13/11/2011 The Politics Show South East

The local autonomy or financial disaster. Changes to the way

business taxes distributed could make councils worse off. To bid to

succeed? Criticism of the body set up to help economic growth in the

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1874 seconds

Business tax revenue is an important source of funding for

councils. Could councils and small businesses suffer? It will help you

and it will destroy the deprived areas. Why the body set up to bring

prosperity to the region is accused of being to bid to succeed. And is

it possible to keep politics out of policing? Business tax revenue is

an important source of funding for councils. Under the present system,

local authorities collect the rates, but it's the Treasury that hands

out the money to councils according to need. From 2013, changes in the

way business rates are allocated will allow councils to keep more of

the money they raise and even borrow against future business tax

income. But will these radical plans benefit all areas or create a

bigger gap between the haves and have-nots? Helen Drew has this

report. Business rates might not sound like they affect us all but

they do. They pay for all sorts of things that councils do, from

providing children series's to street cleaning. But changes to the

way this money is allocated could mean that councils already

struggling end up even worse off. Currently business rates are

collected by councils and then sent to the Treasury to be reallocated

back to local councils, based on need. The areas that rate in high

business rates have to share with the areas that cover less. The

government plans to change this or that Cava -- councils roughly keep

what they collect. Most councils in Sussex looked to be worst-off --

worse-off, a simple analysis because they get more from

government and a connecting business rate. The government says

this will collect -- it encourage economic development. They were not

let us set business rate levels. We will all be competing. Overseas,

when such schemes are brought in, you often have the ability to vary

business rates. We could see London boroughs chasing the same business

round and round. That will not benefit anyone. Over the border in

Kent, there are concerns that changes will widen the existing gap

between thriving towns and struggling ones. Across Kent, it is

very patchy. There are areas that are going to do well. We have

designated growth areas for instance. We have seen a lot of

growth in Ashford. There will be a lot more planned growth in the

Thames Gateway area but we have got other parts of Kent that actually

are not doing quite as well. And they could actually be worse off in

this situation. The one thing that we have to be aware of is that if

councils do not work together, what we could have his those towns that

are already doing very well continuing to grow and receiving

more investment and moving forward a lot quicker and those that

currently are not seeing growth are going to see -- suffer even further.

Another potential problem is that in an area where the council has

retired -- reliant on business rates from one big employer, it

leaves him vulnerable to circumstance. This is our biggest

single employer in this district. If these rates were to come in,

this new scheme coming in today, then of course it would be

devastating for this district. It connects �3.7 million every year

from this company. All of a sudden, they are gone and that �3.7 million

is no longer an income. What that means under this scheme is that the

government are going to give us less because this idea of business

rates, the way it stands is going to be fantastic for the field but

in such areas as Dover, Folkestone, Ramsgate, these are all going to be

deprived areas which will suffer under these plans of the Tory lead

government. There are also concerns that the changes to be this race

will favour things like out-of-town shopping centres and not

entrepreneurs -- to business rates. It will have perverse incentives.

It will encourage councils to build big industrial sites. It will

encourage things like steel works and airport, which are not

necessarily what we as a city are looking to do. Business rates are

paid for by large premises. But things like New Media, cultural

enterprises and so on, they are small and often working from home,

they will attract no business rates, very low ones. We are very keen to

keep supporting those things they are industries of the future. He

would see no benefit under these proposals. These changes are

planned for 2013. The government says that for the first year,

public money will be available to help those councils that do not

collect a lot in business rates will stop it from talking to local

councils in Kent and Sussex, it is the long-term incentives that are

the biggest concerns. And whilst the government is claiming to give

councils more autonomy, and they sat revising the incentives for

councils to help develop small businesses. Helen Drew reporting.

