Brighton & Hove City Council
Policy & Resources Committee
4.00pm6 October 2022
Hove Town Hall - Council Chamber
Minutes
Present: Councillor Mac Cafferty (Chair) Druitt (Joint Deputy Chair), Gibson (Joint Deputy Chair), Allcock (Joint Opposition Spokesperson), Appich (Joint Opposition Spokesperson), Bell (Group Spokesperson), Allbrooke, Evans, McNair and Yates
Other Members present: Councillors
Part One
51 Procedural Business
(a) Declarations of Substitutes
51.1 There were no substitutes in attendance
(b) Declarations of Interest
51.2 There were no declarations of interests in matters listed on the agenda.
(c) Exclusion of Press and Public
51.3 The Committee considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of any of the items listed on the agenda.
51.4 RESOLVED: That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the items contained in part two of the agenda.
52 Minutes
52.1 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings held on 7 July 2022 and 29 July 2022 were agreed as a correct record.
53 Chair's Communications
53.1 The Chair asked the Committee to pause for a minute’s silence to remember the life of Councillor Garry Peltzer Dunn. Garry was a long-standing councillor for the Wish ward who had sadly recently passed away. He always put the people he represented first, and he was very kind and supportive to councillors, council officials and residents. He was never shy in celebrating when Hove was winning something, and reluctantly Brighton and Hove, and did this with passion, particularly recently with the Kingsway to the Sea project which he had working on before his untimely death. Garry always acted with grace and decency and will be sorely missed by councillors from all parties. He asked all present to stand for a minute’s silence.
53.2 The Chair gave the following communication:
The Bank of England has had to buy £65 billion of government bonds to prop up the markets citing a risk to the UK’s “financial stability.” The pound dropping to its lowest value in fifty years means inflation will rise with disastrous implications. After a decade of roaring inequality due to deregulation, cuts and letting the market rip, the Conservatives have learnt nothing.
The fantasy finances of Truss and Kwarteng will see ordinary people in Brighton & Hove hit hard for a crisis they didn’t create. Residents will see their mortgages and rents increase and imports to the country will be more expensive- which will further blunt the nation’s spending power.
The International Monetary Fund outlined that the new chancellor’s plans will increase inequality while economists have warned that government will ‘revisit’ spending. Having spent twelve years with government cuts, I have been especially worried about how ministers will make the sums stack up. Councils and the communities they serve, at a time when demand for services has never been higher, are now once again expected to suffer even more cuts for crass Tory financial illiteracy.
It isn’t just councils that are facing serious shortfalls. Two weeks ago I wrote to the Education Minister to warn that funding for schools is wholly inadequate. I fear that without new resources it will jeopardise children and young people's education and place an unfair, untenable burden on schools, educators and parents. It’s a travesty.
The failing pound will also add to the concern of many of our local small and medium businesses who have managed to weather the storm of the last two years.
I’ve met with local business representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Business Innovation District to understand their concerns, discuss the implications of the past week and the wider cost of living crisis.
With our limited budget but unwavering commitment to the city, we have published our plan to stick up for business and communities in the months ahead. This builds on work we laid out in May. We continue to lobby the government alongside our valued community business partners for the help our city deserves. We’re also calling for the suspension of Covid loan debt repayments for up to two years, reducing tourism and energy VAT to 5% and an extension of business rates relief for all small businesses and pubs.
But our plan is also about putting our city’s residents first. We will continue to identify those at risk of fuel poverty and work with community and voluntary sector organisations to reach people who may not be coming to the council but still need help. Through the council’s community hub, residents can access emergency help.
We’ve invested in solar panels on council housing and will install 1000 more by 2023. Our insulation programme will deliver warmer, healthier homes for residents, reduced bills and reduce our impact on the environment. The Brighton & Hove Cost of Living Crisis Fund which we set up in May alongside Brighton and Hove Citizens Advice and Brighton & Hove Food Partnership has raised over £40K for those suffering the most during this crisis. https://bit.ly/COLappeal
We’ve increased the amount available to help people make one off payments for essential, urgent emergency goods like fridges and ovens. While last week we set up an extra emergency food fund £30,000 is available to support the most vulnerable people most at risk of food insecurity.
But our ambition for Brighton & Hove is also about pushing for a better future. We want the powers and resources to freeze private rents for two years to directly help thousands of struggling city residents. In the absence of this we need government to introduce a rent freeze or cap to reduce the incidence of evictions and homelessness, as has been done already by the Scottish Government. We are also pressing the government to reintroduce a temporary ban on evictions, to provide Free School Meals for every primary school child, reintroduce a top-up to Universal Credit of £20 per week.
At this time of enormous financial worry our support for our city’s residents and small business is unwavering. We will continue to put them first, whatever the economic forecast.
54 Call Over
54.1 RESOLVED: All items on the agenda were reserved for discussion.
55 Public Involvement
55.1 There were no Petitions or Deputations
55.2 There was a Written Question from Mr N Furness.
55.3 Mr Furness asked the following question:
Why were the financial accounts for councillor allowances and expenses for the financial year ending April 2022 delayed for 5 months before being uploaded to the Council’s website? I remind him that the Local Authorities Regulations states a Council must publish the information “as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of a year to which the scheme relates.".
The Chair gave the following response:
I am pleased to confirm that the Councillor Allowances for the last year to the end of March 2022 have been published on the Council’s website. Uploading these details took longer than we would have liked to see this year and we have agreed a number of measures to ensure that this process is completed earlier in future years. We will be digitising the process to enable us to report more quickly, and we are committed to ensuring that allowances will be uploaded within 2 months of the year end in future. One issue identified was that there was insufficient staff training and going forward we will be creating a new digital system of recording allowances and training more staff on the system to ensure we have resilience which enable the necessary checking and uploading to be done if staff are unwell or if there is staff turnover which there was this year.
