What the Greens said in the council’s budget debate today

The Greens have put forward a £1.1 billion budget for Brighton and Hove City Council for the coming financial year.

They also propose putting up the council tax by 4.99 per cent for the 2023-24 financial year which starts in April.

Here is what Green councillor Tom Druitt said as he proposed the budget at Hove Town Hall this afternoon (Thursday 23 February) …

I’d like to start by putting this budget setting process in context. Every year, we hear how the council’s funding situation is the worst it’s ever been. This is true.

Just the other day, we heard how Woking Borough Council is facing effective bankruptcy. Croydon has already done so. Hampshire and Kent recently warned that they will also face bankruptcy in the future if they continue on the current path.

Over the last 13 years, Brighton and Hove has lost over £110 million of annual government funding. This equates to about a third of the council’s “general fund” which is the money the council has to spend on services excluding schools and council housing.

On top of this, the council faces an unprecedented number of challenges – still recovering from the pandemic and suffering the effects of Brexit and the fallout from the invasion of Ukraine.

And if that wasn’t enough, we have had rampant inflation of over 10 per cent, caused by a series of policy and economic failures by the Conservative government. The last time inflation was 10 per cent in this country, I was three years old.

This budget is also different from previous budgets because there is an election looming. This is important, as the council is a minority administration and the only way a budget can pass is with support from more than one party.

Over the last three years of the Green administration we have endeavoured to work collaboratively with other parties, recognising that we cannot pass a budget alone, and also valuing the input of colleagues with different points of view.

We have done so again this year, working with colleagues from across the chamber, as well as with our staff, our trade unions, residents, businesses and the community and voluntary sector.

Greens believe that you can never do enough engagement – and you will see how the budget proposals have changed since the first draft proposals were published in December, right up to the amendments we bring today.

All of these changes have been the result of listening to the concerns of residents, of our staff, our trade unions, the community and voluntary sector and colleagues in the other political groups.

This is what you get with a Green council: genuine engagement and hard graft right up to the final whistle.

However, despite this, and because there is an election looming, you will hear members across the chamber making political points simply for theatre.

Labour will talk about Green vanity projects and the i360, despite being in charge of overseeing the i360’s performance and loan repayments for the majority of the period since it opened. And what Labour call Green vanity projects today, they adopt as policy tomorrow.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, will talk about inefficiency and waste in council departments, seemingly unaware that every department has been cut to the bone in every council in the country, including their own.

Hampshire and Kent, who both warned they could take it no more, are both Conservative councils. Maybe our own Conservatives can offer Hampshire and Kent some advice on reducing inefficiencies; I’m sure they’d be delighted to receive it.

There will also probably be some misinformation about the council investing in “vanity projects” while allowing other important services to be cut. This is not the case.

Most projects in the city have been funded by a specific pot of money that can only be used for that project – and a huge amount of that money has come from ring-fenced grants from the government or the local enterprise partnership or other external body.

This money cannot simply be switched to something else and, in most cases, if it is not used for the purpose intended, it has to be returned to where it came from.

However, there is no escaping the fact that this budget is not a good budget. Inflation and the growing demand for council services have put a £30 million pressure on the budget, and with only £10 million of extra funding to cover this pressure, the council has had to find ways of bridging a gap of £20 million.

This has proven to be an almost impossible task, as the majority of services the council provides are statutory services.

And the small number of non-statutory services we have left are all those that make a big difference to residents. Those services that are most treasured, like

• Nurseries
• Libraries
• Early years support
• Services for disabled children
• Youth services
• Learning disability services
• Mental health services
• Council-run care homes
• Homeless shelters
• Toilets
• Bus services
• Economic support for our business and tourism sectors
• Beach lifeguards
• Funding for the community and voluntary sector and
• Heritage attractions like the Volk’s Railway

…

These are all non-statutory services – and every year the government fails to fund councils properly is another year these services will be under attack.

We have done our very best to safeguard as many of these services as possible and the budget I am presenting today is far less painful than the draft presented in December.

However, it is still painful, and we stand in solidarity with anyone affected adversely, whether they are our valued staff or residents in the city we love.

Your struggle is our struggle and we call on the government to address the crisis in local authority funding before there is nothing left of these services at all.

The budget presented to you today is one where incredibly difficult choices have to be made. In preparing the proposals, Green councillors have worked hard to prioritise

• support for the most vulnerable in our city
• services for young people
• support for equalities, diversity and Brighton and Hove as a City of Sanctuary
• reducing economic inequality, for example, support for the living wage and narrowing the gap between the highest and lowest-paid council staff
• preventative services and “spend to save” investments
• investment in housing and action against homelessness
• investment in actions to combat the climate crisis
• investment in the look and feel of the city and
• minimising the impact on jobs

…

Moreover, we have assessed each of the budget proposals with Labour colleagues in light of its impact on

• financial sustainability
• community wealth-building potential
• contribution to the city’s target of carbon-neutral 2030
• addressing the housing and homelessness crisis
• supporting a diverse, welcoming and tolerant city
• health and wellbeing
• support for those facing the impacts of austerity

…

Where we have been unable to save a service, we have worked hard to mitigate it. And where we have been able to invest, we have done so.

We have improved the pay of the lowest-paid council staff. Over the last three years we have invested in the council tax reduction scheme to help those who are struggling most financially.

We have invested in warmer homes, saving energy and reducing bills for tenants. We have capped the increase in energy cost services charges to help with the cost of living crisis.

We are on course for the delivery of 500 extra council homes over the last four years, with over 200 delivered in the last year alone.

