BBC On The Record - Broadcast: 25.02.01



==================================================================================== NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY ==================================================================================== ON THE RECORD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE: 25.02.01 ==================================================================================== JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The government's launching its National Crime Plan tomorrow but a leaked memo says it's worried that it will be seen as too soft on criminals. I'll be asking Paul Boateng what they are going to do about it. The Liberal Democrats are launching their alternative budget tomorrow. Are they really being straight with us? And the polls say the Tories will be hammered in the election... might they be wrong? That's after the news read by SARAH MONTAGUE. NEWS HUMPHRYS: The Liberal Democrats are the one party that promises to put up our taxes... but only by a little. Do their sums add up? And the polls forecast another Labour landslide... so why do the spinners suggest a different story? But first crime. JOHN HUMPHRYS: A few days ago we had headlines on the front pages telling us that Britain is now the most crime-ridden society in the western world. Tomorrow we shall have the details of the government's plans to tackle crime over the next ten years. But this morning we have headlines about a leaked government memo that says not only have they failed to catch enough criminals, but that the new plans for sentencing will make them look too soft on crime. The Home Office Minister Paul Boateng is with me. Mr Boateng, this new plan it seems is just another attempt to appear tough on crime, because we know the reality is different. You have not been tough on crime. PAUL BOATENG: On the contrary what we have done is to preside, the first time a government's ever achieved this, over a situation in which crime will be lower at the General Election whenever it comes than it was at the outset of this government. Crime down by ten per cent, we inherited a Criminal Justice System that was under-resourced, unco-ordinated. We have addressed both those issues. We inherited a Criminal Justice System which was failing to detect, failing to convict, failing to deter or adequately rehabilitate. That was reality. Crime doubled under the Conservatives. HUMPHRYS: Well, we'll come to those figures in a minute if we may. BOATENG: ..... that's the reality John. HUMPHRYS But the reality..... BOATENG: But we do need to address that, and this Crime Plan in a bold and imaginative way, and you don't expect me to discuss the details here today, does just that, and it backs it up with resources. HUMPHRYS: Well, I..... BOATENG: ...based on a determination to ensure that we actually restore confidence in the Criminal Justice System. HUMPHRYS: You talk about catching criminals. I'll rely for my evidence if I may in part at any rate, on the memo from Mr Straw's own advisor Justin Russell, who says, and I quote, that your performance in catching criminals has been in quotation marks, "poor". BOATENG: You will excuse me John if I don't get too aerated about a memo of unknown prominence... HUMPHRYS: I just told you...... BOATENG: Which I certainly haven't seen, which there is some doubt that the Home Secretary ever saw... HUMPHRYS: Not much doubt.. BOATENG: ...about a speech John, that was delivered last September. HUMPHRYS: Two weeks ago the memo was written. BOATENG: Excuse me if I don't get aerated about that. What I will tell you and what I do say is that you know, we do have a job of work to do in relation to the Criminal Justice System. It is perfectly true that we do need to make sure that the police, the courts, the probation service work better in order to tackle that hundred-thousand - this is what the research says - there are a hundred thousand criminals who are persistent, responsible for about half the offences that are committed. Of that hundred-thousand a half of them are under the age of twenty-one, two thirds have drug problems, a third have been in care, and that's why when you're talking about crime you've got to talk about it from a holistic perspective that says: yes of course detection, punishment, protection, but also the work we've been doing to tackle the underlying causes of crime. HUMPHRYS: Ah, well, that's the point you see, the work you've been doing. And that's why it's important to look back as well as forward because it's really important to assess your record, and the memo that you don't approve of, but there we are it is there now on the public record, says that it has actually got worse (INTERRUPTION) your record - but alright, ...... BOATENG: To be fair John, it doesn't say that. HUMPHRYS: Well.... BOATENG: Whatever the memo says, and as I say I've never seen it, I doubt if the Home Secretary's ever seen it, whatever it says... HUMPHRYS: Oh, I'm sorry, if you haven't seen it how do you know what it says. BOATENG: But what it does, I mean I've read the same newspaper with great interest. HUMPHRYS: Well, we're singing from the same hymn-sheet. Let me give you the figures. BOATENG: ... but a rather unreliable one. What I do say - I'd love to have the figures, but let me share with you first of all the most important figure which is a headline figure, and that is that crime doubled under the Conservatives, convictions fell by a third, crime has fallen HUMPHRYS: No, well, come on..... BOATENG: Let me just finish. This is a British Crime Survey. Crime has fallen.... HUMPHRYS: I want your record, not the Tories by the way, that's the important bit. BOATENG: Crime has fallen by ten per cent since we came into office and we now have the lowest figures on burglary and vehicle crime for a decade. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let me... BOATENG: Now, that's the record John... HUMPHRYS: Alright, now let me deal with it. BOATENG: And I'm entitled to feel proud, proud but not complacent. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let me .. BOATENG: .....important plan. HUMPHRYS: Alright, let me deal with that record. Crime has, as you know, been falling generally. General crime has been falling across the industrialised countries, that is the case, but, but here is the important thing. You talk about the clear-up rate. Let's look at it, it has fallen, fallen from twenty-eight per cent in nineteen-ninety-seven which is when you came into power to twenty-five per cent last year. It has fallen under your watch, not improved. BOATENG: No, because... HUMPHRYS: Well, I'm sorry, those are the official figures, they are your Home Office figures. You can't say no to them. BOATENG: I, I hear those figures. Those figures don't tell the whole story, those figures don't reflect what the British Crime Survey shows. HUMPHRYS: No, the British Crime Survey does not deal (INTERRUPTION) No, no, I've got to let you finish there because I think that's misleading. You see the British Crime Survey figures don't deal with clear-up rates. The British Crime Survey figures as you and I both know very well, deal with crimes that have been reported one way or the other, so let's not