Mr Furness asked the following supplementary question:
You are aware that myself and Friends of Brighton & Hove have brought to your attention potential fraudulent claims of taxpayer’s money by two current, or maybe more, serving councillors. Now you may not agree with me that this delay may involve a suspicion that thorny issues are being swept under the carpet, which would tarnish the credibility and transparency of the entire administration.
The Chair gave the following response:
First of all we need to be clear that there was no fraud, there was a thorough investigation which found that the claim in question was not fraudulent. Officers have been very transparent with the process to date, and because of the potential element of suspicion an investigation was undertaken. In future the information will be provided within two months of the end of the financial year and the process will be digitised to assist the efficiency of the process. I take on board your comments about transparency which is a serious thing which all councillors take seriously.
56 Items Referred from Council
56.1 A Deputation on ‘Listen to Marine Gate Residents’ which was presented by Ms L Hyde to Council on 21 July 2022 and which was referred to this Committee.
56.2 The Chair stated that he did not feel that a separate report on this matter was required, and he would ensure that the deputation be passed to the Head of Planning.
56.3 RESOLVED: That the deputation be noted.
57 Member Involvement
57.1 There were no Petitions, Letters or Notices of Motion, but there were six Written Questions.
Question 1
57.2 Cllr Fishleigh asked the following question:
Has the development brief for Black Rock been written yet and, if not, what are the timescales and why the delay as it was supposed to be ready by autumn last year?
The Chair gave the following response:
The officer team are currently delivering the enabling works at Black Rock, the Madeira Terraces restoration and the Eastern Seafront Masterplan. Each of these are major pieces of work. The team are progressing the development brief for Black Rock and a report is due to be brought to Policy and Resources this December 2022 setting out the key principles and timelines. As a significant regeneration opportunity in the city it is expected that there will be a lot of interest in the site, and it is important that there is a clear process set out for the appointment of a development partner that will elicit the right level of interest from the market, as well as maximising the benefits for the city. Following the P&R report the feasibility, consultation and evaluation work will take place in 2023.
Cllr Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:
Would it be quicker to cut out the feasibility and evaluation work at this stage and just ask for a registration of interest from companies?
The Chair gave the following response:
My understanding is that for contracts as complex as this you wouldn’t be able to do that, and it wouldn’t be in the best interests of the councillors or the communities we represent for there not be to really tight scrutiny which is why the processes are in place.
Question 2
57.3 Cllr Fishleigh asked the following question:
What is the i360’s estimated revenue loss to the Christmas big wheel for 2021 and 2022?
The Chair gave the following response:
The Council does not hold data that measures the impact of the Christmas Big Wheel on the i360 visitor numbers for 2021 and 2022. There were multiple factors during this period that could affect visitor numbers to venues at attractions. In 2021 the Christmas market brought more people to Brighton and some of those people would have visited the i360 when they otherwise wouldn’t have. However, we do not have any comparable figures to substantiate this.
Cllr Fishleigh said she didn’t have a supplementary question but said with major events such as this it was standard practice to have a cost benefit analysis, so potential revenue loss for other council offerings could have been detailed in that.
Question 3
57.4 Cllr McNair asked the following question on behalf of Cllr Bagaeen:
Why was the proposal for a new conference centre at Black Rock abandoned and when can we expect to see detailed plans for a modern new conference facility laid out before this committee?
The Chair gave the following response:
The Brighton Centre is a very busy and vibrant major venue for the city. It has a capacity of up to 5,500 and is a high flexible space favoured by performers and conference organisers. The main types of events hosted by the venue are conferences, exhibitions, banquets and live entertainment. For its live entertainment programme the venue hosts approximately 90 performances and holds on average 20 major conventions per annum, amounting to a combined total of approximately 220 occupied event days each year. Research has shown the venue contributes to an annual economic impact value to the City in excess of £50 million per annum and contributes to supporting thousands of jobs in the local area. During the Covid 19 Pandemic the Brighton Centre was repurposed to support the City's main PPE distribution hub and was then subsequently repurposed as the NHS main vaccination centre delivering in the region of 275,000 vaccination events for the City's residents. Attendances at The Brighton recovered quickly in 2022 and it will shortly host the TUC annual conference.
The provision of a major venue at the Blackrock site could only have been delivered through the Conditional Land Acquisition Agreement (or ‘CLAA’) signed with Aberdeen Standard Investments (now Abrdn). The CLAA was based on Abrdn building a new centre at Black Rock, and they would then acquire and regenerate The Brighton Centre site. However, shortly after signing the CLAA, Abrdn recognised that the retail model had shifted, and they asked the council to explore with them options that saw a new major venue retained in the city centre as an ‘anchor tenant’ for a regenerated urban quarter.
Whilst these options were being explored, the CLAA remained in place, but certain milestone deadlines would have passed, so in December 2019 and December 2020 this committee agreed to stand that agreement still for one year each time. However, when agreeing this in December 2020 the Conservative Group tabled and got agreement to an amendment stating that no further extensions would be allowed. This meant that the CLAA expired after December 2021, effectively removing the mechanism for delivering a major venue at Black Rock.
Before and since that decision the city council has done a lot of work with Abrdn to look at how we could provide a new Brighton Centre as part of a rejuvenated vision for the area from Churchill Square to the seafront. The city council has also been doing a lot of work to understand the optimum facility for the city in the current market, what it might cost to build and whether there is a viable business case. Regrettably, we had not yet arrived at a viable proposition that worked for both parties.
Our vision for a conferencing and event venue that can continue to compete with other major cities remains, but there is currently no agreed timetable for a new Brighton Centre. Whilst it is now over 40 years old, the venue continues to be well used and to generate business for the city.
With regards to the work at Black Rock, a cursory visit to the area will show that huge amounts of work have already taken place there, with a new seawall, a Boardwalk, the creation of new biodiversity habitats and works starting on bringing the Reading Rooms and Temple to life as new spaces adding vitality to the area. The final package of work, the new connection into the Marina, is starting imminently. It was delayed by the need to value engineer to minimise the costs, due to the upward cost pressures in the construction market.
