed with Liberals and Conservatives voting en masse in favour, and Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green MPs voting against. Toronto Liberal and former cabinet minister MP Nate Erskine-Smith also voted against the national projects part of the legislation . The version of the bill now moving to the Senate came with a suite of amendments, including some that the government supported, aimed at increasing transparency and restricting some of the powers the legislation would create. This includes a provision to obtain the written consent of affected provinces and territories before the government chooses to fast-track a given project, and to ensure the new process that the law would create respects ethics rules and can't override legislation like the Indian Act. The changes also created a new requirement for the government to publish a suite of information about the projects — from the contents of any studies and assessments about their impacts, to all recommendations about them from the civil service — at least 30 days before it officially puts them into the fast-track process. Business groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have also supported the legislation, arguing that a thicket of government regulations has delayed major projects, and that there is now an urgent need to build new infrastructure for energy, critical minerals and other sectors. But Bill C-5 remains controversial, including with predictions this week from some Indigenous leaders that it could inspire resistance and protest like the 2012 'Idle No More' movement because of a lack of consultation on the new powers. MPs have also condemned the national projects part of the legislation as a troubling expansion of power that risks trampling environmental protections and Indigenous rights. After the amendments Friday, the bill retained its proposal to allow the cabinet to choose projects to fast-track based on 'any factor' it considers relevant, and to skirt laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act when reviewing projects to speed up. 'This legislation is an abomination and one that will be a stain on the reputation of this government and of our prime minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it's a bad effort,' said Green Leader Elizabeth May. Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire accused the government of reproducing the 'condescending and colonialist spirit' of the last century towards Canada's Indigenous Peoples. And Don Davies, the NDP's interim leader, alleged the bill creates 'Henry VIII' powers that allow the government 'to override laws by decree. 'It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens Indigenous rights,' Davies said. 'This bill will end up in court.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Island MPs share concern over Assisted Dying Bill after House of Commons vote
THE Isle of Wight MPs have expressed concern over the passing of the Assisted Dying Bill. The bill, which was backed by a majority of MPs, allows terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives. Despite warnings from opponents about the safety of the legislation, the bill took another step in the parliamentary process after being approved by 314 votes to 291 in the House of Commons yesterday (Friday). Labour's Isle of Wight West MP, Richard Quigley, consistently voted against the bill at every stage. Read more: Following the news of its passing, Richard said: "This bill was always going to be emotional, but it was never about winning or losing, but having the chance to debate. "We have done that and the bill has now passed. "My opposition is based on the belief the safeguards, particularly around the so-called 'anorexia loophole,' are not robust or comprehensive enough." He urged the House of Lords to apply "rigorous scrutiny" to the bill as it progresses. Richard stressed the importance of examining every aspect of its implementation, paying close attention to the risks and unresolved unintended consequences. The Isle of Wight East MP, Joe Robertson, also voted against the bill. He shared his concerns, saying: "I voted against the Assisted Dying Bill — not because I am against the principle of wanting to relieve suffering, but because there are too many loopholes, too few safeguards and potential for unintended consequences." Joe, with great experience in the legal profession, criticised amendments made to the bill since the last vote — particularly the replacement of a role for a High Court judge with a 'panel' of professionals, with no power to summon witnesses. He said: "It means judges can decide whether a child has been coerced into wanting to spend time with only one parent (in divorce proceedings), but not whether a grandparent has been coerced into wanting to end their life (under assisted dying laws). "As a former family lawyer, I find this both perverse and dangerous." The concerns raised by both MPs reflect the apprehensions of a significant number of opponents who believe the bill was rushed through without adequate consideration of the potential risks. The bill will now move to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Assisted dying – medical anthropolgist on the complex practical and ethical road ahead
The House of Commons narrowly passed the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill on June 20, a significant step toward legalising assisted dying in England and Wales. The bill must still pass through the House of Lords before it can become law. So far, the debate has centred on a key question: should people already facing a terminal prognosis have the legal right to choose when to end their lives? The discussions, both in Parliament and among the wider public, have often focused on personal stories of dying – some shared as examples of a 'good' death, others as cautionary tales of suffering. When speaking to the BBC after the bill passed, MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the legislation, described the current situation as a 'failing status quo.' She argued that the law must change to offer more control and compassion at the end of life. More than 530,000 people die in England each year, and it's estimated that around 90% of them could benefit from palliative care. Yet many are still dying in pain, with thousands experiencing unmet needs in their final months. Some supporters of the bill argue that access to assisted dying could offer an escape from anticipated suffering and loss of dignity, especially when palliative care falls short. The concept of a 'good' death already shapes the country's end-of-life care policy. Current practice encourages patient choice, comfort and dignity usually guided by the question: what matters most to you? Through advance care planning, patients can express preferences for their care, such as refusing resuscitation or declining further treatment. But these choices are usually framed in terms of what not to do. Assisted dying, by contrast, introduces a new ethical dimension: it's not about withholding treatment, but about actively intervening to end life. Over the past 15 years of conducting ethnographic research on end-of-life care in England, I've seen just how deeply people are affected when asked to contemplate their future – or the future of someone they love. Read more: Some patients are decisive: they know what they don't want, and they say so clearly. Others apologise for being a burden. Some find it too difficult to plan at all. In fact, fewer than 3% of UK adults have documented advance care plans. Clinicians, too, face challenges. I've seen doctors wish patients would recognise when treatment has become futile – and patients, in turn, hope doctors will take the decision to 'just stop'. There can be deep mistrust, with some fearing they'll be 'given up on'. These tensions are unlikely to disappear if assisted dying is legalised; in fact, they may become more pronounced. In England, the legal definition of 'terminal illness' is a life expectancy of six months or less, and that's the threshold used in this bill. It excludes people with incurable but long-term conditions who may be suffering, but aren't likely to die within half a year. This six-month cut-off also assumes that doctors can accurately predict how long someone has left. But Marie Curie, the end of life charity, called that definition 'outdated' and 'arbitrary,' highlighting how it fails to reflect clinical reality. Read more: More recently, research examining nearly 100,000 patient records from London found that prognosis is least reliable when predicting survival over the 'weeks to months' time-frame – exactly the bracket covered by the bill. Doctors are more confident estimating if someone has less than two weeks or more than a year. Anything in between is often described, quite literally, as 'the length of a piece of string'. The bill's passage in the Commons reflects a growing desire to give people more choice, control and clarity at the end of life. For many, it marks a long-overdue recognition of both suffering and the right to self-determination. Yet while the vote signals strong support for greater autonomy in dying, the everyday realities of predicting prognosis and navigating complex end-of-life decisions remain uncertain. The practical and ethical challenges are far from resolved. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Erica Borgstrom receives/has received funding for her research from the National Institute of Health Research, the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council, Marie Curie, the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness, NHS England & NHS Innovation, and End of Life Doula UK.