confuse two things. BOATENG: And I'm not confusing.... HUMPHRYS: I'm willing to trace this issue with you. I think it's probably tedious for the audience, but none the less. BOATENG: Let's not do it. HUMPHRYS: Well, let's stick to the figures that we... BOATENG: I want to address those statistics you see, because what the British Crime Survey does tell you, and what you yourself know to be the case, that if you take an offence like domestic violence, I happen to be the minister responsible for domestic... HUMPHRYS: You're picking out...I want to stick to the broad categories. BOATENG: I'm sure you do but I have to demonstrate , I have to demonstrate to you what contributes to those figures. We are actually encouraging people to come forward and to report domestic violence. We're encouraging people to come forward and to report racial attacks. Those figures include all of those categories HUMPHRYS: ...then. Violent crime, the clear-up rate has fallen again? BOATENG: Let me just finish What those figures also demonstrate is that when you take specific offences like burglary, when you take specific offences like motor vehicle crime in all of that police performance, the performance of the Criminal Justice System as a whole has improved, but there is still room for improvement, which is why.. HUMPHRYS: It is getting worse you see, it is getting worse. BOATENG: Which is why John yesterday, I give you this as an example, we launched on the back of amendments that were tabled on Friday, new powers for the police to retain DNA samples lawfully taken, because we know that the billion pounds that we are investing in new technology, in new approaches to detection are what the police want... HUMPHRYS: ....... you see.. BOATENG: What the last Conservative administration failed to address and what we are doing, what we are doing against a back-cloth in which Home Office statisticians predicted that crime would rise, it's not actually, it isn't, Oh yes sure, it isn't true to say that you can take a falling crime for granted. You have to work, you have to work in order to achieve that, and we owe a great deal to our police, to our probation services, to those engaged in the hard day to day business of public protection, and also to the community who with the Crime and Disorder Act have come together with the police for the first time - let me finish, for the first time in targeted police initiatives that have actually reduced burglary and vehicle crime and that have seen ... HUMPHRYS: Okay. BOATENG: ... ever reducing increases in crimes of violence. HUMPHRYS: Crimes of violence, I wanted to get onto crimes of violence... BOATENG: ...so do I.. HUMPHRYS: ..because there are two areas here that matter. One is the actual number of crimes of violence the other is the clear up rate. Clear up rate has fallen even more than for other crimes. It has fallen from seventy-eight per cent to sixty-three per cent under your watch, violent crime last year was up eight per cent, in 1998-99 six per cent for robbery, '97-98 sixty three thousand, last year ninety thousand. Now, look at those figures, they are serious figures, they are worrying figures, you are telling me things are getting better, those are the crimes that people most care about, they have gone up and the people who committed those crimes, fewer of them have been arrested. That's the reality. BOATENG: That is precisely why we are spending two hundred and twenty million pounds of tax payers' money in relation to work on drugs and their impact on the criminal justice system. That's precisely why the targeted policing initiative and the additional resources we have made available to the police and the probation services have been specifically targeted on crimes of violence but only on robbery, fuelling and drugs fuelled acquisitive crime. But also on the sort of offences that are committed as you know John, of a Friday and Saturday night by drunken yobs out there on the streets.. HUMPHRYS: ..which have increased since you've been in power. BOATENG: Well you know, this is... HUMPHRYS: I just want you to acknowledge that, that's all. BOATENG: Sure, but look. I do acknowledge it John and hold on John, I acknowledge it but what I also acknowledge is the steps that we are now taking in order to address the yob culture and I would ask you to give credit for that and I would also ask you to bear in mind the importance of ensuring as a society when we deal with issues around youth crime, drink and drugs, that this is something that can't be left to the police alone. It can't be left to the government alone, this is an issue of the balance of rights and responsibilities which we are addressing in terms of the steps we have taken in for instance in relation to licensing laws, actually giving local authorities and the police the powers now to close down pubs which are associated with violent crime on a Friday or Saturday night. All of those are practical, positive measures that haven't been taken in the past John and that this government is now taking. HUMPHRYS: Well let's move forward then and look to what you might or might not be doing. Sentencing is something that concerns people enormously. People want - we are told - want to see the tougher criminals spending more time in jail. The memo that you dismissed but nonetheless I am going to refer to because it's there, it's on the record, it's only a couple of weeks' old.. BOATENG: It's in the Sunday Times John. HUMPHRYS: But you're not disputing it's been written by Mr Straw's own advisor, the man he appointed to advise BOATENG: (laughter)...come off... HUMPHRYS: ...I'm not coming off at all, it's a very significant memo... BOATENG: ..this is an extremely dubious... HUMPHRYS: If I had a pound for every Minister you sat there saying hold those memos...I'd be a very rich man indeed. The next day of course everybody... BOATENG: You're not doing too bad John. HUMPHRYS: The memo tells us that you are going..let's just deal with this then, this specific. You are going to release criminals earlier than they are being released at the moment, is that true? Let's deal with that. BOATENG: Look, John, it's not true. We have set in place and indeed the Crime Plan will explore this tomorrow and I'm not going to relieve its contents. We have set in place the process of reviewing sentencing, why have we done that, because the 1991 Act which the Conservative Government introduced, that is part of their record, the record of crime doubling and convictions falling by a third. The 1991 Act led to a situation in which sentences were high-bound, they were subject to an inflexible regime that for instance didn't enable them to take into account, as they had done, previous convictions. When you link that to the botched introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service which we are also reforming, twenty-three per cent increase next year in their spending, an increase in the number of Crown Prosecutors, Crown Prosecution Service and police areas now realigned, Chief Prosecutors. All those things very necessary. But when you look at the impact of the 1991 Act on sentencing, what it led to was a situation in which we weren't imprisoning as many people as we ought to from that hard