06/11/2011 The Politics Show South East

We look at plans to turn down �3 million from the government in

favour of a rise in next year's council tax in Brighton and Hove.

At Hastings lunch is an innovative scheme to help her first-time

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2218 seconds

00 welcome to The Politics Show in the south-east.

Coming up: Third free government money versus a tax hike. We ask why

Brighton's Green Party plans to put the financial burden on its

residents. Find out why one local authority

wants to give first-time buyers a leg up on the property ladder.

And why are waiting times getting longer and so many Sussex

hospitals? If you live in Brighton and Hove,

you will probably pay more for your council tax next year because your

leaders are the only ones in the country so far to refuse to agree

to a freeze. The government has promised them �3 million if they

keep council tax at last year's levels, but the ruling Greens in

Brighton and Hove say they can make �4 million by increasing bills by

3.5%. Surely, we will find out what they plan to spend that extra �1

million on and whether it will justify an increased tax burden

when times are already tough on a A three �3 million from the

government, or an extra �4 million from local residents? That was the

dilemma facing the Green Party leadership of Brighton and Hove

City Council. The decision made made is not necessarily the obvious

one. What we are talking about his council tax, and Brighton and Hove

is planning to increase it instead of taking a payout from the

government, which is being given to all local authorities that frees

council tax next year. They are offering councils that he attacks

the same the equivalent of a 2.5% rise. -- council tax at the same.

At the last cabinet meeting called we agreed to keep the council tax

at the same level as it is now, so no increase. We decided to do that

after discussions and canvassing. It was prior to the government

announcement and it is unusual to have the additional government

money, but we have been decided upon doing it because that is what

we have been asked by the electorate. But even though it

looks like every other local authority in the country is taking

the government up on the offer, the Green Party leadership in Brighton

and Hove is proposing not to, instead choosing to increase

council tax by 3.5%. They say they need the extra �1 million they will

get from doing it this way to protect local services. But critics

claim the Government's �3 million would have given a much-needed

boost for the local economy and lifted the burden on residents.

Instead, the proposed tax increase will affect those on lower incomes

more. There is no doubt that council taxes regressive in the

sense that it generally takes a larger share of people's income the

less they earn. For those on council tax benefit, most or all of

the council tax is paid. It won't be progressive. But for people who

are what you might call not quite poor, it will take a larger share

of their income than somebody living in a very large property

with a big income. I think the Green Party would see itself as

being a left-of-centre party, therefore progressive and in favour

of helping those on lower incomes and taxing those more who have high

incomes. Pushing up the council tax is not a very progressive thing to

do in that sense. It is not wholly consistent with the idea of

progressive taxation. The Greens say that if they took the

Government's money, they would end up with a huge shortfall between

the council tax charge to to residents and the amount they need

and would therefore have to impose a with massive hike in the future.

But some day -- some say that they would never come. They can't

possibly predict what is going to happen in a future year. Nobody

knows that and so to make that decision now on - did turn down �3

million of government money because of what they think is going to

happen in the future - is absolute nonsense. We have made it clear

from day one that we would freeze the council tax. We stand by that

view. That is perfectly possible, and that is what should happen for

our residents. So, are the Greens hoping to make a statement by going

against the grain? There are relatively few green councillors.

This is the first Green controlled council and so I have no doubt they

want to make changes and stand out from the crowd to show they are

different. They're always potentially advantages for being

different and to looking different, and being shown to stand up to

powerful central government. On the other hand, the impact on

individuals is real because council tax is the most visible tax most

people pay and therefore it is a genuinely... A decision that will

have an impact on the way people vote.

The council thinks that Brighton and Hove's residents won't mind

paying more to protect services, even at the expense of forfeiting

government money. The Greens clearly want to make an impact, but

are they kidding themselves? Joining me now from our Brighton

studio is the green cabinet member for finance at Brighton and Hove

City Council, Jason Kitcat. You heard a leading expert on local

government saying that increases on council tax in Pat Moran poorer

people than wealthier people. Why are you doing this? He is not

exactly right because the poorest do not pay council tax at all. It

is a few pence extra a week. The key thing to understand as the

Treasury have been very clear that the grant they or offering is for

one year only, so next year we would be too 0.5% behind where we

would ordinarily be. Brighton and Hove City Council is being cut way

above the national average. We have to take �20 million of our budget.

