Opposition councillors have been left in the dark, struggling to access basic information, a Green member said at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting yesterday (Thursday 21 May).
They have regularly complained about not being kept properly informed since Labour ditched decision-making by committee and switched to having a cabinet two years ago, having won a majority in the local elections a year before.
Green councillor Kerry Pickett spoke out at the council’s formal annual meeting at Brighton Town Hall when decisions were made about roles for the year to come.
She said that opposition councillors should chair three “overview and scrutiny” committees.
Councillor Pickett said: “Under the committee system, cross-party committee members would all receive information beforehand with which to evaluate and make decisions.
“The cabinet system is less transparent, affording the decision-making cabinet members access to information often denied to opposition members and residents.
“In response to this criticism, we are told that scrutiny committees are the place for us to fully examine issues of concern (and) that this is the time for the opposition to hold the decision-making cabinet accountable.”
She cited a recent Local Government Association “peer review” which recommended that councils “build trust and confidence” across political groups with cross-party representation at scrutiny committees.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey agreed with the complaint but disagreed with the Greens’ proposed solution: appointing three of their own members to chair the scrutiny committees without discussion with other parties.
Councillor Earthey said: “I can’t speak for the Conservative group but we’ve had no formal communication from you asking us if we agree to these names thus we are not participating in any appointment process to establish and approve these names.
“For the record, we only agree with one of the three names proposed. It’s a pity this amendment contains this fatal flaw.”
Councillor Earthey also criticised the way that councillors are appointed to outside organisations, such as the Open Market Community Interest Company (CIC), the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership and the Downland Advisory Panel.
He said that the council should find out what skills would be most useful to those organisations and appoint members who would be the best fit.
Labour councillor Amanda Evans, who chairs the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee, said that the LGA peer review had not recommended appointing opposition members to chair scrutiny committees.
She said that out since the scrutiny system had been set up, there were now more meetings and task and finish groups dealing with specific issues such as anti-social behaviour and holiday lets.
Councillor Evans said: “Good scrutiny is not intended to provide an opportunity to make grandstanding speeches in opposition.
“It is intended to represent all residents of the city in providing transparency and accountability in decision-making and contributing to the formulation of good future policy.”
Councillor Evans will continue to chair the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee and fellow Labour councillor Gary Wilkinson will continue to chair the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Another Labour councillor, Sam Parrott, is the new chair of the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee in place of former councillor Jackie O’Quinn.
Residents kept in the dark too. And for anyone trying to get the council to answer a Freedom of Information request, good luck! Swerving questions, deflection and simply ghosting residents seems to be the name of the game.
It’s really quite appalling.
Totally agree.
Might have to put an FOI in to see if there are any actual lib dems in Kemptown.
All part of the increase in lawfare and the control of information. I don’t see that this will change anytime soon.
Voters weren’t asked if they wanted a Politburo running Brighton. All the press releases and media are controlled by Labour. Rarely see any opposition councillors in local media. I almost miss Dawne Bartlett pointing at a bin
Opposition councillors can use local media as much as anyone. The reason you rarely see them is because they don’t really have much to say. There is an absence of ideas or policy from them. In fact this story itself is them bleating on about not having a voice, that they could and should use better, and being left in the dark.
All self inflicted I’m afraid.
The reality is opposition voices are stifled. Local media can choose what they like to publish, post and print, politicians can’t use media in the way you suggest.
Plus there are factors like the Labour administration getting rid of the political assistants for opposition parties and creating administrative posts to support their own councillors. The Labour administration have more resources at their disposal to put out press releases and communicate with the media, they have cut support for other parties. Again, another route to silencing them and preventing effective opposition and scrutiny.
I don’t know, I see plenty of Ivan Lyons pointing at potholes! Not doing anything about it mind, but…
‘Politburo’ is the word. There is nothing democratic about the Cabinet council. An outgoing Councillor was heard to describe it as ‘sinister’ and ‘not what I signed up for’ a few months ago.
Its typical of anybody not being transparent and wanting not to be questioned because they already know that there are controversial issues and who ever its affecting will want answers that there not prepared to give because of the obvious. Regarding other members and councillors surely you must have tools to use other than sitting on your hands being hog tied,and maybe a typo error its dawn barnet,who is sadly deeply missed
The legality of treating some elected councillors differently to others and not allowing them access to all the information they need to represent their Wards properly needs to be challenged.
This is also tantamount to bullying from a Council Leader who claims to be big on hate crime in all its forms.
No one elected a closed shop cabinet council and it was not in the local Labour manifesto that they intended to adopt a cabinet model if they won the election in May 2023, or many residents probably wouldn’t have voted Labour and now find they did so under false premises.
The consequences have been profound, not trivial.