core of a hundred thousand persistent offenders. When they were imprisoned for short periods, they were let out at the half way stage without in fact adequate input into the causes of their offending addressed by offending behaviour treatment within prison. They then re-offended, eighty per cent, eighty per cent of that particular cohort are of criminals, whether they are sentenced to prison or community sentences, re-offend within two years. So what we are proposing, what we are proposing is to ensure that those people who do commit offences persistently are caught, sent to prison, if necessary sent to prison for longer, but that all people who are sent to prison are actually subject to rigorous monitoring when they leave prison. So far from this being a soft option for the criminal, it will be much harder and it will engage sentences with the outcome of their sentences. That's what they welcome, that's what they want and that's what the review is designed to do. HUMPHRYS: The trouble is when again we look at your record we see that more than thirty-thousand people have been released early from prison, including, including six-thousand who had been convicted of violent sentences, of violent offences. Now you may say, oh well, they've been tagged or whatever it is but the fact is that people look at those figures and they match your rhetoric with the actual effect of those actions and see a disparity there. BOATENG: What I am happy to do is to debate with you the efficacy of the home detention curfew. What I can tell you about it is, that it is the product of a policy that has been supported by the all party Home Affairs Select Committee, that is about the issue of resettling prisoners back into the community under supervision. HUMPHRYS: Well, why does the memo talk about it being seen as softening then, you looking soft.. BOATENG: ....and it has a ninety-four per cent success rate. So the home detention curfew is a good way of rehabilitating prisoners, is a good way of resettling them... HUMPHRYS: ...the fact is you are letting people out of prison earlier. The memo warns that this can be portrayed as a significant softening of sentencing arrangements. BOATENG: John, it isn't a question of looking soft, or looking hard. You know, the last government fell into that trap, they always talked hard... HUMPHRYS: ...well you do, all the time... BOATENG: ...hold on, let me finish. They always said that prison worked and then the fact of the matter was that crime doubled and convictions fell by a third... HUMPHRYS: ...do you believe prison doesn't work then? BOATENG: ...so what we have got to do is to use an evidence base and to be driven by the evidence, not by popularity and not by appearing soft or hard, but by the evidence and what the evidence shows John, is that prisoners are less likely to re-offend if you do make sure that they are supervised when they leave prison, which is why we are investing in the probation service, an additional two-hundred-and-thirty million pounds for them over the next three years. HUMPHRYS: ...and that..and on the basis that they - just to elucidate that point, on the basis that they will be leaving prison earlier - this is what I am trying to get at... BOATENG: ...no, not on the basis that they will be leaving prison earlier... HUMPHRYS: ..because that's what you have been doing... BOATENG: ...not on the basis that they will be leaving prison earlier but on the basis that all prison sentences ought to carry with them an element of supervision and control when they come to an end because all the evidence actually demonstrates that that is more likely to contribute to their not re-offending... HUMPHRYS: ...so it's not the case... BOATENG: ...so what the crime plan will do will be to demonstrate to you our commitment to tackle the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement which successive governments of all political complexions have in the past failed to address and those are issues around drugs and rehabilitation, they are issues around employment and rehabilitation, housing and rehabilitation, but they are being....but they're being a payback for that, that is... HUMPHRYS: ...right, so just a final quick thought then... BOATENG: ...accepting tagging, accepting a greater degree of supervision and control, it's a hard policy... HUMPHRYS: ...so it is not the case... BOATENG: ...it isn't a soft one, but it's evidence based. HUMPHRYS: It's not going to be the case then, again as the members suggest, that people who are sent down for a year can be out in as little as three months. That is not the case is it? BOATENG: Well, what you will see - no it isn't the case as it happens - but what you will see with the crime plan which the Prime Minister will outline tomorrow, is an evidence based policy that is designed to bring greater coherence to the Criminal Justice System that addresses years of neglect and under-resourcing and that puts it within the context of an evidence based and rigorous framework that's about prevention, that is about detection, that's about public protection and rehabilitation. Those are the themes putting victims, witnesses, at the heart of the Criminal Justice System and delivering on an ever reducing level of crime. For the first time we have a government that has presided over a ten per cent reduction in crime in the lifetime of this government, that's good news compared to the doubling under the Conservatives. HUMPHRYS: Wish I could challenge you on that, sadly, no time. Paul Boateng, thank you very much indeed. BOATENG: My pleasure. HUMPHRYS: Budget day is only just over a week away. Tomorrow we'll get a curtain-raiser in the shape of the Liberal Democrats' "alternative" budget. The thing that makes them different from the other parties is that they don't promise to keep taxes down. On the contrary. They say there'll be a small increase to pay for better education and higher taxes for the highest earners. Sounds remarkably honest of them... or is it? I'll be talking to the Liberal Democrat's Treasury spokesman, Matthew Taylor. But first, Iain Watson looks at whether Liberal Democrat policies are as straightforward as they appear. IAIN WATSON: This fine Victorian vessel pioneered passenger trips to the other side of the world back in the days when the Liberals used to form governments. Now, just imagine what might happen if their modern day equivalents, the Liberal Democrats, ever got their hands on the helm of the ship of state. This isn't entirely a fantastic voyage; they're already in coalition in Scotland and Wales. And, they say, if they reach power at Westminster, we would enter a new era of openness and fairness in taxation. BARONESS WILLIAMS OF CROSBY: You have to be absolutely frank with the public, and the public is showing most encouraging signs of being willing to pay tax for what it believes in, even if you're completely open, and say, it's going to mean more money. ANDREW SMITH MP: Theirs is really a 'wish list' approach to politics. It's a menu without prices, their sums don't add up, there's a list of undeliverable spending commitments as long as your arm. WATSON: Think of one policy that you associate with the Liberal Democrats - and it's probably their commitment