We are bringing into council ownership 176 council homes at truly affordable “social rents”, with the first 49 coming into the council’s ownership this month (and the) highest standards of sustainability in newly built homes in Portslade, with green walls, solar PV and ground source heat pumps.

But the work is not over. We are bringing a number of amendments to the meeting this afternoon in an effort to continue to improve the budget, reverse the worst of the cuts and mitigate those we cannot avoid.

These proposals have been brought together after listening to residents’ concerns and working around the clock to find every available penny, to save as much as possible and support as many vital public services as we possibly can.

In January we managed to find enough available resource to reverse proposals to close council toilets and Bright Start nursery.

And now, following more consultation with residents and working together with Green group colleagues, council officers, staff, trade unions and the community and voluntary sector, we have managed to find enough money to reverse the worst of the remaining cuts.

In bringing these proposals we are prioritising support for the most vulnerable in our city, and those services which residents have told us are the most valuable.

It is proposed to

• Reverse £45,000 of the £48,000 proposed cut to the Youth Arts programme.
• Reverse the proposed £50,000 cut to paid placements for the pre-employment programme. This proposal requires £95,000 in recurrent funding.

It is proposed to

• Reverse £75,000 of the proposed £80,000 cut to youth-led grants.
• This proposal requires £0.075m in recurrent funding. It is proposed to fund this by generating additional parking income from revised off-street parking charges.

…

It is proposed to

• Reduce the proposed saving of £210,000 to “supported employment” by £102,000. The revised saving would therefore become £108,000.

This proposal requires £0.102m in recurrent funding. It is proposed to fund this by

• Increasing the fees and charges for residential social care settings for self-funders by 20 per cent compared with 2022-23, raising an additional £54,000.
• Increasing the burial charges for non-Brighton and Hove residents by 50 per cent and for residents by 10 per cent, raising an estimated £13,000.
• Increasing the scaffolding licence fees by 15 per cent overall to raise £5,000.
• Redirecting additional private rented sector enforcement income of £30,000 from further enforcement and utilising these resources to support the budget amendment.

…

It is proposed to

• Reduce the proposed cut to the Communities Fund annual grants programme of £66,000 by £35,000 for five years. This reduces the cut to £31,000.
• Allocate £20,000 on a one-off basis to increase resources available for the consultation on private rented sector licensing in 2023-24.
• Reduce the proposed cut to the Communities Fund annual grants programme of £66,000 by a further £20,000 for four years from 2024-25. This reduces the cut to £11,000 from 2024-25.
• Allocate £45,000 recurrent funding to provide a housing policy and strategy resource for five years to unblock progress towards more focused and strategic housing interventions to reduce homelessness and meet housing need.

…

This proposal requires £100,000 in recurrent funding. It is proposed to fund this by designating 30 additional home purchase properties for use as temporary accommodation for five years, displacing private sector leasing (PSL) properties that would otherwise be needed, thereby reducing costs of PSL by an estimated £100,000 per year for five years.

Subject to full council approval to a freeze of members’ allowances for both 2022-23 and 2023-24, it is proposed to

• Reduce the planned saving of £210,000 to Supported Employment by £54,000.
• This proposal requires £54,000 in recurrent funding. Subject to full council approval to a freeze to members’ allowances at the 2021-22 level, meaning no increase for 2022-23 or 2023-24, following consideration of the review and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP).

…

It is proposed to fund this by

• Utilising the saving generated by a freeze in members’ allowances estimated at £54,000 which consists of £15,000 recurrent saving from inflationary provision included in the 2022-23 “revenue budget” together with a saving of £39,000 in 2023-24.

It is proposed to

• Reduce the planned saving of £210,000 to “supported employment” by £22,000.
• This proposal requires £22,000 in recurrent funding.

…

I would also like to thank the other political groups for bringing their amendments – and we welcome all efforts to improve the budget for our residents. Some of the proposals we will be supporting and others we will not be supporting.

We have been clear with opposition parties that we will be very sympathetic to amendments that use “clean money”, ie, not robbing from one service to pay for another.

In practice, this means money saved from doing things more efficiently, money raised through new income or money raised by investment in a “spend to save” initiative or preventative service.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for their engagement in this year’s budget-setting exercise

• those residents who have come to council meetings and engaged with us in the council chamber, through petitions, emails and out and about in the city
• our valued and incredibly hard-working staff who have put in all the hours to facilitate the best possible outcome
• our trade unions who have been a valued “critical friend” and whose constructive criticism has helped us avoid the very worst of the cuts
• the community and voluntary sector who have been understanding of the challenges but clear in communicating their needs
• councillors from the other parties who have engaged constructively in the process
• my Green group colleagues and my job-share partner David Gibson

…

David is an incredibly hard worker with strong values who leaves no stone unturned in the search for a better deal for residents.

And David and I have been incredibly well supported by our convenorship team, committee chairs and all members of the Green group who have deliberated late into the night on many occasions trying to find a way to protect as many services as possible.

This is not a good budget. After 13 years of austerity and £110 million of annual funding wiped out, this is the most difficult budget this council has ever had to set.

However, it is a balanced budget, giving our city confidence and stability to move forwards and I truly believe that it is the least-worst option we could have possibly had.

There is no other group of people that would have given it so much care and attention, compassion and hard graft as my colleagues have done and all the officers who have supported us. And the result is a budget that is so much better than what could have been.

However, we have to recognise that we have dodged a bullet. Unless there is a change of government policy – or a change of government – it will be worse next year.

We must work together to apply maximum pressure to fight for a better settlement for our city, for our residents and for our children.