Proposed cuts to public health services have been scaled back after the government awarded Brighton and Hove City Council a bigger grant than expected.
The council had planned to cut funding for Audio Active, a charity supporting young people through music, but has been able to include the money in the budget for the coming year.
Labour councillor Jacob Allen, the new cabinet member for adult social care, public health and service transformation, set out other changes at a cabinet meeting at Hove Town Hall on Thursday (13 February).
Other changes will mean fewer cuts to services such as mental health support, staffing, oral health promotions and the academic library service.
Councillor Allen said that officials had found £230,000 of “flexibility” in the grant which, among other things, could now be used to end the saving plans for the “ageing well” agenda.
He said: “This administration acted rapidly to reassess the public health lines in the budget to assess what we would not longer have to take forward in terms of savings in the next financial year.
“Many of the things we’ve now plucked out of the savings are things which we were not keen to go forward with, as the Green Party acknowledged, so we are very happy to see them taken out with the help of our Labour government.”
Green councillor Ellen McLeay said: “Through this process, it is imperative that statutory services and essential provisions are protected and improved where needed.
“We (need to) understand the cumulative impact of these financial decisions on the everyday lives, safety, and wellbeing of the most vulnerable in our city.”
Councillor McLeay had asked about the lack of equalities impact assessments (EIAs) the week before when the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee met on Friday 7 February – as did Labour councillor Jacqui Simon.
At the cabinet meeting, Councillor McLeay said: “It would seem that the budget proposals for adult social care haven’t sat well for the previous cabinet member, Councillor (Tristram) Burden, who – as of this week – has resigned from his cabinet position and who was vocal at the scrutiny meeting last week – that he didn’t support the cuts to adult social care.
At the scrutiny committee meeting, in response to Councillor Simon’s comments about the lack of an EIA on staff cuts to the public health team, aimed at saving £565,000 a year, Councillor Burden described the proposals as “rushed”.
He said that public health had become part of the council’s “family, children and wellbeing directorate” last month in a restructure, having previously been part of “adult social care”.
Councillor Burden said: “A lot of this has been rushed through. We haven’t had a lot of time to work through the proposals in detail.
“When it comes to what this money is being reallocated to, the only case that’s been made to me so far is the savings made in public health will be reallocated to support other elements in the council in line with the terms of the public health ring-fenced grant and will enable those areas to release funds to relieve the pressure on the general fund.
“Early in January I agreed to about £863,000 (in savings). Some of these are more intensive cuts including further intensive reductions in what we’re providing to voluntary services.
“Those have since been taken out but, even in this current version, by this stage of the scrutiny panel I had been hoping for much more detail about exactly how the funding is being reallocated.
“In the absence of that detail, particularly £565,000 which we’re being asked to find in our staff reorganisation, I can’t support.
“I think there’s about £400,000 within other savings that we can make an argument for. But besides that, I would like to hear … a much more robust case for this, including an EIA.”
Councillor Burden stepped down as the council’s cabinet member for adult social care, public health and service transformation on Wednesday (12 February) – the day before the cabinet meeting.
After the announcement of the public health grant changes they were approved by the cabinet and include
• Reduce the proposed reduction of contribution to the Healthy Child programme from £100,000 to £50,000
• Remove the £4,000 proposed saving on YMCA Mental Health Champions (part of proposed savings of £44,000)
• Remove the proposed saving of £35,000 for cessation of the Audio Active CYP service (part of proposed savings of £44,000)
• Remove the proposed £20,000 saving on Mental Health Support Services
• Remove the proposed saving of £45,000 on the Ageing Well service delivered by Impact initiatives
• Remove the proposed reduction in contribution of £18,000 to the Academic Library Service (part of proposed savings of £73,000)
• Remove the proposed reduction of £10,000 to the TDC Act on Cancer Project screening promotion service (part of proposed savings of £73,000)
• Remove the proposal to reduce the contribution to Oral Health promotion by £9,000
• Reduce the proposed staffing saving of £565,000 by £39,000 to £526,000
BHCC MUST concentrate on statutory responsibilities and excel in the fulfilment of statutory responsibilities. Everything beyond statutory responsibilities is a “nice to have”. Senior leadership (elected and executive) are strategically and tactically lacking and not listening to very experienced and wise senior council officers. Much disquiet in HTH as a result of some very short-sighted decisions. Bankruptcy is still a possibility…..
Public Health is a statutory function though. And funded via a ring fenced grant – which is why these proposed cuts have been rescinded because the grant was larger than initially reported to the council.
But what non statutory services would you eliminate?
I’m not applauding this council for anything when they are proposing budget savings which rely on targeting vulnerable people facing homelessness and sending them to the north east of England. Essentially a Labour council introducing a deliberate social cleansing policy.
The current Government should be properly funding councils, and this group of councillors should not be complicit and balance the books by introducing such cruel and morally questionable policies when they should be pushing back at the continuation of Tory austerity we are seeing – rather than being nodding dogs and doing what their Tory colleagues in Westminster say.
It’s a valid concern, however also important to consider the complexities of balancing limited resources, especially after 15 years of austerity which is not easily reversed. That said, any policy that disproportionately affects vulnerable people should be scrutinised carefully, as it risks perpetuating inequality rather than alleviating it.