Cllr McNair asked the following supplementary question on behalf of Cllr Bagaeen:
How much has the contracted outwork to look for a new location cost so far and why is it taking so long for the Council to identify a new location?
The Chair said that he would provide a response after the meeting.
The response provided was: The city council has not directly spent money on the work to look at options for new sites as this was done at the risk and expense of Abrdn, as per the terms of the Conditional Land Acquisition Agreement.
The process of determining the location and specification for a new venue and conference centre is very important to get right, as it is key to the ongoing economic prosperity of the city. The existing Brighton Centre continues to operate well, and so the imperative is to get it right rather than to do it quickly. Due to the fact the city council cannot afford to build a new venue from its own money, there are a number of dependencies around viability and having a willing development partner that shares the vision for a new urban quarter that has a venue at its heart.
Question 4
57.5 Cllr McNair asked the following question on behalf of Cllr Bagaeen:
How much was spent on Brighton & Hove City Council’s bid to host the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest?
The Chair gave the following response:
No Council financial resources were spent on the bid. In terms of officer time, this was minimal and involved the requesting and reviewing of the BBC bid document.
Cllr McNair asked the following supplementary question on behalf of Cllr Bagaeen:
Will the Leader be publishing both a copy of Brighton & Hove City Council’s official bid document submitted to the BBC on behalf of the City and the response received from the BBC for the inspection of Councillors?
The Chair gave the following response:
Council officers requested the bidding criteria from the BBC to host the Eurovision Song Contest 2023, however it became clear at a very early stage, that Brighton & Hove did not meet the shortlisting criteria on a number of points, including the capacity of the venue, but also requirements for additional ancillary and media support space, the extended time requirement that would be needed along with the potential high costs to host an event of this nature and scale.
Following review of the bid documentation Brighton & Hove City Council did not submit a bid to the BBC to host the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest.
Question 5
57.6 Councillor McNair asked the following question:
According to the Live Tables on Council Tax statistical data set, over the course of the past ten financial years from 2012-3 to 2022-3, Brighton & Hove City Council has increased its Band D Council Tax by 42.8%. This is the 12th highest increase of any local authority in the UK over this period. Only 11 local authorities out of over 302 available for comparison have imposed bigger increases, putting Brighton & Hove in the top 4% of authorities for its council tax rises over this 10-year period. According to the UK Council Tax index for 2022/3, Brighton & Hove City Council is now designated a ‘high taxing council’, coming in at 303rd out of 362 UK local authorities in a ranking of lowest to highest taxing councils. According to this index, Brighton & Hove is now on the cusp of becoming a ‘very high taxing’ council.
Question:
Why has Brighton & Hove City Council increased council tax so steeply compared to 96% of other councils in the UK over the past 10 years and what measures will he take to make sure Brighton & Hove doesn’t slip any further down the UK Council Tax Index and become a ‘very high taxing’ council next year?
The Chair gave the following response:
The first point I would make is that these increases could have been much lower if successive Conservative governments had not failed to address the long term, sustainable funding of Adult Social Care, forcing the majority of councils to increase Council Tax through Adult Social Care precepts and pushing the burden of funding onto local taxpayers. This council has had little choice but to agree to cumulative Adult Social Care precepts of 13% to be able to meet its statutory duties and maintain provision for our most vulnerable residents. The Conservative Government have recently announced the long-awaited Social Care Reforms, but rather than provide sustainable long term funding, we now understand that these reforms will create even greater funding pressures on local authorities, with the LGA noting that it will leave councils ‘facing a funding blackhole’.
You will also be aware that the distribution of resources across local government was, and remains, particularly disastrous for this authority. Under previous distribution mechanisms this authority was known as a ‘floor’ authority due to the iniquitous distribution formula that left it with some of the lowest annual funding increases in the country for which it received very limited protection. Successive Conservative governments have recognised the distributional problems of local government funding but has yet to conclude its long running ‘Fair Funding Review’ and it is unclear how or if this will align with the direction of the Levelling Up agenda.
The corollary of this broken distribution mechanism and government funding policy has seen the reduction of government funding for this council of over £100m in real terms under successive Conservative governments. It is not difficult to understand how this has increased the burden of funding and taxation on local taxpayers.
However, I note that under the last Green Administration Council Tax increased by 5.7% while under the previous Conservative Administration it increased by 10.5%.
I also note that the Brighton & Hove Council Tax includes Police and Fire taxation and that, for example, successive Conservative Police & Crime Commissioners have raised tax by 62.5% over the same 10-year period.
Your comparison also ignores the vagaries of the Council Tax system which is clearly no longer a viable or suitable method of local taxation with properties last being revalued in 1991. For example, people may point to authorities with a very low Band D Council Tax such as Westminster, but that authority has over 15,000 Band H properties bringing in a very high council tax income compared to just 192 Band H properties in Brighton & Hove. A comparison of authorities’ Band D Council Taxes is therefore highly problematic.
However, since you have made a comparison with other authorities, I would advise you that Conservative-led Wealden District Council has the 5th highest Band D tax in the country and that the East Sussex districts of Lewes, Eastbourne, Rother, Hastings and Wealden are all significantly higher than Brighton & Hove, being in the top 16 in the country with 80% of their Council Tax demand being driven by the Conservative-led East Sussex County Council.
Cllr McNair asked the following supplementary question:
Does the Leader share residents’ concerns that they are not receiving value money from their council tax contributions?
The Chair gave the following response:
I am very conscious of the need to make every pound of public money go as far as possible, particularly given the severe funding challenges brought about by successive Conservative governments. In this respect, the authority uses a mixed economy of service provision including in-house services, competitive procurement of external supplies and services, and commissioned care services to achieve the best value for money it can.
We have a robust performance review process across the authority enabling us to monitor performance and customer satisfaction and, as I have previously reported to this committee, take steps to make improvements and address issues where services are falling short.
