:00:29. > :00:34.The local autonomy or financial disaster. Changes to the way
:00:34. > :00:38.business taxes distributed could make councils worse off. To bid to
:00:38. > :00:48.succeed? Criticism of the body set up to help economic growth in the
:00:48. > :00:49.
:00:49. > :32:03.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1874 seconds
:32:03. > :32:13.Business tax revenue is an important source of funding for
:32:13. > :32:18.
:32:18. > :32:25.councils. Could councils and small businesses suffer? It will help you
:32:25. > :32:30.and it will destroy the deprived areas. Why the body set up to bring
:32:30. > :32:38.prosperity to the region is accused of being to bid to succeed. And is
:32:38. > :32:42.it possible to keep politics out of policing? Business tax revenue is
:32:42. > :32:44.an important source of funding for councils. Under the present system,
:32:44. > :32:48.local authorities collect the rates, but it's the Treasury that hands
:32:48. > :32:51.out the money to councils according to need. From 2013, changes in the
:32:51. > :32:53.way business rates are allocated will allow councils to keep more of
:32:53. > :33:03.the money they raise and even borrow against future business tax
:33:03. > :33:04.
:33:04. > :33:07.income. But will these radical plans benefit all areas or create a
:33:07. > :33:16.bigger gap between the haves and have-nots? Helen Drew has this
:33:16. > :33:20.report. Business rates might not sound like they affect us all but
:33:20. > :33:25.they do. They pay for all sorts of things that councils do, from
:33:25. > :33:28.providing children series's to street cleaning. But changes to the
:33:28. > :33:32.way this money is allocated could mean that councils already
:33:32. > :33:35.struggling end up even worse off. Currently business rates are
:33:36. > :33:40.collected by councils and then sent to the Treasury to be reallocated
:33:40. > :33:44.back to local councils, based on need. The areas that rate in high
:33:44. > :33:49.business rates have to share with the areas that cover less. The
:33:49. > :33:55.government plans to change this or that Cava -- councils roughly keep
:33:55. > :34:00.what they collect. Most councils in Sussex looked to be worst-off --
:34:00. > :34:03.worse-off, a simple analysis because they get more from
:34:03. > :34:12.government and a connecting business rate. The government says
:34:12. > :34:19.this will collect -- it encourage economic development. They were not
:34:19. > :34:24.let us set business rate levels. We will all be competing. Overseas,
:34:24. > :34:29.when such schemes are brought in, you often have the ability to vary
:34:29. > :34:34.business rates. We could see London boroughs chasing the same business
:34:34. > :34:37.round and round. That will not benefit anyone. Over the border in
:34:37. > :34:42.Kent, there are concerns that changes will widen the existing gap
:34:42. > :34:46.between thriving towns and struggling ones. Across Kent, it is
:34:46. > :34:50.very patchy. There are areas that are going to do well. We have
:34:50. > :34:54.designated growth areas for instance. We have seen a lot of
:34:54. > :35:00.growth in Ashford. There will be a lot more planned growth in the
:35:00. > :35:06.Thames Gateway area but we have got other parts of Kent that actually
:35:06. > :35:12.are not doing quite as well. And they could actually be worse off in
:35:12. > :35:18.this situation. The one thing that we have to be aware of is that if
:35:18. > :35:21.councils do not work together, what we could have his those towns that
:35:21. > :35:26.are already doing very well continuing to grow and receiving
:35:26. > :35:33.more investment and moving forward a lot quicker and those that
:35:33. > :35:37.currently are not seeing growth are going to see -- suffer even further.
:35:37. > :35:41.Another potential problem is that in an area where the council has
:35:41. > :35:50.retired -- reliant on business rates from one big employer, it
:35:50. > :35:56.leaves him vulnerable to circumstance. This is our biggest
:35:56. > :36:00.single employer in this district. If these rates were to come in,
:36:00. > :36:09.this new scheme coming in today, then of course it would be
:36:09. > :36:15.devastating for this district. It connects �3.7 million every year
:36:15. > :36:20.from this company. All of a sudden, they are gone and that �3.7 million
:36:20. > :36:24.is no longer an income. What that means under this scheme is that the
:36:24. > :36:30.government are going to give us less because this idea of business
:36:30. > :36:36.rates, the way it stands is going to be fantastic for the field but
:36:36. > :36:42.in such areas as Dover, Folkestone, Ramsgate, these are all going to be
:36:42. > :36:47.deprived areas which will suffer under these plans of the Tory lead
:36:47. > :36:50.government. There are also concerns that the changes to be this race
:36:51. > :36:58.will favour things like out-of-town shopping centres and not
:36:58. > :37:05.entrepreneurs -- to business rates. It will have perverse incentives.
