Green councillor Ollie Sykes gave his party’s response of the proposed 2026-27 budget for Brighton and Hove City Council at Hove Town Hall this afternoon (Thursday 26 February).
He said …
One thing is clear from this proposed budget. This council and our residents are paying – in job losses, decimated services and in hard cash – for a history of national policy failures that have impacted directly on the ability of councils everywhere to deliver.
These are failures of successive governments over decades, including the current Labour government.
Looking through the cuts in our proposed budget, they’re a tragedy for individuals (and) for teams. They’re a tragedy also for residents looking to the council for basic services and for support.
It’s usually the case – at all levels of the organisation – that when a job is cut or a vacant post deleted, there’s more pressure on remaining team members.
More pressure means more stress, maybe more time off, maybe a greater likelihood of leaving. But our people stay because they believe in the importance of public services. I’m massively grateful to all our staff for keeping us going, often under increased pressure.
And there is the impact also of flatlining budgets on the community and voluntary sector in our city. It’s good news that at least that the cash value of key funds is staying at the same level.
This still represents a real-terms cut when seen alongside increased cost pressures, increased demand and shortfalls in commissioned funding.
Looking at savings, for example, through income generation, renegotiation of contracts (and) demand management. I worry about achievability.
We know that in this financial year, we expect that more than a third of planned savings will not be achieved.
If the planned savings for the next financial year are not achieved, of course it’s back to Plan B which is more cuts, more frozen vacancies and more in-year paralysis.
Why are we, and others, in such a bad place with demand-led pressures? These are national-level failures … slow-motion train wrecks ignored by successive Tory, Lib Dem, Labour governments.
The costs of the housing crisis and of social care are now impacting on all councils to the extent here in Brighton and Hove that we have to sell assets and borrow millions just to stay afloat for another year.
There are immediate actions available to national government on the housing crisis and on social care that would reduce stresses a bit. For reasons unknown, these actions haven’t been politically expedient for this Labour government or for previous governments.
Housing crisis. The right to buy should be (called) wrong to sell. This flagship idea of Margaret Thatcher’s was an absolute disaster – 1.9 million council homes sold at an average discount of 44 per cent.
The cash receipts were £51 billion. Value now would have been £430 billion. Half the homes sold under right to buy are now rented out at market rates from private property portfolios, making a mockery of the original intent to create a home-owning democracy.
Labour have curtailed right to buy but won’t stop it. This council has lost between 50 and 100 homes each year under right to buy.
We need our housing assets – our social housing – to stay in public hands to help address our housing crisis. Why doesn’t Labour have the guts to stop right to buy?
On short-term lets, we had a great task and finish group here and cross-party agreement on the way forward. Airbnbs outnumber homes for long-term rent in our city.
Labour MP Rachael Maskell put it very well when she presented her bill on regulation of short-term accommodation at second reading Oct 2022: “Rural, coastal and urban communities are at the centre of an extraction of wealth and housing that is leaving destitution and despair. For the government not to license short-term holiday lets but just to register them will let landlords off the hook and deepen the housing crisis.”
But after October 2022, nothing more happened. Rachel Maskell lost the whip and was then allowed back. This bill may be coming back in a different form for a reading in March 2026 but that seems to be on a day that Parliament isn’t sitting. Why is this not more of a priority for our Labour government?
On social care, the King’s Fund, Nuffield Foundation and other august bodies agree that Brexit and migration are significant factors in driving costs up and quality down.
There are 110,000 unfilled vacancies in social care. This affects the viability of social care providers, the thresholds of care provision and impacts also on council budgets.
Easing migration and reversing Brexit don’t seem to be among Labour government priorities at the moment.
I have genuine admiration and respect for the Labour finance lead but there are questions to answer about the presentation of this budget. This is a smoke and mirrors budget.
And we’re getting smoke and mirrors this week from Labour nationally. The letter on Monday from Minister of State Alison McGovern approving EFS for local authorities – boasted of its largesse in providing an increase in core spending power.