You will know that the council is also subject to external scrutiny by the External Auditor who assesses value for money arrangements annually. In his latest report to Audit & Standards Committee in April 2022, the auditor stated: ‘We found no evidence of significant weaknesses in the council’s arrangements for ensuring that it manages risks to and oversight of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of its use of resources.’ Of course, improvement is always possible and we continue to develop and invest in service improvement through our Modernisation programme and the work of our skilled and dedicated staff.
Question 6
57.7 Cllr McNair asked the following question:
Over the past 10 years of Green and Labour Administrations, Brighton & Hove City Council has become one of the highest taxing councils in the UK. With families facing high cost of living pressures across the board, what financial measures will the Chair take to reduce pressure on local family budgets and help with the cost of living rises, particularly in relation to:
a) The council’s local taxes
b) The council’s fees and charges
The Chair gave the following response:
I refer to my earlier response to Cllr McNair’s question regarding Council Tax increases in which I stated that increases could have been much lower if successive Conservative governments had not failed to address the long term, sustainable funding of Adult Social Care, forcing the burden of taxation onto local Council taxpayers.
Similarly, the austerity policies of the Conservative government and the failure to address the broken system of local government funding distribution have left this authority with a reduction of government grant support of over £100 million in real terms, again, forcing our hand and pushing more of the burden of taxation onto local people.
However, we are doing all we can to help those on low incomes and, despite government cuts, have not only maintained, but have increased, the discount provided by our Council Tax Reduction Scheme for people on low incomes and continue to provide discretionary hardship funds to complement the scheme.
With regard to fees and charges, many of these are already means-tested, such as Adult Social Care charges, and therefore protect those on low incomes. We continue to explore all fees and charges to ensure they are appropriate and reasonable, and generally only recover the cost of services. However, we recognise that in some areas those on low incomes need help and, for example, are introducing a low income discount on parking permits. We have also recently updated our Corporate Debt Policy to ensure that people falling into arrears are provided with advice and time to sort out their finances.
The Cost of Living report on this agenda also demonstrates our approach to helping people in hardship through providing and signposting people to advice and support as well as distributing hardship funds. However, we are also calling on government to step up and support people and businesses through this crisis.
Cllr McNair asked the following supplementary question:
While Brighton & Hove residents are paying such high levels of council tax compared to the rest of the country the services they receive are amongst the worst. For example Brighton & Hove has amongst the worst recycling records in England with just 29.4% of waste being recycled, some residents don’t received a regular rubbish collection, and the council is not fulfilling its statutory duty to keep the pavements clear of weeds. Will the Chair rule out further council tax rises until these services are more reliably delivered?
The Chair gave the following response:
This Council is far from the worst value and were in fact higher value for money than Conservative East Sussex. Essential services such as libraries, youth centres, supported bus services etc do cost money. We were currently at the draft stage with the budget and I will listen to your and Cllr Bell’s comments on that.
58 Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2022/23: Month 5 (August)
58.1 The Committee considered the report of the Chief Finance Officer which set out an indication of forecast risks as at Month 5 (August) on the council’s revenue and capital budgets for the financial year 2022/23. The report was introduced by the Head of Finance.
58.2 Cllr Yates asked if the increase to the cost of borrowing would have an impact and was advised that there was no immediate impact but if things changed in the medium term there would be.
58.3 Cllr Appich noted the problems in recruitment of foster carers and asked what actions were being taken to address that. The Executive Director Families Children & Learning said that there were national placement issues, and the Council had been working hard on this and the number of foster carers had increased from previous years. However, this was a challenging area, particularly with other nearby local authorities also recruiting people.
58.4 Cllr Appich referred to paragraph 4.5 and asked why the ongoing transformation of GP practices and enhancement of their clinical screening and general medical services would generate additional costs for the Council. The Executive Director Health and Adult Social Care said that the NHS and Adult Social Care was under a lot of pressure. Previously the Council were receiving additional funding during the pandemic which had now stopped, but the demand had not gone away and to continue to support the NHS system did have further knock-on costs in terms of increased placement activity and higher care packages. The reference to the GPs was linked to preventative work under a multidisciplinary approach to care packages, which assisted people and reduced the care packages which they currently had. This had an impact due to the pressure on primary care, and so there was an increase in existing packages of care.
58.5 Cllr Appich noted that there was a shortfall in parking tariffs and resident parking permits and asked why that might be. The Assistant Director - City Transport said that the reduction in resident parking permits was partly due to the successful policies to improve facilities for active travel and public transport but was also due to the increase in the cost of permits and residents were opting not to have additional vehicles.
58.6 The Chair noted that there was a Labour Group amendment and asked Cllr Appich to propose it.
58.7 Cllr Appich proposed the following amendment which added an additional recommendation:
2.5 That Committee agrees in light of the comments in paragraph 12 of the report, that an urgent report be brought to the Member Budget Review Group as soon as TBM Month 6 is available, and request that the Chair of P&R calls a Special Policy & Resources Committee meeting or Policy & Resources Urgency Sub-Committee meeting should, in the views of the Budget Review Group the situation has not shown any significant improvement and that such a meeting is needed.
58.8 Cllr Yates seconded the amendment
58.9 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
58.10 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the forecast risk position for the General Fund, which indicates a potential forecast overspend risk of £13.114m. This includes a net overspend of £0.088m on the council’s share of the NHS managed Section 75 services;
(ii) Notee the forecast for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is currently an overspend of £1.167m;
(iii) Noted the forecast position for the Dedicated Schools Grant which is currently an overspend of £0.313m;
(iv) Noted the forecast outturn position on the capital programme which is a forecast overspend of £9.030m and approve the variations and slippage in Appendix 6 and new schemes as set out in Appendix 7;
(v) Agreed in light of the comments in paragraph 12 of the report, that an urgent report be brought to the Member Budget Review Group as soon as TBM Month 6 is available, and request that the Chair of P&R calls a Special Policy & Resources Committee meeting or Policy & Resources Urgency Sub-Committee meeting should, in the views of the Budget Review Group the situation has not shown any significant improvement and that such a meeting is needed.