You provide a good argument for devolution, as it could potentially offer more autonomy, giving greater control over resources and policies and resisting central cuts.
I disagree on the devolution argument. The government has made clear that they are continuing with austerity and misguided economic policies. Moving boundaries about and talk about us being better off with devolution is just smoke and mirrors. To date, I have not seen any councillor give clear tangible examples of the additional money the region would get, there are no guarantees it would be better.
Remember this government is made up of Labour MPs, including Peter Kyle locally, who were happy to stand in front of signs saying they supported WASPI women when they were asking for your vote, and then threw them under the bus, the same with Winter Fuel payments. This week we’ve seen the evidence that the Chancellor vastly exaggerated her online CV, so it’s not a big stretch of the imagination to believe that Bella Sankey may be vastly exaggerated the benefits of devolution.
I prefer evidence based arguments, and if the Labour council believes it has a strong case for devolution, they should show us the evidence and trust residents with a vote on it rather than forcing it on us.
An evidence-based reason is one I fully support as well, Bill. Evidence from Greater Manchester’s devolution shows that local control can lead to more efficient spending and targeted economic strategies. Reports by the Institute for Government and the Local Government Association note that when local leaders manage budgets, they can respond more swiftly to community needs, although these benefits hinge on robust local accountability.
There needs to be much clearer messaging around the specific benefits of devolution. People shouldn’t go looking for it, because, honestly – they won’t.
Plenty of these things are a stitch in time though, preventative is oftentimes far cheaper than a reaction.
Also think there is no way to square Labour’s plans to send homeless people north morally. Wrong on every level.
Bill, while I understand your moral concerns, relocating homeless individuals could, if executed with proper support, and with the individual’s consent, break the toxic cycle many are trapped in within Brighton. Evidence from similar schemes suggests that moving people to areas with lower living costs and better-integrated services can offer a genuine fresh start and more tailored assistance, rather than simply displacing them. It’s not about abandoning responsibility but about strategically using national resources to create more sustainable and humane outcomes.
Studies indicate that relocating homeless individuals to areas with lower living costs when combined with supportive housing, can lead to significant improvements in their well-being and reduce public expenditure. For instance, research from Arizona State University found that providing permanent, supportive housing for people with chronic mental illness is more cost-effective than allowing them to remain homeless or in homeless projects. Similarly, a study highlighted in the Australian Economic Review reported that housing projects based on the Housing First model resulted in strong housing outcomes and reduced service usage.
Benjamin – with all due respect, the council are proposing it here as a clear budget cut – it’s in their budget papers as a ‘saving’ so it’s not a genuine attempt to improve things for the people they would move. If it were about improving people’s lives elsewhere – the council could do it without cutting funding, and provide people they move with more initial set up support wherever they send them. The fact it’s a budget cut makes clear that MONEY is the Labour administration’s motivation, not CARE and support.
These sorts of endeavours are charitable and should be funded by donations. If people stopped giving their money to large national charities with massive salaries and influence and preferred small local ones we would all benefit.
Donations such as those from the council?
Much mention of austerity above, the ugly fact is that UK Plc is a busted flush and living on payday loans. Nearly all income tax is paid by a vanishing percentage of the population and much of that is spent servicing debt.
The only way out of this is for the country to work harder and be more productive and lower the benefits bill, and the cost of government and its agencies.
Instead our political focus and discussion is about who get a share of a vanishing pot of cash and who is to blame.
In the meantime our political class argues about ideology and who to give money to on the international stage, while we go without. Inter generational hatred is being fostered to remove state benefits.
It is reminiscent of the church in medieval times where dogma and financial control trumps the wellbeing of the people.
I couldn’t agree more. We need to put a temporary embargo on ALL foreign aid (unless to fund natural disasters) and on increasing our ability to make and grow things. Our manufacturing and farming abilities have been decimated and we rely on others for so much of our energy, food, clothing, etc. We need to stop giving loans for pointless degrees, open more trade schools and factories and get the benefits down. And I say this as a disabled person. I’d LOVE to work but get bugger all help in finding something I COULD do.
Who decides what is considered a “pointless degree’?
Tristram was right, plenty of necessary services had already been cut.
Well there’s a surprise…. Government want to put more money into mental health but actually when it comes down to savings. Cut it where they can. Especially, When mental health issues are becoming more and more common especially since the pandemic. As someone who’s going through cancer at a young age and has struggled with mental health issues for years before my diagnosis of cancer. It’s shocking! I knew things were bad before, but now I have physical health issues on top. I’ve seen first hand how many services from the NHS to voluntary organisations are struggling already and then to cut them further is just ludicrous. People need these vital services more than ever before. Yet the budget gets smaller and smaller each year…. It makes no sense. Let’s hope these cuts or savings don’t ripple right down to the most vulnerable people that need and access them the most. Only time will tell if BHCCs back tracking with the cuts and reinstating things slightly. Will play out…
Hey there it’s Christian how are you doing today my name Christian why are the council cutting funding to the well being hub at Preston park also they have cut funding to the free art group on the third Friday off every mouth at the old market theatre do you want clients killing them selfs