It didn’t mention of course that most of this largesse will come from local taxation. We’re actually getting less from Alison McGovern over the settlement period.
Local smoke and mirrors – the in-year position. Three years ago, the council budget was overspent by about £3 million and we had to use reserves to meet the gap. A bad position to be in for many of the same reasons outlined above. We Greens never heard the end of it from Labour.
This year, the budget (was) forecast to overspend by £4.861 million. But hang on – that’s only after Labour have used £3.891 million in reserves.
So the real in-year gap at month 9 between budget and spend, before using the contingency pot, will be more than £8 million. Not just a bad position to be – that’s unprecedented and catastrophic.
Because to meet the remaining gap this year, Labour need to use £3.2 million raised from selling buildings – that money from assets owned by all of us should be used to invest in the city, not to pay the rent.
Then there’s the brief mention of a £4.775 million housing benefit subsidy pressure. Evidently an administrative error somewhere along the line, made more likely by pressure on emergency and temporary accommodation and changes in accommodation categories.
But it will have a massive impact, across years. Part of this is about whether providers are registered or not and I understand that Base One, who were hurriedly given a £19 million emergency and temporary accommodation contract earlier this year, are not a registered provider.
Please can we know more about this housing benefit subsidy error and whether we can learn lessons, for example, about the impact of so-called ‘back office’ cuts and savings?
And there’s an all-too-brief mention of another in-year pressure called a ‘planning legal challenge’. But no figure is given, or detail. Maybe a million, maybe more?
We all know what this was – and to lose a six or seven-figure sum on this is hard to comprehend in the context of our financial pressures.
All councillors know the risk of costs at appeal in planning decisions and these costs go up massively for large, complex developments. Why aren’t we being given this detail and the figure for costs?
Maybe the main issue I have with the budget presentation is a feeling of denial from Labour about the true precariousness of our finances when we have to sell assets to balance this year’s books and borrow millions to balance next year’s. Hiding the true state of the budget doesn’t do us any favours.
So this leads me to ask the question: is Labour really standing up for our city? I was quoted in Brighton and Hove News recently saying that, on the council budget, Labour hasn’t fought hard enough for Brighton and Hove.
I drew comparisons with Bristol. Two things here. My counterpart in Bristol, where Greens are running the council, expressed recently that he was more or less content with their settlement. He described the process of working with sister authorities to advocate for better settlements.
Fair Funding Review 2.0 seems to have been fairer to Green-run Bristol than Labour-run Brighton. We were promised that a Labour council with a Labour government would help this city thrive. What’s happened?
Notwithstanding this, Bristol City Council also has to make significant savings. I’ve been told that after Greens took over there, the achievement of savings in-year rose from 65 per cent under Labour to 85 per cent under Greens.
Here in Brighton and Hove, Labour’s in-year savings achievement is currently running at about 65 per cent. Roll on May 2027.
What we find odd about our need for exceptional financial support is its proposed use. About £6 million is to balance next year’s budget – unavoidable. Nearly £9 million is to top up reserves.
Of course, we need to top up reserves – no argument with that – but borrowing at 6 per cent to do that?
I’m a great fan of Martin Lewis and I never heard him suggest maxing out the credit card to top up the household rainy day pot. Sadly, it seems it’s not just us – and other councils are doing precisely this.
My fear is that we’ve not been given the full picture. So a question for Councillor Taylor: is there any prior knowledge of possible shocks that will hit in in the new financial year that we should actually be budgeting for rather than building a general risk pot with borrowed money?
We are in agreement with Labour on the big pressures and investment in emergency and temporary accommodation. But we think more can be done to address causes and also to increase supply.
To end where I started. One thing is clear from this proposed budget. Councils and residents are paying – in job losses, decimated services and in hard cash – for a history of national policy failures that have impacted directly on local authorities. These are failures of successive governments over the past 40 years.
And if council administrations aren’t prepared to be call this out, maybe their members should choose a more progressive side.