59 Cost of Living Update including the Household Support Fund Tranche 3
59.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Governance People & Resources regarding the current cost of living increases, and the Household Support Fund Tranche 3. The report was introduced by the Assistant Director Policy & Communications.
59.2 The Committee noted the following Officer Amendment:
Due to a technical fault, automated paragraph references in Item 59 have not correctly updated. The following error references should be corrected as follows:
Paragraph 2.8:The wording Error! Reference source not found’ should read 5.12.
The amended Paragraph 2.8 should read:
2.8 That the Policy & Resources Committee agrees the approach to developing potential warm banks for use over the winter period, including working with the Community & Voluntary Sector regarding their assets, as set out in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.12.
Paragraph 2.9:The wording Error! Reference source not found’ should read 9.
The amended Paragraph 2.9 should read:
2.9 That the Policy & Resources Committee agrees the proposed communications campaign set out in Section 9 to promote awareness of available advice and support for those in need, and to re-promote charitable giving toward the Cost of Living crisis from those who are able and willing to help.
Paragraph 10.3:The wording Error! Reference source not found’ should read 3.1.
The amended Paragraph 10.3 should read:
10.3 On a household-by-household basis, this means that vulnerable residents were assisted with a mixture of food vouchers, meals, help with fuel bills and other essential items. The various Cost of Living working groups (see paragraph 3.1) and the Cost of Living Officer Group have reviewed and discussed these allocations and there is general agreement that these allocations have worked well, have enabled widespread reach through a range of appropriate settings and avoid, as far as possible with the funds available, lots of re-referrals between different agencies and services.
59.4 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Allcock to propose it.
59.5 Cllr Allcock said that the cost of living situation would be severe, and this was not a cost of living crisis but a cost of living emergency. Residents were saying that they were feeling an increasing sense of pressure trying to support family members and were worried about the future and were having to cut back on food, heating etc and were finding it difficult to pay their rent or mortgage. There would also be an unsustainable strain on an already oversubscribed public services. Although there were many positive actions in the report, there was a focus on asking the Chief Executive to write to and lobby the government. Unfortunately, we know that these asks aren’t going to be heard, and therefore the administration and the Council must take a lead as if this was a civil emergency. The Labour Group were therefore proposing the following amendment (additional recommendation 2.13), for the Council to lead in coordinating support for residents across the city:
2.13 That the Policy & Resources Committee agrees that the Council has a leadership role to play in co-ordinating support for residents across the city through this crisis. We agree to bring key partners together in a urgent ‘Cost of Living Crisis Summit’ to request commitments from the city’s anchor institutions of how they can help to build longer term community resilience. This summit should bring together key stakeholder organisations in Brighton & Hove, including:
· Financial advice and support organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureau, Money Advice Plus and the Credit Union
· Large private sector anchor institutions such as Legal & General, American Express, Brighton & Hove Football Club, Sussex County Cricket Club and others
· Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership
· Brighton & Hove Food Partnership
· Community Works
· Local Trade Unions
· The local NHS Integrated Care Board
59.6 Councillor Evans seconded the amendment.
59.7 Cllr Druitt said that he agreed that the Council should take a leading role in addressing the crisis and noted that in February it published a leaflet delivered to all households with advice on dealing with fuel and food poverty and what help was available. The Council had been working with the Economic Partnership and Chamber of Commerce and had put in place a number of working groups to ensure a cognitive response to the cost of living crisis. However, the Council should always do more and the suggestion of a Summit was a good one an would be happy to support.
59.8 The Committee voted on the amendment and it was agreed, with the Conservative Group voting against.
59.9 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the updates on the local situation regarding the Cost of Living impact including the ongoing and planned work and actions, with statutory and Community & Voluntary Sector partners, to provide advice and support to households in need;
(ii) Agreed that the city council should lobby government for urgent and sustained support throughout the Cost of Living crisis including:
- Fully funding Cost of Living pay increases for schools and local government in the current year and 2023/24;
- Immediately increasing the minimum wage in line with September 2022 inflation;
- Reintroducing a top-up to Universal Credit of £20 pw until at least March 2024;
- Introducing a rent freeze or cap to reduce the incidence of evictions and homelessness, as has been done by the Scottish Government;
- Providing increases in Local Housing Allowance rates in line with rent increases and welfare benefits in line with RPI to ensure that they keep pace with inflation as a minimum;
- Reintroducing a temporary ban on evictions during this exceptional inflationary period (until at least March 2024); and
- Providing Free School Meals for every primary school child in England, and the city council will endorse this lobbying point by signing the Free School Meals For All Open Letter to the Prime Minister.
(iii) Agreed that the city council should formally support the #BusinessSOS campaign and further recommend to government the measures and support for small and medium-sized enterprise (SME). The campaign has seen over 150,000 businesses from across the UK lobbying the government to support small and medium sized businesses by taking the following actions;
- Suspension of Covid loan debt repayments for up to two years (with potential eligibility criteria);
- Reduction of tourism VAT to 5% (i.e. holiday and hospitality services and packages), and;
- Introduction of dedicated Business Grant support for SMEs and pubs to help with costs over the winter (with potential eligibility criteria).