to put a penny on the basic rate of income tax to improve education. It stands as a proud symbol of the Liberal Democrats' honest dealing, their willingness to tell us that improvements in public services really do come at a price. But voters would be well advised to read the small print. Up until now at least, they've said the penny will imposed 'if necessary.' But perhaps that should be translated as 'if we don't think we have got any hope of winning an election' - because recent events here in Bristol cast doubt as to whether the Liberal Democrats really do have the courage of their convictions. The new 'At Bristol' science exhibition is living proof that exciting experiments don't always go to plan. The city's labour council felt the full force of public disapproval when, in a pioneering referendum, fifty-four per cent voted for no increase in council tax. This, despite dire warnings, that children would find it tough going; a large share of proposed cuts would fall on the education budget unless voters opted to pay more. It's not that surprising to find people don't like paying tax, but this woman's attitude has fascinated political observers. As the leader of the local Liberal Democrats, she too voted against the council tax going up. CLLR BARBARA JANKE: We as responsible councillors cannot ignore the representations that are made to us every year from the citizens of this city saying that they pay too high council tax, they don't get good value for money and they want something done about it. WATSON: The Liberal Democrats say their stance has to be weighed against the fact that public confidence in the Labour council has drained away and in any case, cash from the sale of the municipal airport could fend off the education cuts. But Labour, with a weak, two-seat majority, say the Libdems are motivated by opportunism ahead of May's council elections - their proposal to stave off cuts is taking the mickey. CLLR GEORGE MICKLEWRIGHT; Where the money comes from, nobody knows, it's some sort of pile of magic money which only they have access to, and that's what they propose every year, and it's totally cynical trying to suggest to people that they have it both ways, no increase in taxation but additional spending. And while in some respects that is possible in the very short term in fact you soon run out of money and you're faced with an even bigger council tax than you would have done before. WATSON: Leading lights in the local Conservative party are meeting to discuss their alternative budget for Bristol. The venue is the Clandoger Trow, a dockside pub that's inspired some pretty tall tales in its time. ACTUALITY WATSON: Local legend has it that Robert Louis Stevenson wrote Treasure Island here, but the Tories say it's the Libdems who spin far-fetched yarns these days; their credibility has taken a knock and voters should be suspicious. CLLR PETER ABRAHAM: They try to be all things to all men. But I think the time is coming where the public are beginning to say, hang on, does the figures really add up? And I think we've got a job, in the Conservative Party here, and nationally, of showing very precisely that their figures just don't add up. WATSON: The Liberal Democrats' opponents say all their talk of transparency in taxation is nothing short of fiction. Both Labour and the Tories say the Liberal Democrats evade difficult decisions, not just locally here in Bristol, but nationally. On the surface, everything appears to be clear. They've told us which taxes they'll raise and how the money will be spent. But critics say they are really trying to smuggle through spending plans which don't stand up to close scrutiny. RICHARD OTTAWAY: One 'p' costs the taxpayer roundabout two point eight, two point nine billion pounds in five years time. They say that one 'p' is going to be spent on education, but if you just run through the lists of all their education policies, higher starting salaries for teachers; teachers pay increase of six to ten per cent a year; all teacher trainees to be paid; more classroom assistants in primary schools; abolition of university tuition fees; cut class sizes in primary schools; give teachers the right to non-contact time; nursery education for all three year olds. If you cost all that lot, it comes to six point four billion pounds, which is nearly 3p. WATSON: Apart from education, the Liberal Democrats are planning spending increases in other public services, but what's fact and what's fantasy? The Liberal Democrats have ambitious plans to modernise the health service by the end of the next parliament. Their spending plans would mean: free personal care for the elderly in residential homes; free eye and dental checks; and more hospital staff and beds. But they say most of this - two point four billion pounds in fact - will be paid for by reducing the growth in the drugs bill. But that kind of decision may have unwelcome side effects. CARL EMMERSON: If we pay drug companies less for drugs now they may decide to research less drugs for the future. So this would have a cost in terms of what drugs get developed to cure which diseases in future. Secondly, the drug companies employ a lot of people and carry out a lot of research in the UK. If they get rewarded less for that work here, they may decide to go overseas. WATSON: The Liberal Democrats have bountiful increases in store, for some, in their spending plans for social security: Pensioners would get extra cash as a direct result of taxing those who earn more than one-hundred-thousand pounds a year at fifty per cent, rather than forty per cent currently. But the Libdems also expect to save four-hundred and sixteen million a year, by the end of the next parliament, by reducing social security fraud - but does this treasure trove of cash really exist, or is it akin to the unending search for the holy grail? EMMERSON: You shouldn't start cutting taxes or increasing spending on the back of those savings until you have delivered them, and it's important to remember that the current government, and previous governments have tried to reduce spending on fraud, and perhaps found it much harder to deliver than what they anticipated. WATSON: In addition to the Liberal Democrats' hard and fast spending commitments, they also have a whole host of aspirations. These include a full housing and benefits package for asylum seekers. They'd also like to increase the amount of overseas aid to point seven per cent of GDP, over the next ten years, and they want to reduce the ten 'p' lower rate of tax to zero to help the poorest paid. WILLIAMS: In this country, the gap between the top twenty per cent, and the bottom twenty per cent, is steadily widening. That's not good for society. So yes, we've already said that when we have the money, and we've already made it clear that our first priority is education and pensions, we would go for an abolition of the rate of taxation at the bottom end. EMMERSON: Clearly to cut the ten pence rate to zero would actually cost money. It's going to cost them around four billion pounds if they want to do that. WATSON: The Liberal Democrats have high aspirations but the question is, are they radical enough to deliver them in a decent timescale? Certainly