Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-42)
MR PETER
KENWAY, MR
GUY PALMER,
MR NICHOLAS
BOLES AND
MR DAN
CORRY
27 APRIL 2004
Q40 Sir Paul Beresford: Mr Boles, if
your suggestion was applied in the South East, because of the
change in the funding formula the South East would be severely
wounded, their council taxes would go up quite enormously and
the business contribution centrally from the South East in places
like Surrey is phenomenal compared to that that is actually used,
it is an outgoing not an incoming. The businesses in those areas
would be out for you with a shotgun, they just could not sustain
it. Would you not agree?
Mr Boles: It slightly depends
on where you start. If that had been in place before the re-diversion
of grant resources from the South East to elsewhere in the country
then of course grants at the starting point would have been a
much less important part. I completely understand your concern.
This is a part of a package that takes us to a point where, frankly,
sorry, we will probably be raising 80 or 90% of its expenditure
through locally determined resources. Therefore, a shift in the
grant allocations to Surrey would actually have had a trivial
effect. In the situation that we are in where authorities in the
South East are heavily dependent on grants then that shift in
grant formula would produce a big knock-on, but it would not if
we were in the system I would like to see.
Mr O'Brien: On the question of fees and
charges, one local authority has suggested that perhaps the Government
should bring in a statutory notice that local authorities should
be allowed to charge fees of about two days of income to meet
their local circumstances and to provide the quality of services
that they think should be provided. Do you think that that should
happen, that there should be a statutory responsibility on local
authorities to enclose fees and charges to meet their local requirements?
Q41 Chairman: Profits on local planning
applications.
Mr Corry: I think there are some
places where there could be some fees and charges brought in,
but I suspect they are limited. Through legislation at the moment
the power of discretionary charging is coming in, but that is
about bringing in a new service and it is going to be revenue
neutral. I am sure that there is room in some areas, it may be
in planning, for a quicker service and all the rest of it, but
essentially that is paying for the service rather than raising
money to spend elsewhere. There are things you can do but it is
not going to change in a major way the issues we have been talking
about today.
Q42 Mr Clelland: Mr Boles' suggestion
that the business rate ought to be tied to local taxes or whatever
they might be in the future is obviously in preference to the
Government controlling it centrally, but might there be a role
for regional government controlling business rates given their
responsibilities for economic redevelopment and the economic activity
of their regions?
Mr Boles: I would prefer it to
go as far down as possible, but I agree that that would be better
than central government.
Chairman: Can I thank you very much indeed
for your evidence.
| 