:37:05. > :37:07.It will encourage councils to build big industrial sites. It will
:37:07. > :37:11.encourage things like steel works and airport, which are not
:37:11. > :37:18.necessarily what we as a city are looking to do. Business rates are
:37:18. > :37:22.paid for by large premises. But things like New Media, cultural
:37:22. > :37:27.enterprises and so on, they are small and often working from home,
:37:27. > :37:30.they will attract no business rates, very low ones. We are very keen to
:37:30. > :37:35.keep supporting those things they are industries of the future. He
:37:35. > :37:39.would see no benefit under these proposals. These changes are
:37:39. > :37:42.planned for 2013. The government says that for the first year,
:37:42. > :37:45.public money will be available to help those councils that do not
:37:45. > :37:51.collect a lot in business rates will stop it from talking to local
:37:51. > :37:54.councils in Kent and Sussex, it is the long-term incentives that are
:37:54. > :37:59.the biggest concerns. And whilst the government is claiming to give
:37:59. > :38:08.councils more autonomy, and they sat revising the incentives for
:38:08. > :38:11.councils to help develop small businesses. Helen Drew reporting.
:38:11. > :38:13.Joining me now from Dover is Damian Collins, the MP for Folkestone and
:38:13. > :38:18.Hythe. Won't these changes encourage struggling Councils to
:38:18. > :38:22.chase big business instead of helping small ones? I do not agree
:38:22. > :38:26.with that at all. The first thing about giving councils income based
:38:26. > :38:29.on the business rate is that it gives them an incentive to be pro-
:38:29. > :38:33.business development, to support local businesses and encourage
:38:33. > :38:38.business investment. At the moment, that does not exist at all. Any
:38:38. > :38:41.initiative that the council might pursue to try and bring business
:38:41. > :38:45.investment or support local businesses would come out of the
:38:45. > :38:49.council tax. They would have no way of recouping that. This is a
:38:49. > :38:55.significant change. If you look at the town centre economy, maybe if
:38:55. > :38:58.there is no big landlord, no big private investor, what you might
:38:58. > :39:04.need is a local authority to say, let's put some investment into
:39:04. > :39:11.crates and Business incubation space. -- create. Maybe introducing
:39:11. > :39:16.a scheme where innate deprived area that is really struggling, finding
:39:16. > :39:19.it a Zero business rate in those premises for the first year. --
:39:19. > :39:23.funding. Councils will be able to look at all these sorts of options.
:39:23. > :39:26.They will be able to recoup that investment from the uplift in
:39:26. > :39:34.business activity over the coming years. Are you going to give them
:39:34. > :39:41.that autonomy? The important thing is that for local authorities, they
:39:41. > :39:45.will know, they will have a formula, they know how much they are getting.
:39:45. > :39:49.They will have a form enough. They know that on top of that, if they
:39:49. > :39:52.can pursue initiatives that will increase business activity and they
:39:52. > :39:58.get more money from their accounts -- for their communities. That is
:39:58. > :40:03.such an important change. They want you to give them that autonomy so
:40:03. > :40:09.they can set the rates locally. That will be effective in Margate,
:40:09. > :40:16.for example. Why not go a bit further? Councils do have a
:40:16. > :40:19.discretion the powers. I would like to see him go further. I think
:40:19. > :40:27.councils can look at the powers. There is a power that the
:40:27. > :40:30.government is consulting on called tax incremental financing. Many
:40:30. > :40:36.will be recouped through the business rates they invest over a
:40:36. > :40:40.number of years. -- money. That is there. I think this is a very first
:40:40. > :40:44.-- important first step. It gives councils a real stake in the
:40:44. > :40:48.business community and when you talk to businesses and is as
:40:48. > :40:51.investors, that is something they had been looking for a long time.
:40:51. > :40:57.What a lot counsel that cannot raise a lot of money? What are you
:40:57. > :41:00.going to be doing with them -- what about the council's? Folkestone was
:41:00. > :41:05.cited as being a deprived community that would lose out under the
:41:05. > :41:10.scheme. On the contrary, I think it gives the council a chance to
:41:10. > :41:15.attract businesses. What if they cannot? A lot of them will not be
:41:15. > :41:19.able to do it. This financing does not happen in isolation. There are
:41:20. > :41:25.other areas of local government support. In east Kent, we have the
:41:25. > :41:29.�40 million investment that will come from the regional growth fund.