they are the only party sticking their neck out and calling for an increase in income tax rates, but critics say, if they were being totally honest with us, they'd tell us these are only a first step - sooner or later, they'd be back for more - especially if they want to see sustained improvements in public services. To the casual observer, the Liberal Democrats proposal to raise around seven billion pounds from tax rises may seem stunning, but experts say this isn't as breathtaking as it may appear. EMMERSON: We can see that the current government's looking to increase spending, by around seventy billion pounds between now, and two-thousand-and-three, four, the middle of the next parliament. So, an additional seven billion pounds on top of that, could make some difference to public services, but it's certainly not going to be a substantial one. WATSON: So Labour are telling people not to get too excited by the Libdems' promises; if they want too see them delivered, they'll have to pay a high price. SMITH: There's no doubt at all that taxes would go through the roof if the Liberals had their way, as indeed they are in many local councils, including my own, and with this list as long as your arm of promises they've made, the pressure would be there for taxes to go ever higher. WATSON: In Bristol, the Liberal Democrats fought shy of a rise in council tax. But if they are bolder nationally, and argue for tax increases, the Tories say they'll reap an electoral whirlwind. OTTAWAY: I think that if the public realise exactly what was involved in these expenditure plans, the levels of taxation which the Liberals would take them up to, I think there would be a backlash. We've seen it in the local government referendums, and I think we'll see it at a national level. WATSON: The larger parties say the Liberal Democrats aren't being open about the true cost of their plans. The message from Bristol to the Libdems appears to be that tax rises aren't popular. So, to sell voters the line that they'd have to pay even more in tax, could leave them marooned in an electoral backwater. HUMPHRYS: Iain Watson reporting there. JOHN HUMPHRYS: Matthew Taylor that last point is an important one isn't it, you say that you support extra taxes for extra spending on education but when you have a specific case, as in Bristol, you bottle out and you say, oh no, we won't support it here. MATTHEW TAYLOR: Well if you can find the money in other ways as our group in Bristol pointed out you could, then why ask the taxpayer for money you've already got. But more important than that, there is an issue about...for the public not just how much they pay, but how well it's spent and the fact is in Bristol they spend more than most councils, they have a higher Council Tax than most councils and worst results in the schools. That suggests that it isn't primarily the money, it's how it's being spent and that's the criticism that the Liberal Democrats made. But you look nationally, the Labour Government in this Parliament have actually managed to spend a lower proportion of the national cake, on health, on education, on pensions and that's why we see problems building up in the Health Service, the longer waiting lists, that's why we see the larger class sizes and that's why we saw just seventy-five p for pensioners this year. HUMPHRYS: The reality is that in Bristol there is now as a result, in part of your decisions and your tactics there, there is going to be less spending on education. And the reason for that is perfectly straight-forward, you calculated didn't you, that it would cost you votes if you came out in support of higher taxes. So when it comes down to it you sort of abandon the moral high ground for the rather grubbier lower ground of winning votes. TAYLOR: No, what we're about is spending money wisely and if Bristol... HUMPHRYS: ... there'll be less money spent on education now than there would have been had you supported the extra tax. TAYLOR: Well, we will see. That's the case Labour failed to make and I think if they'd made it people would have supported their schools but the fact is, the money was there in other ways, there is no reason for those cuts to happen in schools in Bristol because they have the money available to them and if Labour want to make some kind of political gesture by punishing schools, they can, but that's not a business the Liberal Democrats are in. The business that we're in, right across the country, and we've shown it in councils, we've shown it in Scotland, is making sure that investment takes place. Look at the difference it made getting the Liberal Democrats in coalition in Scotland and you can see the difference we could make at Westminster. We've delivered free care for the elderly, we've delivered abolishing tuition fees in Scotland, we've also been able to get more money into health and education in Scotland and what we are saying to the electorate nationally, if you believe as we do, that there needs to be well spent investment, sort out schools, get rid of tuition fees, cut waiting lists in hospitals, make sure old people don't have to sell their homes in old age to pay for their care, we can deliver all of that, it will cost some money. We're not going to pretend like the Conservatives you can get some money without having any effect either on taxes or public spending - they say you can cut taxes with no cut in spending - that's nonsense. We say, there is a need for some very clear investment in these services, people know that because they use the hospitals and schools, there is a cost to that, but it is an affordable one. HUMPHRYS: Ah, well, you say there is a cost to it and that's the problem isn't it because what Bristol showed is that when they are faced with the choice, I mean they may well tell a pollster, oh yes, I want to spend extra money on the Health Service and education and all that, when it actually comes down to putting that cross somewhere where it means they will have to spend more money, they will have to pay out in their taxes, they say, no thank you, don't want it. TAYLOR: Well, this isn't the only referendum that's been... HUMPHRYS: No, no indeed but it's a very significant one.. TAYLOR: ...we saw a referendum in Milton Keynes where people did not vote for the lowest increase, they did vote for an increase to support schools and other services. We saw in the past similar work in Tower Hamlets where people actually voted for increases and the issue seems to be whether people believe it will be well spent, it will be delivered where it's needed and whether it's affordable. So on the one hand you have Labour Bristol, taxing more than most councils and delivering a worse service, where people rightly say, well the money doesn't seem to be doing the job you want it spent better before we'll give you more and on the other hand, you've got national government where people have seen eighteen years of Conservative cuts, followed in the first three years with Labour, with Labour actually spending less than the Conservatives planned and of course they're jacking it up now for the General Election but it's not actually bringing it back to where even the Conservatives had it, as a proportion of national wealth, and that's