(iv)
Agreed that the council will work with
the city’s MPs to lobby for:
- Extension of business rates relief for all SME’s and pubs – using usual Treasury relief mechanisms
- Reduction of VAT on energy for businesses to 5%
- Energy prices to return to 2021 levels for SME’s and pubs
(v) Agreed that the council will work with local business representatives to understand their members’ concerns and work with them to continue supporting small businesses. These representatives include Brilliant Brighton (the local Business Improvement District - BID), the BH Economic Partnership, BH Chamber of Commerce and BH Federation of Small Business;
(vi) Instructed the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, advocating for the advantages and business literacy of adopting the Brighton Hove Living Wage;
(vii) Agreed the council will work with regional public and private sector partners in the Greater Brighton Economic Board to assess the impact of the cost of living to support local SME businesses through sharing intelligence and offering mutual support;
(viii) Agreed the approach to developing potential warm banks for use over the winter period, including working with the Community & Voluntary Sector regarding their assets, as set out in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.12;
(ix) Agreed the proposed communications campaign set out in Section 9 to promote awareness of available advice and support for those in need, and to re-promote charitable giving toward the Cost of Living crisis from those who are able and willing to help;
(x) Agreed the council will support the ‘Warm This Winter’ campaign which calls for government support to provide immediate emergency support, help to upgrade homes and access to cheap
energy to lessen reliance on gas and oil;
(xi) Approved the proposed indicative allocation of HSF tranche 3 as set out at paragraph 10.7, noting the associated Equality Impact Assessment at Appendix 1;
(xii) Agreed that officers may make adjustments to allocations where there is evidence of changing need throughout the 6 month period of HSF3, to ensure that all of the fund is spent;
(xiii) Agreed that the Council has a leadership role to play in co-ordinating support for residents across the city through this crisis. We agree to bring key partners together in an urgent ‘Cost of Living Crisis Summit’ to request commitments from the city’s anchor institutions of how they can help to build longer term community resilience. This summit should bring together key stakeholder organisations in Brighton & Hove, including:
- Financial advice and support organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureau, Money Advice Plus and the Credit Union
- Large private sector anchor institutions such as Legal & General, American Express, Brighton & Hove Football Club, Sussex County Cricket Club and others
- Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership
- Brighton & Hove Food Partnership
- Community Works
- Local Trade Unions
- The local NHS Integrated Care Board
60 Allocation of Carbon Neutral Fund 2022-2024
60.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture which set out proposals for the allocation of Carbon Neutral Fund in 2022-23 and 2023-24 to support delivery of the Council’s 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme.
60.2 Cllr McNair asked how closer we were to being carbon neutral. Officers advised that significant progress had been made since 2019, and the figures from 2019/2020 (the most recent figures) showed that carbon emissions had reduced by 9.9%.
60.3 Cllr Allcock said that the delivery of the various projects had been discussed at the carbon neutral cross party working group which appeared to be well managed and so would support the allocation of £7m of the carbo neutral fund to the climate and biodiversity projects set out in appendix 1. However, addressing climate change and becoming a carbon neutral city by 2030 was so important the Labour Group thought that it was vital to ensure that there was access to robust data to ensure that members could monitor and scrutinise the effectiveness of those projects. He therefore proposed the following amendment which created a second recommendation:
2.2 That Committee agrees officers report back to Policy & Resources within three months, outlining the projected measurable carbon savings to be made by each of the projects in Appendix 1 and associated with the aforementioned allocation of funds, to allow the committee to scrutinise and ensure that funds are being spent in such a way as to measurably maximise carbon reduction in pursuit of carbon neutrality by 2030
60.4 Cllr Yates seconded the proposed amendment.
60.5 The Committee voted on the amendment and it was agreed.
60.6 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Agreed the allocation of £7,808,990 of the Carbon Neutral Fund to the climate action and biodiversity projects as set out in Appendix 1;
(ii) Agreed officers report back to Policy & Resources within three months, outlining the projected measurable carbon savings to be made by each of the projects in Appendix 1 and associated with the aforementioned allocation of funds, to allow the committee to scrutinise and ensure that funds are being spent in such a way as to measurably maximise carbon reduction in pursuit of carbon neutrality by 2030.
61 Environmentally Sustainable procurement policy and weighting
61.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director People Governance & Resources which set out the proposed policy to improve environmental considerations in the Council’s procurement activities to help meet the Council’s Carbon Neutral 2030 program objectives and presented an options appraisal for applying 10% of the quality criteria in relevant tenders to Environmental Sustainability. The report was introduced by Head of Procurement.
61.2 Cllr Appich asked what the total estimated value of procurement in one financial year, for the whole of the Orbis partnership that this would apply to. The Head of Procurement said that for BHCC it was £350m-3400M, £550M for ESCC and £1.2B for Surrey County Council.
61.3 Cllr Appich referred to paragraph 3.14 and asked why officers were only proposing a minimum 10% of the quality criteria to be allocated to Environmental Sustainability. The Head of Procurement said the Council had been increasingly improving our specifications to require far more sustainable types of procurement. This was aimed at the level of scoring which is applied during the tender process and the supplier is asked as a business what they can do to prove their sustainability credentials. Therefore, we have to take into account the qualitative element of a tender and the actual delivery of the service and whether the supplier is able to provide every element that we require. There is already a requirement for social value and we have attempted over the years to increase the level of sustainability by bringing this is which effectively gives us 20% coverage for social value and sustainability out of the total quality criteria.
61.4 Dr Sasidharan asked what the timeline was for social value and environmental procurement. The Head of Procurement said that the social value procurement policy was approved by the Procurement Advisory Board (PAB) last month and had already been introduced. With regard to environmental procurement, this was introduced in 2017 and was a whole city approach and covered the Council and third sector providers, local businesses etc and a project team was being set up to get that framework started.
61.5 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Evans to propose it.
61.6 Cllr Evans said that the amendment was intended to strengthen the impact of the recommendations and proposed the following amendment to recommendation 2.3 and a new additional recommendation 2.4 (changes in italics):
2.3 That Policy & Resources Committee approves setting a default minimum sub criterion weighting of 10% of the quality criteria for environmental sustainability, (with the expectation of a significantly higher percentage weighting in sectors where this can be easily achieved, such as catering and cleaning), and approves the recommendations at 3.14 and 3.15 below.
2.4 That Committee instructs officers to report back to Policy & Resources with a progress update in 18 months to outline what has been achieved.
61.7 Cllr Gibson suggested an amendment to the amendment for recommendation 2.4 and proposed the following changes (in bold and italics):
2.4 That Committee instructs officers to report back to Policy & Resources via Procurement Advisory Boardwith a progress update in 18 months to outline what has been achieved - listing decisions that changed as a result of social value scores.