We can't afford this and of the Conservatives are so keen on it,

they should show us the cuts we have to make. If you are all about

protecting vulnerable people - and that is where you say you will

protect -- spend this extra money - why make poor people worse off by

taking more council tax from them? You are robbing the poor to pay the

even poorer. Council tax is imperfect but it is bandied, so

those with the largest properties will pay more. We have to operate

within the limits the government sets for us. We are facing huge

cuts and we will use our green values to make the fairest budget

possible. But 3.5% council tax increase will help mitigate that,

whereas the one-off grant is frankly a gimmick and does not

sound. Previous tax freeze grants worth of four years. They said this

is for one year only so next year we will be far behind where we need

to be. Maybe what you are doing is a bit of a gimmick because you are

squeezing extra money out of your residence. You are the only council

that has agreed to do it at the moment, as far as we know. We don't

expect other councils to follow suit. There is an insinuation that

maybe you are just doing this to look different. Not at all. This is

about sound financial management. If you look at the figures and 10

next year we will be 3 million behind what we need to be, and that

any future increases will be worth less, it means it does not make

sense. Other councils are different. Lewes District Council is in a

different financial situation and we are facing above-average cuts.

Council tax is imperfect but we believe this is the best way to

face the cuts. We were elected on a mandate of resisting the cuts.

weren't allowed to don a mandate of increasing council tax. You went

over at about that. Have you done any research to suggest he will

take residence with you? It sounds like you risk alienating them.

was clear in our manifesto that council tax was one of the options

before us to help mitigate the cuts. Local government has few options.

Solar panels are not a way for us to create income because the

government has slashed feed in tariffs. We have been far more open

than other councils about our plans. Other councils have not dared talk

about their budgets will their tax plans until the very last minute.

We are already talking about it with you and the unions and the

voluntary sector. Let's talk about how you are going to spend the �1

million more that you will spend -- you will get by the putting this on

council tax rather than taking the government payout. We you spend it

wisely or visibly because there is a big difference between the two?

That money will be spent protecting services. What we are keen to do is

keep services going and that is what people voted us in to do.

There are a lot of vulnerable people depending on council

services and they are often invisible services - social care

and children's services - and that is what we are focusing on. Tony

Travers says he thinks you see yourself as a left-of-centre party.

Do you? That is part of our policies but we think Green is

different first of all and I think we have gone beyond left and right

in politics these days. Thank you for being with us.

Is it up to our politicians to help us get a mortgage? In Hastings, the

borough council are going to lend local families a chunk of money for

a deposit to buy their first home. All the buyers have to do is fined

5% of the asking price and they will then get a favourable rate

mortgage. Probably only between 30 and 50 families will benefit

because the council only has �1 million to lend, so is it worth the

risk? With me to discuss this is Jeremy Birch, Labour leader of

Hastings Borough Council and Jo Eccles, founder and director of the

property company Sourcing. How is this going to work, Jeremy?

It is for first-time buyers and people who would have difficulty

raising the deposit. The council is guaranteeing, by lodging the money

with the mortgage company, the difference between a 25% and a 5%

deposit. We think that will allow some people who otherwise could not

get their foot on the ladder to buy a home. We think the council will

be acting socially and responsibly and not really risking its own

finances because we have taken detailed expert advice on this.

You are obviously aware that that is the impending criticism - that

you are putting the Government's money, which you are borrowing and

then investing, at risk. How much of a risk do you think it is?