Joining me now from Dover is Damian Collins, the MP for Folkestone and

Hythe. Won't these changes encourage struggling Councils to

chase big business instead of helping small ones? I do not agree

with that at all. The first thing about giving councils income based

on the business rate is that it gives them an incentive to be pro-

business development, to support local businesses and encourage

business investment. At the moment, that does not exist at all. Any

initiative that the council might pursue to try and bring business

investment or support local businesses would come out of the

council tax. They would have no way of recouping that. This is a

significant change. If you look at the town centre economy, maybe if

there is no big landlord, no big private investor, what you might

need is a local authority to say, let's put some investment into

crates and Business incubation space. -- create. Maybe introducing

a scheme where innate deprived area that is really struggling, finding

it a Zero business rate in those premises for the first year. --

funding. Councils will be able to look at all these sorts of options.

They will be able to recoup that investment from the uplift in

business activity over the coming years. Are you going to give them

that autonomy? The important thing is that for local authorities, they

will know, they will have a formula, they know how much they are getting.

They will have a form enough. They know that on top of that, if they

can pursue initiatives that will increase business activity and they

get more money from their accounts -- for their communities. That is

such an important change. They want you to give them that autonomy so

they can set the rates locally. That will be effective in Margate,

for example. Why not go a bit further? Councils do have a

discretion the powers. I would like to see him go further. I think

councils can look at the powers. There is a power that the

government is consulting on called tax incremental financing. Many

will be recouped through the business rates they invest over a

number of years. -- money. That is there. I think this is a very first

-- important first step. It gives councils a real stake in the

business community and when you talk to businesses and is as

investors, that is something they had been looking for a long time.

What a lot counsel that cannot raise a lot of money? What are you

going to be doing with them -- what about the council's? Folkestone was

cited as being a deprived community that would lose out under the

scheme. On the contrary, I think it gives the council a chance to

attract businesses. What if they cannot? A lot of them will not be

able to do it. This financing does not happen in isolation. There are

other areas of local government support. In east Kent, we have the

�40 million investment that will come from the regional growth fund.

There will always be things that central government can do if it

thinks an area is struggling. be put the council tax up? That is

unfair on residents? I think most local government financing comes

from central government, not local government. We are talking about a

significant change that will give councils a real stake in supporting

the business community. Thanks, Mr Collins. We'll be speaking to you

again in a moment. Staying with an economic theme,

it's been a year since the South East Local Enterprise Partnership

was created to boost prosperity in the region with a more efficient

and streamlined approach than previous bodies. But, in spite of

some successes, such as getting the go ahead for an enterprise zone in

Kent, the organisation has been criticised for being too large to

be effective. It covers East Sussex, Kent and Essex and is the second

biggest in the country. So will the size of the LEP and its 43 strong

board slow down regional growth in the coming years? Damian Collins is

still with us in Dover, and joining us from our Brighton studio is the

Labour peer Lord Bassam. You are not particularly happy with these

new enterprises. Second -- this spreads across the Thames estuary

with Essex involved, Kent and East Sussex. It lacks the coherence that

I think it needs. I cannot see as yet any project being funded in

East Sussex will stop East Sussex has centres of great need. We had

money going into Hastings in the past. That covered a huge area and

wasted an awful lot of taxpayers' money. There is no doubt about that.