61.8 Cllr Evans agreed to accept the amendment and sought permission from the Committee to accept that amendment. The Committee agreed.
61.9 Cllr Appich seconded the updated amendment.
61.10 The Committee voted on the amendment as amended and it was agreed
61.11 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Approved the Environmentally Sustainable Procurement Policy set out at Annex 1 on behalf of BHCC;
(ii) Delegated authority for approving any future changes to the policy to comply with legislative changes, or to ensure alignment with other approved changes to procurement policies and practice to the Chief Finance Officer in consultation with the Procurement Advisory Board;
(iii) Approved setting a default minimum sub criterion weighting of 10% of the quality criteria for environmental sustainability, (with the expectation of a significantly higher percentage weighting in sectors where this can be easily achieved, such as catering and cleaning), and approves the recommendations at 3.14 and 3.15 below;
(iv) Instructed officers to report back to Policy & Resources via Procurement Advisory Board with a progress update in 18 months to outline what has been achieved - listing decisions that changed as a result of social value scores.
62 Future Ways of Working
62.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Governance People & Resources regarding investment to continue to develop, implement and bed-in new ways of working across the organisation and to ensure the council is maximising the opportunities of hybrid working developed during the pandemic. The report was introduced by the Manager for Future Ways of Working.
62.2 Dr Sasidharan asked what the minimum provision was for people who needed access to face to face contact when accessing your customer services, and how could you avoid or reduce digital exclusion? The Manager for Future Ways of Working said that it would be better if the Customer Experience Programme team answered that and would provide a response after the meeting.
After the meeting the following response was provided:
Face to face contact:
Our operating model is based on customer need rather than customer preference. Where it is not possible for services to fulfil customer need either online or via telephone, face to face appointments are being provided. We have our Customer Service Centres in Brighton and in Hove for those who need support in accessing council services or need a computer/phone to do so. These centres offer:
· Free internet access, computers, scanners & telephones for customers to use to contact or transact with the council.
· Face to face support from customer services advisors Support from customer services advisors in accessing council services e.g. customers who need digital support, those who need help in accessing council services because of disability or language barrier
· Basic signposting to the relevant council service (to be contacted via online or over the phone)
Digital inclusion:
In addition to our customer service centres mentioned above, our libraries have computers and internet for those who are able to self-help. They also offer one to one sessions to improve basic digital skills e.g. how to set up an email account. Basic digital skills support is provided by Digital Brighton & Hove (charity commissioned by the council). One of the team of trained digital champions offer friendly, patient support over the phone or arrange in person support. All key services have their telephone lines open minimum 9.30am to 1.30pm. Any exceptions to this are only temporary and are being closely monitored. The phone lines also help customers in digitally accessing services. We have a corporate switchboard 01273 290000, 9 to 5pm if customers are unsure which council service to contact/how or if they need help in digitally accessing our service.
62.3 Cllr McNair referred to paragraph 3.3 regarding improving customer experience by exploring community access points and said that he had residents who said that they found it difficult to access council services especially for example, those who were dyslexic, they phone, and were then told to write in which was not helpful, and on the council website it says, 'Brighton and Hove customer service centre is open for those that need support to contact council services and don't have access to a computer or phone'. So, on the one hand it does seem to include a range of residents but it's vagueness could put people off. How we can improve the customer experience for residents and what is meant by that in paragraph 3.3? The Manager for Future Ways of Working said that the Customer Experience Programme team would be better placed to answer that and would provide a response after the meeting. The Chief Executive advised that the Council were constantly reviewing the provision, and whilst there had been a huge shift in people accessing services online, it was accepted that not all residents were able to do that.
After the meeting the following response was provided:
We will be exploring how we could further use community access points such as libraries to further improve customer experience e.g. we will be exploring whether we could have telephone line at some of our libraries for customers to contact council services. Our customer service advisors are there at our customer services centre to support customers in accessing council services, we do have customers visiting our customer service centres due to health condition/disability/language barrier.
62.4 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Yates to propose it.
62.5 Cllr Yates said that there was a balance between the bureaucracy of the Council and the democracy of the Council and it needed to be more explicit in its intentions in terms of serving the public and how the public could access services and the services customers expected over the next ten years, and therefore proposed the following amendment to recommendation 2.2 (changes in italics)
2.2 That Committee
notes the continuation of the Future Ways of Working (FWOW)
programme and requests officers submit a report by the end of
the financial year to Policy & Resources Committee for approval
outlining: including the objective to review and rationalise
our workspace, to match our hybrid working requirements, through a
future Accommodation Strategy.
· A Terms of Reference for the programme
· A ‘Working Asset Strategy’ outlining the council’s ten year requirements of operational capital assets linked to the above and;
· A ‘Customer Service Strategy’ outlining the council’s ten year approach to customer service options and improvements
62.6 Cllr Appich seconded the proposed amendment.
62.7 Cllr Allbrooke noted that that there was already a Customer Service Strategy which was agreed at this committee in 2019 under the Labour Administration. Cllr Yates said that since 2019 and due to Covid the future ways of working had changed and so the strategy could be refreshed.
62.8 Cllr Druitt suggested it would have been helpful if the amendment had referred to the ‘the’ strategy rather than ‘a’ strategy. He noted that there was already a Working Asset Strategy, and so parts of the amendment were already covered by existing strategies. He said that the timeline was problematic and with the current employment freeze and dealing with the very challenging budget that staff did not have the capacity to also deal with these additional issues. The Manager for Future Ways of Working said that much of the proposed issues were already happening and if the amendment was accepted it would mean additional work and duplication of work already being undertaken. Cllr Allbrooke asked the Executive Director Governance People & Resources whether there would be resourcing implications if the amendment were accepted. He advised that there would be a considerable impact on resources and officers were already working at capacity, but if agreed it would have to be done. The Chair noted the amendment said ‘and requests officers submit a report by the end of the financial year’ and asked if there would be any flexibility on that if officers were not able to complete that in time. Cllr Yates said that as the Executive Director Governance People & Resources said it could be done, he would not change the amendment and what was being asked was reasonable. Cllr Gibson suggested that the amendment be changed to ask for a report in 12 months to allow officers to both concentrate on the budget and prepare a full report. Cllr Yates declined that request.