The decision to go to cabinet structure should have been in the labour party’s manifesto
If you want change vote Reform at the next election. I am working class and in the past would have voted for the Hamilton’s or Robert Carden for Labour but no more.
I would urge you to look at what Reform have done so far in councils they have controlled, it’s not been good news.
It’s all good news!! Reform 4 Brighton & Hove xxx
Great thing is that there is daily reporting.
Reform’s Danny Kruger endorsed the Makersfield Reform Candidate’s misogynistic tweets including things such as “Women can’t ref, drive or give directions” and declared “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.” and also claimed “English women just walk around with their fat bellies and odd shapes pushing a pram at 16” as nothing but “Locker-Room Banter”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-robert-kenyon-comments-misogynistic-b2983146.html
If you are working class, why would you vote Reform? They are all wealthy …they will have no understanding of the struggles of those on low incomes in our city
Tell us again what a wonderful job Labour are doing in Brighton and Hove and how they are not spending our money like water, selling and closing every public asset they can and loading us with debt for generations to come. It feels like are taking the city on a joy ride to crash it and run off before the police arrive.
Sure.
Cutting £750k from the bill by using empty homes more wisely, investing in more homes, buying back RTBs in the 100s, pilot schemes to protect further homes being lost to RTB, cutting down temporary accommodation needs and costs to the tune of £1m so far, reopened public toilets, repairing Madeira Terraces, tree planting across the city, £20m investment from government via Pride in Place, created the Better Brighton & Hove Fund, created the Catalyst Fund and Household Support Fund, ensured a profit-based income from i360, regenerating King Alfred to a modern facility, improving recycling, delivered food waste ahead of time, landlord licensing, ward surgeries now standard, 100% council tax premium on AirBnBs, new youth centres, improved rights for renters, review the council home allocation policy, improving EV access, 1000s of repairs to cut the backlog, protect free school meals, boost apprenticeships, support adult education, recruit more local foster parents, set up family hubs, social prescribing, befriending circles, mental health services, including support young people’s mental health, integration with the ICS board for scrutiny, expanding AEDs, and tackled period poverty.
Quite a long list of positive stuff!
You are full of spin Benjamin and your spin and claims simply don’t stand up – examples below:
£750K on empty homes – the council’s own data show almost 1,000 homes have been left empty in the city for more than 12 months. This continues to be scandalous. The Labour government could and should be doing more to ensure that buy backs and bringing properties back into use happens more quickly, it is disappointing that Labour’s national austerity agenda continues to impact on the ability of councils to properly address the housing crisis.
Reopening public toilets – Labour have spun the narrative on this issue since Jan 2023. Back then under the Greens, due to local authority funding cuts, Greens poroposed to close some public toilets in the city. BUT Greens actually responded to public outcry and removed the proposal from their own budget. Labour put an amendment in the budget anyway, which was to ‘renovate toilets’ not reopen them. Since then, and increasingly Labour have been talking about opening closed toilets, but the reality is that often the ones they have ‘opened’ were ones were seasonal closures operate, some that were closed ahead of refurbishment and to address anti-social behaviour problems. Labour have also had the audacity to crow about reopening the toilets at Victoria Park in Portslade, implying they were closed by the Greens. They weren’t. Those toilets were closed by a Labour administration in 2016. The whole thing is madness and spin – Labour at their worst.
Tree planting – have you forgotten the hundreds of trees that died at Hove Beach Park? Residents haven’t. An FOI revealed the trees the Labour administration allowed to die cost £260,000.
The Better Brighton Fund is money raised from Community Infrastructure Levy. This is money that BELONGS to residents already and it is shocking that the council hoarded it for so long. There has been national criticism up and down the country about councils hoarding CIL money. This article refers to “Councils have perfected the art of collecting developer contributions but abandoned the obligation to spend them, leaving £8bn stockpiled and communities without promised amenities.” The fact the council has been forced to spend the money it has been hoarding from developers after increasing noise from residents and opposition councillors, is not a Labour win. It is money that should be being spent on community projects. https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/britain-unspent-developer-contributions-cil-s106/
The King Alfred regeneration has not yet happened. Odd you include it here. Labour have run the council for the majority of the last 30 years, so the fact that throughout that time regeneration has not happened is ANOTHER Labour failing and scandal.
The new youth centre (assume Brighton Youth Centre) you refer to had funding agreed under the Green administration. If you’re referring to the Knoll one, that was also agreed under the last Green council and it was funded by money from the Conservative government’s Youth Investment Fund: https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=6924.