:41:29. > :41:36.There will always be things that central government can do if it
:41:36. > :41:44.thinks an area is struggling. be put the council tax up? That is
:41:44. > :41:48.unfair on residents? I think most local government financing comes
:41:48. > :41:52.from central government, not local government. We are talking about a
:41:52. > :42:02.significant change that will give councils a real stake in supporting
:42:02. > :42:05.the business community. Thanks, Mr Collins. We'll be speaking to you
:42:05. > :42:07.again in a moment. Staying with an economic theme,
:42:07. > :42:10.it's been a year since the South East Local Enterprise Partnership
:42:10. > :42:13.was created to boost prosperity in the region with a more efficient
:42:13. > :42:16.and streamlined approach than previous bodies. But, in spite of
:42:16. > :42:19.some successes, such as getting the go ahead for an enterprise zone in
:42:19. > :42:23.Kent, the organisation has been criticised for being too large to
:42:23. > :42:29.be effective. It covers East Sussex, Kent and Essex and is the second
:42:29. > :42:35.biggest in the country. So will the size of the LEP and its 43 strong
:42:35. > :42:38.board slow down regional growth in the coming years? Damian Collins is
:42:38. > :42:48.still with us in Dover, and joining us from our Brighton studio is the
:42:48. > :42:53.
:42:53. > :43:03.Labour peer Lord Bassam. You are not particularly happy with these
:43:03. > :43:04.
:43:04. > :43:10.new enterprises. Second -- this spreads across the Thames estuary
:43:10. > :43:17.with Essex involved, Kent and East Sussex. It lacks the coherence that
:43:17. > :43:24.I think it needs. I cannot see as yet any project being funded in
:43:24. > :43:28.East Sussex will stop East Sussex has centres of great need. We had
:43:28. > :43:32.money going into Hastings in the past. That covered a huge area and
:43:32. > :43:37.wasted an awful lot of taxpayers' money. There is no doubt about that.
:43:37. > :43:44.I do not think so. I think it was effective. They estimated they were
:43:44. > :43:49.leverage in in a ratio of 5 or 6-1. They had created over the ten-year
:43:49. > :43:53.period many hundreds of thousands of jobs. The south-east region is
:43:53. > :43:57.the 7th most prosperous region in Europe. It is a motor of the
:43:57. > :44:01.British economy. We cannot afford to consistently under invest in the
:44:01. > :44:04.south-east because the rest of the country is very dependent on its
:44:04. > :44:09.economic success to make sure that the economy grows. This is the
:44:09. > :44:12.wrong time to be cutting money going to regions when we have got
:44:12. > :44:16.escalating unemployment, particularly among young people and
:44:16. > :44:21.women and I think it is extremely important that we have more money
:44:21. > :44:24.released till our part of the south-east which has many areas of
:44:24. > :44:33.a high level of preparation. I am not impressed by what the
:44:33. > :44:40.government has done. -- a high level of deprivation. The
:44:40. > :44:46.Government have made a big error in this part of England. In terms of
:44:46. > :44:49.the coherence of the region, the south-east region, you had
:44:49. > :44:53.supposedly one organisation carrying it -- covering an area
:44:53. > :44:56.from Milton Keynes to Dover. That is not part of the same economic
:44:56. > :45:00.region. Something more locally focused is far more important. I
:45:00. > :45:05.think that having Essex and Kent working together is an important
:45:05. > :45:13.idea. The new Thames crossing is seen as an important part of
:45:13. > :45:20.infrastructure. If you look at the priorities of the area, Kent and
:45:20. > :45:24.Essex working together, it gives Thames Gateway such an important --
:45:24. > :45:27.importance, and in Folkestone, I think to have the coastal towns
:45:27. > :45:32.from Hastings through Folkestone, Margate, Dover and including some
:45:32. > :45:36.of the towns on the Essex coast, working together, I think that is
:45:36. > :45:39.very important and this is a much more coherent body. Let's move on
:45:39. > :45:48.from the area they cover to watch the partnership has actually
:45:48. > :45:53.achieved. -- What the partnership. We have got to get these things
:45:53. > :46:01.right. If you look at Kent in particular, we have the Enterprise
:46:01. > :46:05.Zone, the regional growth fund, so I think there is good progress
:46:05. > :46:10.being made but I think this is the right model and it is important to
:46:10. > :46:14.get that right. We are in an economic crisis. What do they
:46:14. > :46:19.actually doing? What have they achieved? Look at government
:46:19. > :46:21.support for the area and the way that it is delivering in that. I
:46:21. > :46:27.think the 40 million-pound grant is very important, as is the
:46:27. > :46:32.enterprise zone and the site in Margate as well. These are
:46:32. > :46:37.important steps forward. Important steps forward? I do not think so.