62.9 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed (with four abstentions from the Green Group).
62.10 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Agreed to the programme expenditure of £0.223m for office and workspace equipment as described in paragraph 3.6 below to be funded from the council’s Modernisation Fund;
(ii) Noted the continuation of the Future Ways of Working (FWOW) programme and requests officers submit a report by the end of the financial year to Policy & Resources Committee for approval outlining:
- A Terms of Reference for the programme
- A ‘Working Asset Strategy’ outlining the council’s ten year requirements of operational capital assets linked to the above and;
- A ‘Customer Service Strategy’ outlining the council’s ten year approach to customer service options and improvements
63 Brighton & Hove Response to Refugees and Asylum Seekers
63.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities which provided an update on the Brighton & Hove response to the government’s national schemes to receive refugees, including those from Ukraine, and to support immigration from Hong Kong. The report also updates members of the committee on the local response to asylum seekers placed in the city by the Home Office and unaccompanied asylum seeking children cared for by the council. This report had previously been presented to the Tourism Equalities, Communities & Culture (TECC) Committee on its meeting on 15 September 2022.
63.2 Cllr McNair said that the Council, charities, CAB, All Saints Church and others who continued to provide invaluable support for Ukrainians. He had a number of questions and asked if the council were planning on increasing the financial support for them, was there a shortage of new hosts and if so was the Council advertising for new hosts, how many refugees were in temporary accommodation, were Ukrainians finding it difficult to find accommodation in the private sector, how many were waiting for new hosts, were there any patterns of why people were having to move from their hosts, how does the Council anticipate spending the remaining £1.4m of unallocated funds, and the Council supported an event in Preston Park and asked if there were any other events planned? The Chair advised that through social media the Council were currently advertising for new hosts. The Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities said with regard to financial support, officers met every two weeks to look at any bids for additional finance and were allocating new money all the time and were looking to have a policy to provide payments to individuals and there were hardship funds arrangement in place already. Where relationships have broken down or ended, we were undertaking a survey of hosts to find out what the issues were. Currently half the hosts surveyed indicated that they were happy to continue with the current arrangements, but where relationships had broken down we were asking the refugees what they saw as their future and can provide more information on that going forward. The initial commitment was for six months, so many of the arrangements are now officially coming to an end, but the thank you payment will continue for twelve months. Currently there were none or very few in temporary accommodation, but we have recently had people approaching us as homeless and there were dedicated staff doing outreach work to give advice. One of the difficulties for Ukrainians who were moving on in the city and seeking private rented accommodation was the lack of available properties and the high cost of renting, and officers were helping but it was a problem faced by many people in the city. It was likely that the Council now needed to plan for long term investment in services and the two main priorities would be around language and housing. The Council were supporting a number of events and had recently agreed to make a small fund available for small community groups to run one off events.
63.3 Cllr Bell said that it was taking around six weeks for a concessionary bus pass to be issued, and during that time host families were having to pay. The Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities said that they were aware of the problem, and it was being addressed. Cllr Druitt suggested that all bus companies could agree to accept passports whilst waiting for bus passes. The Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture said that they would look at that suggestion.
63.4 Dr Sasidharan said that the support for Ukrainians was commendable but asked about others who were not in targeted schemes particularly black and brown people who were not able to access the same level of funding, and said that all refugees should be supported. The Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities agreed and said that there were other refugees in the City and the Council were investing in City of Sanctuary issues. Cllr Allbrooke noted that there was a hotel which had been housing asylum seekers in very poor conditions but those from Ukraine had much more support.
63.5 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the Homes for Ukraine funding received and expenditure defrayed to date to fulfil the obligations placed on local authorities by the government’s Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme;
(ii) Noted the priorities for the council’s support of refugees and asylum seekers for the coming year as set out in the report;
(iii) Gave delegated authority to the Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, to defray unallocated current and future resources in accordance with the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme requirements and conditions and to fulfil the council’s obligations under the scheme.
64 Learning Management System Replacement
64.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Governance People & Resources which provided details about the actions taken to replace the Learning Management System (LMS) after emergency funding under officer urgency powers was secured in September 2022.
64.2 Cllr Appich said that it was important to provide training for staff and so it was vital that the system was replaced.
64.3 The members confirmed that they had noted the information provided in Part Two of the agenda.
64.4 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the decision taken under Officer urgency powers (as set
out in the report and the offer decision record in the Appendix) to:
· procure and implement a replacement LMS, including the provision of interim systems and processes and;
· approve expenditure as detailed in the part II report over 3 years for the purchase, implementation and licensing of the replacement LMS to be met from a combination of revenue commitment, borrowing (capital financing) and/or addition to the Modernisation Fund subject to the final split of costs between capital and revenue;
(ii) Noted the intention to integrate our learning management system into a fully integrated HR, recruitment, payroll and finance system (which was approved at P&R committee in July 2022) from 2025 onwards.
65 Items Referred For Council
65.1 Cllr Appich requested that Item 59 ‘Cost of Living Update Including the Household Support Fund Tranche 3’ be referred to the next meeting of Council for information.
66 Learning Management System Replacement- Part II
66.1 The recommendations as set out in Item 64 (Part One) were agreed.
67 Part Two Minutes
67.1 RESOLVED: That the Part Two Minutes of the meetings held on 7 July 2022 and 29 July 2022 were agreed as a correct record.
68 Part Two Proceedings
68.1 RESOLVED: That the items listed in Part Two of the agenda and decisions thereon should remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
The meeting concluded at 7.35pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
||
|
Dated this |
day of |
|
|