I do not think so. I think it was effective. They estimated they were

leverage in in a ratio of 5 or 6-1. They had created over the ten-year

period many hundreds of thousands of jobs. The south-east region is

the 7th most prosperous region in Europe. It is a motor of the

British economy. We cannot afford to consistently under invest in the

south-east because the rest of the country is very dependent on its

economic success to make sure that the economy grows. This is the

wrong time to be cutting money going to regions when we have got

escalating unemployment, particularly among young people and

women and I think it is extremely important that we have more money

released till our part of the south-east which has many areas of

a high level of preparation. I am not impressed by what the

government has done. -- a high level of deprivation. The

Government have made a big error in this part of England. In terms of

the coherence of the region, the south-east region, you had

supposedly one organisation carrying it -- covering an area

from Milton Keynes to Dover. That is not part of the same economic

region. Something more locally focused is far more important. I

think that having Essex and Kent working together is an important

idea. The new Thames crossing is seen as an important part of

infrastructure. If you look at the priorities of the area, Kent and

Essex working together, it gives Thames Gateway such an important --

importance, and in Folkestone, I think to have the coastal towns

from Hastings through Folkestone, Margate, Dover and including some

of the towns on the Essex coast, working together, I think that is

very important and this is a much more coherent body. Let's move on

from the area they cover to watch the partnership has actually

achieved. -- What the partnership. We have got to get these things

right. If you look at Kent in particular, we have the Enterprise

Zone, the regional growth fund, so I think there is good progress

being made but I think this is the right model and it is important to

get that right. We are in an economic crisis. What do they

actually doing? What have they achieved? Look at government

support for the area and the way that it is delivering in that. I

think the 40 million-pound grant is very important, as is the

enterprise zone and the site in Margate as well. These are

important steps forward. Important steps forward? I do not think so.

We are still do have stuttering -- with a sort of stuttering, the

money is slowing being released. The whole programme was successful,

it was strategic, it was making links across the various counties

and it was creating real jobs in our communities. Where would you

suggest that we go from here? What do these new organisations need to

do at this point in our economic history? I think they need to focus

on the key weaknesses in our local economy and put money into areas of

strength. I would like to see more investment in creative industries.

I would like to see more bowled around educational centres of

excellence. Wraps medical science, sports science, those sorts of

things -- Perhaps. I would like to see more money put in. I would like

to see more money in areas like Hastings, which is very deprived. I

would also like to see more money going in along the Thames estuary.

We need a much broader strategy. We cannot rely on investment in one

part of the area. We are running out of time. Very briefly, in

agreement? We need investment but let's not pretend that for the last

decade, investment has poured out of the South of England and into

the North. We need strategic focus to get that right. Getting it right

is not about where the money is spent. Thank you very much. In a

year's time, we'll all be voting to elect new Police Commissioners

who'll be responsible for every aspect of policing in their area.

Lewes MP Norman Baker has urged parties to reject political

candidates in favour of more suitably experienced people.

Meanwhile, Iraq War veteran Colonel Tim Collins has put himself forward

as a Conservative candidate for the Kent force. Professor Tim Luckhurst,

Professor of Journalism at Kent University, joins me now to discuss

this issue. Can you separate politics from policing? No, I think

Mr Baker is being profoundly naive and deliberately trunk --

troublesome. The aim is to replace local bureaucratic control with

democratic accountability and the way in which British people are

accustomed to understanding democratic accountability is

according to party labels. They would expect candidate to stand

under party labels. And also someone who is experienced in

elections would be better equipped to stand for election? I think that

is right. In an index -- an election that is unlikely to

generate a great deal of interest, it will take political experience

to run a campaign that will excite people and make them understand

what it is all about. Norman Baker is suggesting that politicians

would be stepping away from policing. -- should be. He is

making left-of-centre argument. It is a profoundly political stance.

The Conservative Party has already proposed for reforms to the health

service. It is doing the same thing in schools. Now it is trying to do

what with policing. Mr Baker is suggesting that it should be with

technocrats. I suppose you have a mixture. Yes, but running the army

is not the same as running the police. He might think it is.

Whether he wears a Conservative candidate -- rosette or not,

everyone will know that Colonel Collins is a conservative. It is

the sort of thing that makes people feel better but it is not

definitely an attack on real crime. You mentioned technocrats. It is a

word being used a lot at the moment in European politics. A lot of

undemocratic -- unelected people are being put in place. We have

currently got in Greece, a prime as that has not been elected. We have

in Italy, a prime minister that have not been attracted a -- has

not been elected by the Italian people. The conservative part of

the coalition is saying, the people may want more police on the street,

they may want it to feel safer, but this works in America, where

politicians are elected from the police in the United States,

elected sheriffs, they make populist promises to reduce visible