the difference we will make. We will spend some more, not much, but some more of that national cake and it will deliver those improvements in services. HUMPHRYS: Right, well let's come to that, not much, the fact is, you're trying to make us believe that we can have a good deal of extra spending for a very very small increase in taxes. I mean if you look sorts of things you are talking about, we heard a list in Iain Watson's film there, but massive increase in Overseas Aid spending, very substantial increase there indeed, reducing the ten pence rate of tax for poorest people down to zero. These are going to cost serious money and you're proposing, what, the odd penny? TAYLOR: What we've made absolutely clear is that the tax proposals we make are the limit of the tax proposals we will make and... HUMPHRYS: ...not sure I follow that - you mean you'll make no more promises... TAYLOR: ...there are no other plans, there are no other plans, the penny, the increased tax for people on their earnings over a hundred thousand pounds a year will cover... HUMPHRYS: ...yes but it won't cover it all that's the point I'm making... TAYLOR: ...will cover the things that we guarantee... HUMPHRYS: ...what, including cutting the ten pence rate to zero for instance? TAYLOR: No. HUMPHRYS: No. TAYLOR: And as you film made clear, we've said of course there are other things. We're ambitious for Britain and as the economy grows, we can spend more without raising taxes. That's common ground between all parties. HUMPHRYS: So in other words, let me be quite clear about it. That was a sort of wish list really then. That wasn't a set of proposals, so you are not promising to cut the ten pence rate to zero, that is the case? TAYLOR: No. We will do that when we can. HUMPHRYS: Right - if you can. TAYLOR: If we can - and will be a priority but we're not going to bankrupt the country to do it and we are certainly not going to bankrupt people by demanding unreasonable taxes but there are some things that do need to be done in health and education and improving pensions that we don't think can wait. Labour made the mistake of waiting and that's why people are disappointed because they haven't been able to deliver, if we are going to make those increases, improvements in services, we will have to ask people for little but it will be no more than a penny on the basic rate and it will be no more than the ten per cent increase on earnings over a hundred thousand pounds a year. So it's affordable, it's not asking people for money that they can't afford. Nobody likes paying taxes but everybody uses the schools and hospitals, everybody either faces the need to have a good pension or knows a pensioner who does and their family. HUMPHRYS: Okay, well let's look at the health spending then. You're going to save two-point-four billion pounds, substantial amount of money, by cutting the drugs bill. Now you heard what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in that film, you can't do it because it will damage the drugs industry to an unacceptable extent, most of the extra spending that you propose, most of the extra spending that you propose depends on you doing it. They say you can't do it without damaging the drugs industry hugely. TAYLOR: I will publish tomorrow details of our health spending and what you will see in that is that we make a very clear differentiation between the money we will pay for from tax and that includes some of the money from the higher rate of tax on high earners and with that we'll deliver us one-point-six billion of improvements and that will deliver the staff, the improved pay for staff, the improved beds, that will cut the waiting list and it will also deliver the abolition of having to pay for your care in old age and being forced to sell your home in the process. What it won't deliver is the cuts in prescription charges and the... HUMPHRYS: ...eyes, dentistry and all that sort of thing... TAYLOR: ...no, that will be delivered... HUMPHRYS: ...all of that? - an awful lot is going to be delivered for a very small amount of money isn't it? TAYLOR: ...all costed, all costed through, all based on official government figures, no question about that and we will set it all out in detail, but we are not going to claim it'll deliver all of it. The second bit is to start, to stop the rip-off by drug companies of the NHS. The NHS does not have the kind of purchasing that for example New Zealand has pioneered and brought down the escalation of pharmaceutical costs as a result. They've done it without damaging pharmaceutical companies and we know and we know... HUMPHRYS: ...slightly different scale of things we are talking about here... TAYLOR: ...absolutely... HUMPHRYS: ...New Zealand doesn't quite have the drugs industry that this country does. TAYLOR: Absolutely, a much smaller purchaser managing to buy things much more cheaply than the NHS does because they've used their bargaining power. We believe the NHS can do even better because of its size and muscle in the market. At the moment, pharmaceutical companies describe this market as a premium market, where they can charge premium prices to the NHS, we think that's wrong and we don't accept the argument that the British taxpayer should pay for drugs research, whilst everyone else around the world gets the benefit of cheaper drugs prices and therefore better cancer care, more doctors and more nurses than we do. HUMPHRYS: Right, you are going to cut four hundred million pounds by chopping Social Security fraud gosh! - where have I heard that one before. You'll acknowledge that that has been around for quite..I can't remember any spokesman sitting opposite me who hasn't said we are going to do that. But, the point is this and it's a very important point made by the IFS. If you've done it, fine, use that money and spend it on something but don't spend the money before you have saved it, that's not honest. TAYLOR: I took a very strong stand when I took on this role in the Party to say 'look, I will not guarantee anything I cannot be certain of'. So the tax proposals we make, which we believe are affordable will deliver the guarantees that we make. What I will not do is promise that savings will deliver the improvements, so the pensions are paid for by that increase in top rate tax for very wealthy people, wholly delivered by and we can guarantee it to pensioners... HUMPHRYS: Sorry, I thought you told me that increase in top rate tax was also going to pay for bits of the Health Service. TAYLOR: It's more than enough to do both is the answer. Two point nine billion will pay the pensions increase, the rest will release money for the Health Service. So we can deliver both. But the fact is we want to do more, we want to do work for asylum seekers because we think that the way in which asylum seekers are supported at the moment is simply wrong. Giving people vouchers doesn't work, it's demeaning and ultimately.... HUMPHRYS: ..all this extra money on the Overseas Aid budget. TAYLOR: As I say - no that's not in our guarantees... HUMPHRYS: That's not a guarantee, that's something else that's out is it, that's a wish list one? TAYLOR: We are publishing our guarantees, which are investment in education, investment in the