The 2024 Regulator for Social Housing noted in their judgement and criticism of Brighton council said that the “majority” of the 8,000 repair backlog were raised in 2023. Labour took control of the council in 2023 so they are partly, if not mostly responsible for a repair backlog building up during 2023. It’s been quite incredible to see how Labour have spun the narrative of it being a problem they inherited, when the majority of the backlog built up on their watch.
I could unpick your other dubious claims and spin. But life is too short Benjamin. I have no idea why you post in the way that you so and what your agenda is. But your spin is almost at Cllr Bella Sankey level.
Whilst writing off a £50m debt that constituents had no say in yet have picked up the Bill.
You’ve seen nothing yet, wait until the crazy Greens get their grubbly claws out in 2027, the city will be a hell hole – remember the last time!
Ah, doesn’t this sound familiar.
Like all the residents, businesses and locals who work and reside in the city then.
We feel the same.
Kept in the dark and fed s***
Because James asked the question, and would benefit from a simple list. Trying to pick holes doesn’t take away that Labour have done a lot of positive good for Brighton.
More to be done on empty houses and building, absolutely, but you’ll have to agree that 14 years of Tory negligence in this area is not easily solved. However, council Housing Area Panel papers show that this is progressing well, and at the much higher pace than previous administrations, I suspect we are broadly agreed on Labour’s successes here, it seems!
Your point about toilets seems semantically confused. You admit to them being damaged and closed due to antisocial behaviour, meaning that to reopen them and expand their usage beyond seasonal usage, they need to be renovated, don’t they? Goes the extra effort to ensure not only they are reopened, but able to stay open.
The loss of those trees was lamentable, although it did push for a more community led model for every other project that proceeded it, such as those by the Permaculture Trust, which have been very successful. Shame that it came at a cost.
I think we are also agreed S106/CIL needed a better medium to be distributed, which the Better Brighton Fund is a direct answer to that. I’d also consider it topping up pots like EDB, Catalyst and Fairness funds in future, which goes directly to the community. A Labour win.
Good the Youth Investment Fund was there, and Greens agreed your centres was a good idea; Labour built them.
On repairs, your own words admit that at least an element was inherited. Moving beyond that though, that backlog has been trending positively for the last year now, so regardless if it was carrot or stick, it’s going the way we, as residents, want it to.
Always happy to talk nuance, but I believe my broader point to James still stands that Labour are a net positive for Brighton.
Note sure what you mean by “your centres” I’m not advocating for any one party, just pointing out your errors.
It wasn’t Labour who built them. The funding secured under the Greens paid (from a Tory funding pot) meant there money was there to pay the contractors to build them. You really are quite incredible Benjamin. Peddling myths and untruths to fit your agenda is really not a good look and just comes across as quite desperate.
I assume you are attempting to deflect criticism from a failing Labour council, but your comments are very odd, and often incorrect, so will be more damaging to the Labour council overall (a net loss in damage control you could call it).
*Youth Centres* – apologises.
Yet, Greens and Tories didn’t build them, Labour did. What’s incredible is you’re accusing me of “myths and untruths” yet I’m agreeing with your nuance. Honestly, it is coming across as you just bandwagonning on Labour; but that’s okay. Like I said, it’s clear, in both agreement, funding, and building, there is a cross-party agreement that Youth Centres are important.
You’re an intelligent lad, and I’m always interested in reading your perspective and debating these things. You’ve said nothing that convinces me that this is a “failing” council. It’s not perfect, but it gets a lot right, and even in the volume of impact of the work it’s done, Labour has achieved a lot in Brighton.
I like Green’s progressive nature, I prefer Labour’s pragmatic approach of getting things done, and the Cons will likely restore some relevancy over the next year, hopefully bringing some much needed sensibilities to the right-wing of politics.
Please stop purposefully not getting the point. Labour councillors did not build the youth centres, council officers put the contract out to tender and it will have been building companies who actually did the building.
The physical ‘building’ had zero to do with ANY councillors from ANY party. The physical building of the youth centres happened after funding agreed by Greens, from a Tory funding stream (one of the few funding streams during their dreadful austerity legacy), and officers then put the contract out to building companies. This happened when funding was all lined up before the current Labour administration. Builders undertook the physical building of the youth centres, not councillors. Builders built the youth centres. It is a very basic point. Labour were there to cut the ribbons and be all over the photo opportunities when the youth centres opened. I will give them credit for their love of a photo op 🙂
BTW – not sure why you refer to me as “lad” you have no idea how old I am or what gender I am. You should stick to facts rather than making assumptions and second guessing details about me personally which are irrelevant to my base point about your factual inaccuracies and false misrepresentations of events.
Will the Greens pledge to restore the old system as it is obvious most Labour councillors are going to get kicked out next May and the opinion polls say there will be a big swing to Reform and the Greens in the City.
The city will be an absolute hell hole if that happens