Everything is a risk but we have taken advice about how to mitigate

the risk. We will be borrowing at a rate of about 2.5%, but we will

receive back about 3.8% with the money we lodge with the mortgage

company. But if somebody defaults on their mortgage, you could end up

in trouble. The but the surplus gives us a cushion, which covers us

against what could be 2% default. We would only be faced with the

difficulty of the property came to be resold at a loss against what it

was purchased. But the difference would be limited from the point of

view of what we have put him. Eccles, it is a creative idea. Do

you applaud them for being adventurous? Well done for thinking

outside the box, but I don't really think it is going to help the

underlying issue. The issue is we have got affordability problems for

first-time buyers, regardless of where they live. They simply can't

get onto the property ladder. So if you are going to help up to 50

first-time buyers, that is great but it is not going to help the

underlying issues, where first-time buyers just don't have the salaries

bursars the deposit required to get onto the property ladder. You need

a fundamental approach across the whole nation to try and change this,

rather than simply macro changing it for a few people. It seems hard

for criticising it somebody who is trying to help by saying it is only

going to help 30 to 50 people it is better than helping nobody, isn't

it? Arguably, no, because at �1 million could be spent elsewhere

and to throw that money to help a few people, you are basically

supporting already inflated prices. Prices are inflated because nobody

can afford to buy at these levels and you are helping to support

those levels. Jeremy, do you have a problem with that? Hastings doesn't

have particularly high prices relative to other areas of the

south-east. The accusation is you are going to contribute to keeping

prices high. And why does everyone need to own a home? Why are we so

obsessed with home ownership in this country? There is no

difference in our mind between the quality of Brenton and the quality

of buying. However, if this allows some people who are in a socially

rented accommodation to move out and therefore that social housing

becomes available for someone else, but this is not �1 million we could

spend on something else. We are borrowing �1 million and then

lending it on and we get a higher rate of return as lenders and as

borrowers. So this could only be used for this. But you don't think

people who are in social housing will get a mortgage. They probably

won't be eligible for those. It will make no difference to the

waiting lists that are already long. People are struggling to get social

housing. The people who will be helped are those who are in private

rented accommodation. But those people are quite vulnerable, aren't

they? Because it they have a child and a local school and a job

locally, with private renting you could be turfed out with just two

months' notice, so there is an advantage for them to get their own

home. There definitely is an advantage: But why are we just

topping 30 to 50 people? We should be focusing on a nationwide scheme

that helps free up housing. There are lots of them to second homes

that are not being used. We are not building enough properties every

year. We need to be doing something more substantial, rather than just

helping a few people here and there. We learned on BBC Radio Kent this

week that Kent housing, which represents the local authorities

and housing associations across the country, is considering its own

version of what Jeremy is proposing with us a target of 600 families

over five years. If more people do it does it become worthwhile or

would you urge them not to do it? At a moment, first-time buyers

simply can't get onto the market. They are all struggling and that is

because their salaries are not high enough. The affordability is not

bear, so we need those prices to correct themselves. In the short

term, it is going to squeeze a lot of people but in the long term,

that means the property market is opened up to everyone. Jeremy, you

have not even launch the scheme yet but you still have some interest?

Yes. We go live in December, we hope. All the publicity has been on

a report on a council meeting and we have had people already on the

phone asking how they can get involved. I am very positive.

you both for being with us. If you need a hip operation or a

new knee, you might end up waiting well be on the 18 weak target set

by the government. Over half the NHS Trust in Sussex are keeping

pace since hanging on for procedures and the problem is

dramatically worse in some cases than it was last year. So why are

some hospitals doing much better than others? Our political reporter

can tell us. What have you discovered? Three out of five

Hospital Trust in Sussex are not meeting the Government's 18 week

waiting target. This is the target for patients admitted into hospital

for their care. In Sussex, hospitals and places like

Eastbourne, Hastings and Redhill, Chichester, patients find that

there are longer delays. Why is it getting worse than it already was?

I don't think there is one simple factor but if you pick East Surrey

Hospital, their backlog of patients has increased from 1000 to 3,000

people over the last 12 months, who have waited for more than 18 weeks.

Hospital trusts have said that there are pressures on their

emergency care and that is taking resources away from other areas of

the hospital. But let's not forget - trusts across Sussex have been

asked to make millions of Pounds worth of efficiency savings. The

trusts are quite reluctant to say that financial pressures will have

an impact, but everyone is saying this has got to have something to

do with it. There two Trust who are doing much better and in one case,

meeting their targets every month. Which are they? Brighton and Sussex

University Hospital have met this 18 week waiting target every month

over the last 12 months. The patients' Association think the

trust who are achieving these targets are particularly good at

what the NHS calls care path ways. That is making sure that when

someone is being treated, the bed is not blocked, and buried

somewhere for them to go. That means they can meet this 90% target

of getting people treated. -- there is somewhere for them to go. We are

not talking about cancer treatment, where people go to the top of the

list, are we? It is what the NHS call an elective care, so it could

be something like a new hip or a new knee and in those areas, we are

finding - using Sussex as an example - there are 700 people

waiting more than the 18 week waiting time.

What other politician saying? I wouldn't mind that -- betting that

Labour are making a field day of these figures. They have been quick

to capitalise on these figures. They said the coalition government

is taking the NHS backwards and all the reforms that they are trying to

make are holding up patient care. Labour had said that we are going

back to the days of the postcode lottery when it comes to health

care. What about the Patients Association? Are they criticising

the government over funding? They said that David Cameron - they

named him personally - has failed to keep to the 18 week waiting time

promise. While the government will say they are meeting at nationally,

the figures show that there are trusts that are failing so that

some people on waiting much more than 18 weeks. Very interesting.

Thank you for bringing into our attention.