Health Service, investment in pensions, more police on the beat and we will make a start on that move on Overseas Aid but we will not publish what we can't deliver. All of that will be set up tomorrow, that's why we are launching the alternative budget, but let's be absolutely clear - we know that over time any economy, and all parties agree on this, there's difference between us. Over time there is..more resources become available and you can do things. Most of them are absorbed in giving people reasonable pay rises, but nevertheless that money is there. What we are talking about is the guarantees we make. We are not..nobody will get a leaflet and pretend that they will get things that they don't get. Those leaflets they'll get, the manifesto will set out detailed improvements in education, abolition of tuition fees, average class sizes of just twenty-five in primary schools, the improvements in the Health Service, extra doctors and nurses. The guaranteed improvements in pensions, all of those will be paid for by the tax rises and there will be no more - and unlike the other parties, because we set it out in that way there will be no need to resort to stealth taxes, so we can guarantee no stealth taxes in the way the others can't. HUMPHRYS: Just a final very quick thought, you'd acknowledge would you this is all just a start. I mean it's only two per cent isn't it, if it all worked out for you there's only be two per cent on top of the.. just a start? TAYLOR: In any service, over time they need more money to deliver the service adequately, if only to pay decent salaries and to pay for the new equipment that this there. But what we can guarantee to deliver is the abolition of tuition fees, lower class sizes, more doctors and nurses to cut down waiting lists, big improvements in pensions. Those are fully funded, they come in right at the start of the Parliament and therefore unlike Labour, we will deliver, we won't disappoint and there won't certainly be the big cuts you'd get from the Conservatives. HUMPHRYS: Matthew Taylor, many thanks. HUMPHRYS: The opinion polls have no doubts at all. The pollsters don't at any rate. There will not only be a Labour victory in the general election, there will be another landslide. The Tories say "Don't believe it." Well, you'd expect them to say that, wouldn't you. But the Labour Party also casts doubt on the pollster's predictions. Why? Terry Dignan reports from St Albans in Hertfordshire - one of those constituencies that will decide on the night. TERRY DIGNAN: St Albans. One of many prosperous towns in southern England which went Labour at the last election. Rising incomes, soaring house prices and falling unemployment should mean Labour will hold on to these seats. That's what the opinion polls say. But do the polls tell the whole story? Here in St Albans the Tories believe they can win - and, surprisingly, Labour appears to agree. In Tony Blair's nightmare scenario, come election day, core Labour supporters stay at home while Conservative voters flock to the polls, enthused by William Hague's strong campaigning on issues like the Euro and the Dome. In truth, few people believe the Conservatives can win this General Election, but that still leaves a huge amount of uncertainty over the actual result. Can Hague slash Blair's majority or will Labour be returned with another landslide victory? TARIQ; "Would you like a cup of tea?" DIGNAN: This young family say they're unlikely to make the effort to vote Labour again. Tariq and Nikki expected more from Tony Blair - better jobs, decent wages, more money for public services. TARIQ: They've built the Millennium Dome which they could've put money into homeless people, into anything, into benefits, into hospitals. NIKKI: Yes, I understood that Labour was supposed to do things with the NHS and make it better and everything, but the hospital in St Albans is just closing down more and more. And, like, I couldn't have my baby in St Albans and I had to travel, spending money on getting to the appointments. DIGNAN: And what about the next election, are you going to vote for them? TARIQ: No, I'm not going to vote for Labour again. Unless they can actually prove that they are actually gonna make an effort or just talk about it you know. DIGNAN: Labour fears seats like St Albans will be lost if its so-called core vote abstains. Peter Kellner, an expert on voting behaviour, who lives in St Albans, says that here in London Colney, a less well-off part of the constituency, fewer than a quarter of voters turned out in last year's local elections. PETER KELLNER: Observation, certainly of recent elections, local, European elections - those types - show an enormous disparity between the turnout in middle class areas and the turnout in working class areas. Now if that disparity were to persist in a general election, then the results would be that Labour support would be significantly below what the opinion polls say and that the Tory support would be significantly above what the opinion polls say. DIGNAN: Wednesday is market day and the town's Labour MP Kerry Pollard is manning the party stall. He says it's going to be a hard slog holding on here at the general election, and he takes seriously the Prime Minister's warning that seats like St Albans will fall to the Conservatives if just one in five Labour voters stays at home. Since 1997 turnouts have collapsed in Parliamentary by-elections in Labour-held seats. KERRY POLLARD MP: Labour has not lost any single by-election which is a first for any government in, in office. But what has happened is the, the turnout has been remarkably low. And I think that is a worry and that's why, I think the Prime Minister's absolutely right to say, let's not be complacent. DIGNAN: To give core voters a reason to turn out, from April the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown will put more cash into the pockets of less well-off families through changes in the tax system. There'll be extra funding for childcare and pensions. But it's not just about money - how the Government presents its policies to Labour supporters is regarded as equally important. GWYNETH DUNWOODY MP: There is a real need to spend money but the other real need is to stop talking nonsense and I think that when you say for example, about comprehensive schools, where most of our children are being educated, that they are bog standard, you lose an enormous amount of support. DIGNAN: If Labour voters in these marginals need a further incentive to turn out, Gordon Brown will try to entice them with a pre-election budget. UNNAMED MAN: Have a look at that - all that steak for a tenner. DIGNAN: He may have up to eighteen billion pounds of surplus revenue to spend. It's argued he should target more money at those core voters who've missed out on the help Labour has given elsewhere to its urban heartlands. KELLNER: If I were a Labour strategist advising him, I would say help families, rather than help alleviate poverty. Go for the people like those who live around here, where their incomes are too high to qualify for welfare benefits but too low for them to feel really comfortable. DIGNAN: But will the core vote here in St Albans really abstain? Professor John Curtice