:46:37. > :46:45.We are still do have stuttering -- with a sort of stuttering, the
:46:45. > :46:47.money is slowing being released. The whole programme was successful,
:46:48. > :46:52.it was strategic, it was making links across the various counties
:46:52. > :46:59.and it was creating real jobs in our communities. Where would you
:46:59. > :47:03.suggest that we go from here? What do these new organisations need to
:47:03. > :47:08.do at this point in our economic history? I think they need to focus
:47:08. > :47:11.on the key weaknesses in our local economy and put money into areas of
:47:11. > :47:15.strength. I would like to see more investment in creative industries.
:47:15. > :47:19.I would like to see more bowled around educational centres of
:47:19. > :47:26.excellence. Wraps medical science, sports science, those sorts of
:47:26. > :47:30.things -- Perhaps. I would like to see more money put in. I would like
:47:30. > :47:37.to see more money in areas like Hastings, which is very deprived. I
:47:37. > :47:41.would also like to see more money going in along the Thames estuary.
:47:41. > :47:48.We need a much broader strategy. We cannot rely on investment in one
:47:48. > :47:53.part of the area. We are running out of time. Very briefly, in
:47:53. > :47:56.agreement? We need investment but let's not pretend that for the last
:47:56. > :47:59.decade, investment has poured out of the South of England and into
:47:59. > :48:08.the North. We need strategic focus to get that right. Getting it right
:48:08. > :48:10.is not about where the money is spent. Thank you very much. In a
:48:10. > :48:13.year's time, we'll all be voting to elect new Police Commissioners
:48:13. > :48:16.who'll be responsible for every aspect of policing in their area.
:48:16. > :48:21.Lewes MP Norman Baker has urged parties to reject political
:48:21. > :48:24.candidates in favour of more suitably experienced people.
:48:24. > :48:30.Meanwhile, Iraq War veteran Colonel Tim Collins has put himself forward
:48:30. > :48:32.as a Conservative candidate for the Kent force. Professor Tim Luckhurst,
:48:33. > :48:42.Professor of Journalism at Kent University, joins me now to discuss
:48:43. > :48:43.
:48:43. > :48:46.this issue. Can you separate politics from policing? No, I think
:48:46. > :48:52.Mr Baker is being profoundly naive and deliberately trunk --
:48:52. > :48:57.troublesome. The aim is to replace local bureaucratic control with
:48:57. > :48:59.democratic accountability and the way in which British people are
:48:59. > :49:03.accustomed to understanding democratic accountability is
:49:03. > :49:10.according to party labels. They would expect candidate to stand
:49:10. > :49:14.under party labels. And also someone who is experienced in
:49:14. > :49:19.elections would be better equipped to stand for election? I think that
:49:19. > :49:23.is right. In an index -- an election that is unlikely to
:49:23. > :49:28.generate a great deal of interest, it will take political experience
:49:28. > :49:36.to run a campaign that will excite people and make them understand
:49:36. > :49:43.what it is all about. Norman Baker is suggesting that politicians
:49:43. > :49:53.would be stepping away from policing. -- should be. He is
:49:53. > :49:55.
:49:55. > :49:59.making left-of-centre argument. It is a profoundly political stance.
:49:59. > :50:03.The Conservative Party has already proposed for reforms to the health
:50:03. > :50:09.service. It is doing the same thing in schools. Now it is trying to do
:50:09. > :50:19.what with policing. Mr Baker is suggesting that it should be with
:50:19. > :50:25.
:50:25. > :50:29.technocrats. I suppose you have a mixture. Yes, but running the army
:50:29. > :50:32.is not the same as running the police. He might think it is.
:50:32. > :50:39.Whether he wears a Conservative candidate -- rosette or not,
:50:39. > :50:42.everyone will know that Colonel Collins is a conservative. It is
:50:42. > :50:46.the sort of thing that makes people feel better but it is not
:50:46. > :50:52.definitely an attack on real crime. You mentioned technocrats. It is a
:50:52. > :50:58.word being used a lot at the moment in European politics. A lot of
:50:58. > :51:02.undemocratic -- unelected people are being put in place. We have
:51:02. > :51:08.currently got in Greece, a prime as that has not been elected. We have
:51:08. > :51:14.in Italy, a prime minister that have not been attracted a -- has
:51:14. > :51:17.not been elected by the Italian people. The conservative part of
:51:17. > :51:24.the coalition is saying, the people may want more police on the street,
:51:24. > :51:27.they may want it to feel safer, but this works in America, where
:51:27. > :51:33.politicians are elected from the police in the United States,
:51:33. > :51:37.elected sheriffs, they make populist promises to reduce visible