0:00:43 > 0:00:48We look at plans to turn down �3 million from the government in
0:00:48 > 0:00:51favour of a rise in next year's council tax in Brighton and Hove.
0:00:51 > 0:01:01At Hastings lunch is an innovative scheme to help her first-time
0:01:01 > 0:01:01
0:01:01 > 0:38:00Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2218 seconds
0:38:00 > 0:38:0900 welcome to The Politics Show in the south-east.
0:38:09 > 0:38:12Coming up: Third free government money versus a tax hike. We ask why
0:38:12 > 0:38:16Brighton's Green Party plans to put the financial burden on its
0:38:16 > 0:38:20residents. Find out why one local authority
0:38:20 > 0:38:23wants to give first-time buyers a leg up on the property ladder.
0:38:23 > 0:38:29And why are waiting times getting longer and so many Sussex
0:38:29 > 0:38:32hospitals? If you live in Brighton and Hove,
0:38:32 > 0:38:36you will probably pay more for your council tax next year because your
0:38:36 > 0:38:41leaders are the only ones in the country so far to refuse to agree
0:38:41 > 0:38:45to a freeze. The government has promised them �3 million if they
0:38:45 > 0:38:49keep council tax at last year's levels, but the ruling Greens in
0:38:49 > 0:38:54Brighton and Hove say they can make �4 million by increasing bills by
0:38:54 > 0:38:573.5%. Surely, we will find out what they plan to spend that extra �1
0:38:57 > 0:39:07million on and whether it will justify an increased tax burden
0:39:07 > 0:39:13
0:39:13 > 0:39:18when times are already tough on a A three �3 million from the
0:39:18 > 0:39:23government, or an extra �4 million from local residents? That was the
0:39:23 > 0:39:26dilemma facing the Green Party leadership of Brighton and Hove
0:39:26 > 0:39:32City Council. The decision made made is not necessarily the obvious
0:39:32 > 0:39:35one. What we are talking about his council tax, and Brighton and Hove
0:39:35 > 0:39:39is planning to increase it instead of taking a payout from the
0:39:39 > 0:39:43government, which is being given to all local authorities that frees
0:39:43 > 0:39:53council tax next year. They are offering councils that he attacks
0:39:53 > 0:39:54
0:39:54 > 0:39:57the same the equivalent of a 2.5% rise. -- council tax at the same.
0:39:58 > 0:40:03At the last cabinet meeting called we agreed to keep the council tax
0:40:03 > 0:40:09at the same level as it is now, so no increase. We decided to do that
0:40:09 > 0:40:12after discussions and canvassing. It was prior to the government
0:40:12 > 0:40:15announcement and it is unusual to have the additional government
0:40:15 > 0:40:18money, but we have been decided upon doing it because that is what
0:40:19 > 0:40:21we have been asked by the electorate. But even though it
0:40:21 > 0:40:25looks like every other local authority in the country is taking
0:40:25 > 0:40:30the government up on the offer, the Green Party leadership in Brighton
0:40:30 > 0:40:35and Hove is proposing not to, instead choosing to increase
0:40:35 > 0:40:39council tax by 3.5%. They say they need the extra �1 million they will
0:40:39 > 0:40:43get from doing it this way to protect local services. But critics
0:40:43 > 0:40:47claim the Government's �3 million would have given a much-needed
0:40:47 > 0:40:51boost for the local economy and lifted the burden on residents.
0:40:51 > 0:40:55Instead, the proposed tax increase will affect those on lower incomes
0:40:55 > 0:40:59more. There is no doubt that council taxes regressive in the
0:40:59 > 0:41:07sense that it generally takes a larger share of people's income the
0:41:07 > 0:41:13less they earn. For those on council tax benefit, most or all of
0:41:13 > 0:41:18the council tax is paid. It won't be progressive. But for people who
0:41:18 > 0:41:21are what you might call not quite poor, it will take a larger share
0:41:21 > 0:41:26of their income than somebody living in a very large property
0:41:26 > 0:41:29with a big income. I think the Green Party would see itself as
0:41:29 > 0:41:35being a left-of-centre party, therefore progressive and in favour
0:41:35 > 0:41:39of helping those on lower incomes and taxing those more who have high
0:41:39 > 0:41:44incomes. Pushing up the council tax is not a very progressive thing to
0:41:44 > 0:41:48do in that sense. It is not wholly consistent with the idea of
0:41:48 > 0:41:51progressive taxation. The Greens say that if they took the
0:41:51 > 0:41:55Government's money, they would end up with a huge shortfall between
0:41:55 > 0:41:58the council tax charge to to residents and the amount they need
0:41:58 > 0:42:04and would therefore have to impose a with massive hike in the future.