says the party is exaggerating the threat to guard against complacency among party activists. He derides Tony Blair's claim Labour will lose sixty seats if twenty per cent of Labour voters stay at home. PROFESSOR JOHN CURTICE: If we take the ICM poll this week we discover that in fact Labour voters are only two per cent less likely to say they're going to turn out and vote than Conservative voters are. So there isn't anything like the twenty per cent difference. Now that kind of difference might cost Labour two, three, four seats but it's not going to cost them anything like the sixty seats. So, at the end of the day, yes Labour, of course, will want to work to get its vote out - all parties do, and they will always certainly want their activists to do so, but the idea that Labour face a serious problem of the scale that's publicly being talked about it is frankly not credible. DIGNAN: How the Liberal Democrats perform in marginal Labour seats like St Albans may have a crucial effect on the outcome of this General Election. Last time round, many people voted Labour instead of Liberal Democrat because they thought that was the best way of getting the Tories out. Labour is desperate to hold on to these so-called tactical voters but here at local Liberal Democrat offices plans are afoot to win them back. UNNAMED MAN: Hopefully we can get those people to turn out again in May or April, whenever it is. DIGNAN: The party has its eyes on those streets where Liberal Democrat voters switched to Labour in ninety-seven. They'll return to the fold, it's suggested, because they, too, are disappointed with the Government's record. NICK RYJKE: I don't think Labour's core vote in places like St Albans is high enough for them to win on their own. I think that they need additional support from people like the Liberal Democrats but I don't think at this election they're going to get it because Liberal Democrats are disappointed with what they've seen from Labour in power. DIGNAN: This Labour MP says it's absolutely vital he holds on to Liberal Democrat support. He's urging Tony Blair to keep the promise of a referendum on the voting system, a sign of his amiable attitude to Liberal Democrats. KERRY POLLARD: I've worked very hard to keep those Liberal Democrats who voted for me last time, there must've been many who voted for me, on board. For example issues that I'm very keen on, the student fees, I voted against the Government on that which is in accord with Liberal Democrat policy. CURTICE: At the last election we can estimate that probably between twenty-five and thirty-five Labour seats were the product of tactical voting by Liberal Democrat voters lending their vote to Labour because they were so keen to get rid of the Conservatives. But the evidence now is that we're not going to see tactical voting on that scale. CHARLES ELPHICKE: We want to build a better St Albans. We're going to win here today and we're going to win here at the General Election as well. Great - thanks very much. DIGNAN: There's an election in St Albans today and the Tories are on the stump, led by their prospective parliamentary candidate. A seat on the parish council has fallen vacant in an area which deserted the Conservatives at the last General Election. But time may be running out for these Conservative Party activists. If they are to have any chance of stopping Tony Blair winning the General Election by another landslide, they've got to persuade people living in better off areas like this to re discover the habit of voting Conservative. It's claimed that middle income earners who voted for Tony Blair will come home to the Tories after four years of Labour tax rises. They're being promised tax cuts without harming public services. ELPHICK: We're not going to be cutting public spending, we're going to be cutting public waste, areas where there is spending on bureaucracy and rather than on services. We want to see more spending on health and schools while ensuring that services are run more efficiently and that waste and bureaucracy is cut out. That way, we can cut taxes by eight billion pounds. DIGNAN: This couple used to be active Conservative members when Margaret Thatcher was their MP. Having rejected the party at the last election they're now not sure how they'll vote. They'd certainly welcome tax cuts but they worry about how Mr Hague will find the money for them. KEVIN BISHOP: They haven't given their policies in great detail. They say they're going to reduce taxes but what I'd like to know is how they're actually going to reduce them. MARY BISHOP: If I felt the cuts would be taken from the hospital, that would be a great concern because we've already lost our hospital in St Albans quite a while ago and we have to travel to Hemel, to Hemel Hempstead to the main hospital there. DIGNAN: The Conservatives can celebrate - they won the parish by-election. Some believe they could win the General Election on a single pledge - to keep Britain out of the Euro. The star guest at this evening's dinner says that's a better strategy than trying to compete with Labour on bread and butter issues. ANNOUNCER: So without further ado I shall simply introduce Mr Frederick Forsythe. FREDERICK FORSYTHE: We cannot take on Mr Brown on the economy and the public services and win convincingly simply because we are going to run into a wall of disbelief. Whether we do or we do not have a, const.. a currency or our own, five years from now, is actually more important." DIGNAN: An election campaign fought on the Euro might enthuse these activists but fail to win back Tory deserters - according to the polls. PETER KELLNER: The problem is there's no real evidence yet that the Euro is a top issue as far as the voters are concerned - it comes sixth, seventh, eighth when pollsters say what are the most important issues facing Britain or what are the most important issues that affect you and your family. KEVIN BISHOP: I don't think that's a good idea to make the Euro or the European issue very big. It's.. it might be important to the politicians, but the man in the street - and that includes myself naturally - doesn't understand, probably half the issues involved in the Euro. DIGNAN: The Conservatives feel compelled to say that the polls have got it wrong - otherwise party members both here and in other marginals might lose heart. Labour, too, doubts their accuracy - to avoid complacency. KELLNER: Even if it's blindingly obvious as polling day approaches that it's going to be a Labour landslide, you'll still find both parties saying it's going to be a close run thing. Now there is a half truth in there even if it does end up as a runaway Labour victory. DIGNAN: The polls say Labour is heading for another landslide. Yet they've got it spectacularly wrong in the past. And it's in the parties' own interests to at least pretend that they're wrong again. HUMPHRYS: Terry Dignan reporting from sunny St Albans. And that's it for this week. If you're on the Internet don't forget about our Web site. 'Till the same time next week, Good Afternoon. 26 FoLdEd
NB. This transcript was typed from a transcription unit recording and not copied from an original script. Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy.