|
====================================================================================
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
|