0:42:04 > 0:42:07But some day -- some say that they would never come. They can't
0:42:07 > 0:42:13possibly predict what is going to happen in a future year. Nobody
0:42:13 > 0:42:18knows that and so to make that decision now on - did turn down �3
0:42:18 > 0:42:24million of government money because of what they think is going to
0:42:24 > 0:42:29happen in the future - is absolute nonsense. We have made it clear
0:42:30 > 0:42:34from day one that we would freeze the council tax. We stand by that
0:42:34 > 0:42:38view. That is perfectly possible, and that is what should happen for
0:42:38 > 0:42:42our residents. So, are the Greens hoping to make a statement by going
0:42:42 > 0:42:49against the grain? There are relatively few green councillors.
0:42:49 > 0:42:52This is the first Green controlled council and so I have no doubt they
0:42:52 > 0:42:57want to make changes and stand out from the crowd to show they are
0:42:57 > 0:43:01different. They're always potentially advantages for being
0:43:01 > 0:43:05different and to looking different, and being shown to stand up to
0:43:05 > 0:43:08powerful central government. On the other hand, the impact on
0:43:08 > 0:43:16individuals is real because council tax is the most visible tax most
0:43:16 > 0:43:21people pay and therefore it is a genuinely... A decision that will
0:43:21 > 0:43:24have an impact on the way people vote.
0:43:25 > 0:43:29The council thinks that Brighton and Hove's residents won't mind
0:43:29 > 0:43:32paying more to protect services, even at the expense of forfeiting
0:43:32 > 0:43:40government money. The Greens clearly want to make an impact, but
0:43:40 > 0:43:45are they kidding themselves? Joining me now from our Brighton
0:43:45 > 0:43:48studio is the green cabinet member for finance at Brighton and Hove
0:43:48 > 0:43:52City Council, Jason Kitcat. You heard a leading expert on local
0:43:53 > 0:43:58government saying that increases on council tax in Pat Moran poorer
0:43:58 > 0:44:02people than wealthier people. Why are you doing this? He is not
0:44:02 > 0:44:06exactly right because the poorest do not pay council tax at all. It
0:44:06 > 0:44:11is a few pence extra a week. The key thing to understand as the
0:44:11 > 0:44:15Treasury have been very clear that the grant they or offering is for
0:44:15 > 0:44:20one year only, so next year we would be too 0.5% behind where we
0:44:20 > 0:44:26would ordinarily be. Brighton and Hove City Council is being cut way
0:44:26 > 0:44:29above the national average. We have to take �20 million of our budget.
0:44:29 > 0:44:37We can't afford this and of the Conservatives are so keen on it,
0:44:37 > 0:44:40they should show us the cuts we have to make. If you are all about
0:44:40 > 0:44:45protecting vulnerable people - and that is where you say you will
0:44:45 > 0:44:49protect -- spend this extra money - why make poor people worse off by
0:44:49 > 0:44:55taking more council tax from them? You are robbing the poor to pay the
0:44:55 > 0:44:59even poorer. Council tax is imperfect but it is bandied, so
0:44:59 > 0:45:03those with the largest properties will pay more. We have to operate
0:45:03 > 0:45:07within the limits the government sets for us. We are facing huge
0:45:07 > 0:45:13cuts and we will use our green values to make the fairest budget
0:45:13 > 0:45:16possible. But 3.5% council tax increase will help mitigate that,
0:45:16 > 0:45:21whereas the one-off grant is frankly a gimmick and does not
0:45:21 > 0:45:24sound. Previous tax freeze grants worth of four years. They said this
0:45:24 > 0:45:29is for one year only so next year we will be far behind where we need
0:45:29 > 0:45:33to be. Maybe what you are doing is a bit of a gimmick because you are
0:45:33 > 0:45:37squeezing extra money out of your residence. You are the only council
0:45:37 > 0:45:43that has agreed to do it at the moment, as far as we know. We don't
0:45:43 > 0:45:48expect other councils to follow suit. There is an insinuation that
0:45:48 > 0:45:52maybe you are just doing this to look different. Not at all. This is
0:45:52 > 0:45:55about sound financial management. If you look at the figures and 10
0:45:55 > 0:45:59next year we will be 3 million behind what we need to be, and that
0:45:59 > 0:46:06any future increases will be worth less, it means it does not make
0:46:06 > 0:46:10sense. Other councils are different. Lewes District Council is in a
0:46:10 > 0:46:13different financial situation and we are facing above-average cuts.
0:46:13 > 0:46:18Council tax is imperfect but we believe this is the best way to
0:46:18 > 0:46:22face the cuts. We were elected on a mandate of resisting the cuts.
0:46:22 > 0:46:27weren't allowed to don a mandate of increasing council tax. You went
0:46:27 > 0:46:33over at about that. Have you done any research to suggest he will
0:46:33 > 0:46:36take residence with you? It sounds like you risk alienating them.
0:46:36 > 0:46:40was clear in our manifesto that council tax was one of the options
0:46:40 > 0:46:45before us to help mitigate the cuts. Local government has few options.
0:46:45 > 0:46:49Solar panels are not a way for us to create income because the
0:46:49 > 0:46:53government has slashed feed in tariffs. We have been far more open
0:46:53 > 0:46:58than other councils about our plans. Other councils have not dared talk
0:46:58 > 0:47:01about their budgets will their tax plans until the very last minute.
0:47:01 > 0:47:06We are already talking about it with you and the unions and the
0:47:06 > 0:47:11voluntary sector. Let's talk about how you are going to spend the �1
0:47:11 > 0:47:15million more that you will spend -- you will get by the putting this on
0:47:15 > 0:47:21council tax rather than taking the government payout. We you spend it
0:47:22 > 0:47:27wisely or visibly because there is a big difference between the two?
0:47:27 > 0:47:30That money will be spent protecting services. What we are keen to do is
0:47:30 > 0:47:34keep services going and that is what people voted us in to do.
0:47:34 > 0:47:38There are a lot of vulnerable people depending on council
0:47:38 > 0:47:43services and they are often invisible services - social care
0:47:43 > 0:47:47and children's services - and that is what we are focusing on. Tony
0:47:47 > 0:47:52Travers says he thinks you see yourself as a left-of-centre party.
0:47:52 > 0:47:55Do you? That is part of our policies but we think Green is
0:47:55 > 0:48:00different first of all and I think we have gone beyond left and right
0:48:00 > 0:48:04in politics these days. Thank you for being with us.
0:48:05 > 0:48:08Is it up to our politicians to help us get a mortgage? In Hastings, the
0:48:08 > 0:48:12borough council are going to lend local families a chunk of money for
0:48:12 > 0:48:15a deposit to buy their first home. All the buyers have to do is fined
0:48:15 > 0:48:205% of the asking price and they will then get a favourable rate
0:48:20 > 0:48:24mortgage. Probably only between 30 and 50 families will benefit
0:48:24 > 0:48:29because the council only has �1 million to lend, so is it worth the
0:48:29 > 0:48:34risk? With me to discuss this is Jeremy Birch, Labour leader of
0:48:34 > 0:48:40Hastings Borough Council and Jo Eccles, founder and director of the
0:48:40 > 0:48:43property company Sourcing. How is this going to work, Jeremy?
0:48:43 > 0:48:49It is for first-time buyers and people who would have difficulty
0:48:49 > 0:48:53raising the deposit. The council is guaranteeing, by lodging the money
0:48:53 > 0:48:56with the mortgage company, the difference between a 25% and a 5%
0:48:56 > 0:49:00deposit. We think that will allow some people who otherwise could not
0:49:00 > 0:49:05get their foot on the ladder to buy a home. We think the council will
0:49:05 > 0:49:10be acting socially and responsibly and not really risking its own
0:49:10 > 0:49:13finances because we have taken detailed expert advice on this.
0:49:13 > 0:49:17You are obviously aware that that is the impending criticism - that
0:49:17 > 0:49:21you are putting the Government's money, which you are borrowing and
0:49:21 > 0:49:25then investing, at risk. How much of a risk do you think it is?
0:49:25 > 0:49:30Everything is a risk but we have taken advice about how to mitigate
0:49:31 > 0:49:34the risk. We will be borrowing at a rate of about 2.5%, but we will
0:49:34 > 0:49:40receive back about 3.8% with the money we lodge with the mortgage
0:49:40 > 0:49:44company. But if somebody defaults on their mortgage, you could end up
0:49:44 > 0:49:53in trouble. The but the surplus gives us a cushion, which covers us
0:49:53 > 0:49:58against what could be 2% default. We would only be faced with the
0:49:58 > 0:50:04difficulty of the property came to be resold at a loss against what it
0:50:04 > 0:50:10was purchased. But the difference would be limited from the point of
0:50:10 > 0:50:14view of what we have put him. Eccles, it is a creative idea. Do
0:50:15 > 0:50:18you applaud them for being adventurous? Well done for thinking
0:50:18 > 0:50:22outside the box, but I don't really think it is going to help the
0:50:22 > 0:50:25underlying issue. The issue is we have got affordability problems for
0:50:25 > 0:50:30first-time buyers, regardless of where they live. They simply can't
0:50:30 > 0:50:33get onto the property ladder. So if you are going to help up to 50
0:50:33 > 0:50:37first-time buyers, that is great but it is not going to help the
0:50:37 > 0:50:43underlying issues, where first-time buyers just don't have the salaries
0:50:43 > 0:50:47bursars the deposit required to get onto the property ladder. You need
0:50:47 > 0:50:53a fundamental approach across the whole nation to try and change this,
0:50:53 > 0:50:58rather than simply macro changing it for a few people. It seems hard
0:50:58 > 0:51:01for criticising it somebody who is trying to help by saying it is only
0:51:01 > 0:51:08going to help 30 to 50 people it is better than helping nobody, isn't
0:51:08 > 0:51:11it? Arguably, no, because at �1 million could be spent elsewhere
0:51:12 > 0:51:15and to throw that money to help a few people, you are basically
0:51:15 > 0:51:18supporting already inflated prices. Prices are inflated because nobody
0:51:18 > 0:51:24can afford to buy at these levels and you are helping to support
0:51:24 > 0:51:28those levels. Jeremy, do you have a problem with that? Hastings doesn't
0:51:28 > 0:51:31have particularly high prices relative to other areas of the
0:51:32 > 0:51:37south-east. The accusation is you are going to contribute to keeping
0:51:37 > 0:51:40prices high. And why does everyone need to own a home? Why are we so
0:51:40 > 0:51:43obsessed with home ownership in this country? There is no
0:51:43 > 0:51:48difference in our mind between the quality of Brenton and the quality
0:51:48 > 0:51:53of buying. However, if this allows some people who are in a socially
0:51:53 > 0:51:57rented accommodation to move out and therefore that social housing
0:51:57 > 0:52:01becomes available for someone else, but this is not �1 million we could
0:52:01 > 0:52:04spend on something else. We are borrowing �1 million and then
0:52:04 > 0:52:11lending it on and we get a higher rate of return as lenders and as
0:52:11 > 0:52:15borrowers. So this could only be used for this. But you don't think
0:52:15 > 0:52:19people who are in social housing will get a mortgage. They probably
0:52:19 > 0:52:23won't be eligible for those. It will make no difference to the
0:52:23 > 0:52:26waiting lists that are already long. People are struggling to get social
0:52:26 > 0:52:29housing. The people who will be helped are those who are in private
0:52:29 > 0:52:34rented accommodation. But those people are quite vulnerable, aren't
0:52:34 > 0:52:37they? Because it they have a child and a local school and a job
0:52:37 > 0:52:42locally, with private renting you could be turfed out with just two
0:52:42 > 0:52:47months' notice, so there is an advantage for them to get their own
0:52:47 > 0:52:50home. There definitely is an advantage: But why are we just
0:52:50 > 0:52:54topping 30 to 50 people? We should be focusing on a nationwide scheme
0:52:54 > 0:52:59that helps free up housing. There are lots of them to second homes
0:52:59 > 0:53:03that are not being used. We are not building enough properties every
0:53:03 > 0:53:08year. We need to be doing something more substantial, rather than just
0:53:08 > 0:53:12helping a few people here and there. We learned on BBC Radio Kent this
0:53:12 > 0:53:16week that Kent housing, which represents the local authorities
0:53:16 > 0:53:21and housing associations across the country, is considering its own
0:53:21 > 0:53:25version of what Jeremy is proposing with us a target of 600 families
0:53:25 > 0:53:29over five years. If more people do it does it become worthwhile or
0:53:29 > 0:53:33would you urge them not to do it? At a moment, first-time buyers
0:53:33 > 0:53:38simply can't get onto the market. They are all struggling and that is
0:53:38 > 0:53:42because their salaries are not high enough. The affordability is not
0:53:42 > 0:53:45bear, so we need those prices to correct themselves. In the short
0:53:45 > 0:53:49term, it is going to squeeze a lot of people but in the long term,
0:53:49 > 0:53:53that means the property market is opened up to everyone. Jeremy, you
0:53:53 > 0:53:58have not even launch the scheme yet but you still have some interest?
0:53:59 > 0:54:02Yes. We go live in December, we hope. All the publicity has been on
0:54:02 > 0:54:09a report on a council meeting and we have had people already on the
0:54:09 > 0:54:13phone asking how they can get involved. I am very positive.
0:54:13 > 0:54:18you both for being with us. If you need a hip operation or a
0:54:18 > 0:54:23new knee, you might end up waiting well be on the 18 weak target set
0:54:24 > 0:54:26by the government. Over half the NHS Trust in Sussex are keeping
0:54:26 > 0:54:30pace since hanging on for procedures and the problem is
0:54:30 > 0:54:34dramatically worse in some cases than it was last year. So why are
0:54:34 > 0:54:39some hospitals doing much better than others? Our political reporter
0:54:39 > 0:54:43can tell us. What have you discovered? Three out of five
0:54:43 > 0:54:48Hospital Trust in Sussex are not meeting the Government's 18 week
0:54:48 > 0:54:51waiting target. This is the target for patients admitted into hospital
0:54:52 > 0:54:59for their care. In Sussex, hospitals and places like
0:54:59 > 0:55:03Eastbourne, Hastings and Redhill, Chichester, patients find that
0:55:03 > 0:55:08there are longer delays. Why is it getting worse than it already was?
0:55:08 > 0:55:13I don't think there is one simple factor but if you pick East Surrey
0:55:13 > 0:55:19Hospital, their backlog of patients has increased from 1000 to 3,000
0:55:19 > 0:55:22people over the last 12 months, who have waited for more than 18 weeks.
0:55:22 > 0:55:26Hospital trusts have said that there are pressures on their
0:55:26 > 0:55:31emergency care and that is taking resources away from other areas of
0:55:31 > 0:55:35the hospital. But let's not forget - trusts across Sussex have been
0:55:35 > 0:55:37asked to make millions of Pounds worth of efficiency savings. The
0:55:37 > 0:55:41trusts are quite reluctant to say that financial pressures will have
0:55:41 > 0:55:47an impact, but everyone is saying this has got to have something to
0:55:47 > 0:55:52do with it. There two Trust who are doing much better and in one case,
0:55:52 > 0:55:56meeting their targets every month. Which are they? Brighton and Sussex
0:55:56 > 0:56:01University Hospital have met this 18 week waiting target every month
0:56:01 > 0:56:04over the last 12 months. The patients' Association think the
0:56:04 > 0:56:09trust who are achieving these targets are particularly good at
0:56:09 > 0:56:13what the NHS calls care path ways. That is making sure that when
0:56:13 > 0:56:20someone is being treated, the bed is not blocked, and buried
0:56:20 > 0:56:26somewhere for them to go. That means they can meet this 90% target
0:56:26 > 0:56:30of getting people treated. -- there is somewhere for them to go. We are
0:56:30 > 0:56:34not talking about cancer treatment, where people go to the top of the
0:56:35 > 0:56:39list, are we? It is what the NHS call an elective care, so it could
0:56:39 > 0:56:43be something like a new hip or a new knee and in those areas, we are
0:56:43 > 0:56:49finding - using Sussex as an example - there are 700 people
0:56:49 > 0:56:53waiting more than the 18 week waiting time.
0:56:54 > 0:56:58What other politician saying? I wouldn't mind that -- betting that
0:56:58 > 0:57:00Labour are making a field day of these figures. They have been quick
0:57:00 > 0:57:05to capitalise on these figures. They said the coalition government
0:57:05 > 0:57:10is taking the NHS backwards and all the reforms that they are trying to
0:57:10 > 0:57:13make are holding up patient care. Labour had said that we are going
0:57:13 > 0:57:17back to the days of the postcode lottery when it comes to health
0:57:18 > 0:57:23care. What about the Patients Association? Are they criticising
0:57:23 > 0:57:27the government over funding? They said that David Cameron - they
0:57:27 > 0:57:31named him personally - has failed to keep to the 18 week waiting time
0:57:31 > 0:57:34promise. While the government will say they are meeting at nationally,
0:57:34 > 0:57:39the figures show that there are trusts that are failing so that
0:57:40 > 0:57:42some people on waiting much more than 18 weeks. Very interesting.
0:57:42 > 0:57:46Thank you for bringing into our attention.