|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Conservatives have
been doing well in the local elections since Labour came to power at Westminster,
far better than they've been doing in the opinion polls. Not that that
would be difficult. And, of course, we shall have LOCAL elections in England
and Northern Ireland on June 7th whether the General Election is called
for then or not. So what effect might that have on Conservative fortunes?
The man in charge of local government for the Tories (and the environment)
is Archie Norman and he's in our Leeds Studio.
Good afternoon Mr Norman.
ARCHIE NORMAN: Good afternoon John. How
are you?
HUMPHRYS: I'm fine thank you. One
of the messages that you want to deliver over these next few weeks, is
that you want to set the people free. You want to set councils free.
Which is all very well, but there is a price to be paid for that isn't
there and if you look at council spending for instance you say you will
not cap council spending, we might then see Council Taxes going up. You'd
have to live with that wouldn't you?
NORMAN: Well it's hard to believe
John, that they could go up more than they've done in the last four years
under Labour, where we've seen a thirty per cent increase in Council Tax
for Band D taxpayers. And I think what our launch of tomorrow's Local
Government Manifesto really enshrines is the choice between a party that
really believes in Local Government, in localism, and giving back Local
Councils the ability to control the quality of life in their neighbourhoods,
the number of houses being built, the litter, graffiti, all these things,
and a Labour Party which is really by instinct centralising, that actually
wants to create more and more regional bureaucracy and is committed to
abolishing County Councils.
HUMPHRYS: But to return to the
question of taxes, you say they couldn't go up much more. They could of
course, they could go up a great deal more, particularly if councils want
to deal with the sort of problems that you've just been describing, and
Mr Hague talks about the moral case for low taxation. Well, here you are
wanting to make a moral case for greater freedom, but having to confront
this opposing force. It is difficult for you isn't it?
NORMAN: Well, you're right about
that, and let me explain how we want to tackle that. I mean the first
point is that the driving force behind the increase in Council Tax in recent
years has been the cost passed down from central government on to local
government, for instance things like fuel tax, the pensions tax and so
on, and we wouldn't be pursuing that policy of taxation by stealth anyway.
But more than that there is an issue that some councils have a very poor
local mandate, democratic mandate, not many people turn out to vote for
them, and equally have a poor record in financial governments and financial
efficiency. Now what we're saying is that we are going to give those councils
with a good track record of financial efficiency that are committed to
a viable financial plan for the future, in other words one that doesn't
mean putting up Council Tax. Good councils like Kent and Hampshire, we
will set them free, they will be for a period of five years, have the ability
to agree a contract with government, whereby they can be free from regulation
and the audit culture that Labour have introduced, and pursue policies
in the interests of their people. Meanwhile of course there are councils
that can't demonstrate that sort of track record and don't really have
a mandate, and we will close down very tight on them.
HUMPHRYS: Sorry, you mean you'd
cap them down. Can I be clear about this, so we're talking about limited
freedom for a limited number of Tory councils?
NORMAN: No, we're talking about
very unprecedented levels of freedom for those councils, Labour or Conservative,
that can demonstrate a good track record, because you see John, I think
what's happened in recent years is that because of the concerns across
all parties about the nature of local government, and about problems that
there have been in some failing councils, we've introduced a sort of audit
box ticking culture which has imposed a lot of cost, which has created
a lot of new bureaucracy and costs for local government, and in effect
the policies and the measures designed to deal with the failing inner city
Labour councils like Leeds, like Doncaster and so on have imposed costs
on the very successful councils like Hampshire and Kent. We're saying
those councils should be set free to pursue their own policies, whilst
those councils that can't demonstrate that capability, until they can,
until they qualify, should have to continue with a very tight audit regime.
HUMPHRYS: So let's be clear. Would
it mean capping Council Tax?
NORMAN: No, it wouldn't. We are
committed, and I think this is another very big division between the parties,
we said that we are going to abolish rate capping, we won't be capping
Council Tax. We want people locally now to make their own decisions about
the Council Tax they raise locally and the money that's spent locally,
and we believe until you do that, until councils do feel and people feel
responsible locally for the amount of money that they raise and spend,
we can't really restore local democracy, and it's a very important part
of today's Conservatism that we want to give people back a sense of real
ownership and control over their neighbourhoods, the quality of their local
services, and they way in which the quality of life locally, the number
of houses that are built for instance, is managed.
HUMPHRYS: So you wouldn't cap the
taxes, but you would penalise them in other ways if they didn't manage
their affairs in the way you thought appropriate?.
NORMAN: Well, you have to remember
that in the last four
years we've seen an enormous increase in the controls on local government,
much more special grants that councils have to apply for, they don't get
automatically. Much more control in the forms of audits, local plans
they have to produce, box tickers, auditors from central, what's called
the best value regime, huge amounts of bureaucracy. Now we're saying:
Look, the purpose of that is surely only to address those councils that
have a problem. We must help them become more efficient and succeed.
But those councils that really are efficient, they should be given the
opportunity to perform better for their local people without all the cost,
the dead weight of central government.
HUMPHRYS: Right. You would also
let...because you mentioned housing earlier, this is a crucially important
area obviously for local authorities, in the context of freedom you would
give them the freedom to build on Green Belt land if that is what they
chose to do, or NOT - sorry, let me be quite clear about this, NOT to build
on Green Belt land if that is what they chose. In other words there would
be no central dictate that said to the South East for instance you must
have x number of homes in Kent, or whatever it happens to be? What we would
then have is freedom for the local authorities to say no houses on Green
Belt land, no freedom for people who wanted to let's say move to the South
East or people with you know, expanding families who wanted to move into
another home or something. You'd have this sort of "nimbi" culture developing
wouldn't you, so freedom for one group of people, no freedom for another
group of people?
NORMAN: No, that's not right at
all John. You see, I think people have got into a syndrome over the last
few decades whereby we, for some reason believe that we have to build more
and more houses on the countryside and the Labour government under John
Prescott have accelerated the amount of building on our countryside. Let
me give you an example, in the South East, John Prescott has said we have
to build nine-hundred-thousand new houses in the next twenty years, half
of those on greenfields, in what is already one of the most congested parts
of the country and our point about this is that if we pursue this, it's
not just the death of the countryside, it's the death of the inner cities
too. Because for every one of those families moving into an executive
home in the countryside in Surrey, or Hampshire or Kent, there's a family
moving out of the inner cities, and that means the school role and decline
in the inner cities, it means shops closing in inner cities, it means crime
rising. So our policy is to protect the countryside for future generations,
but at the same time, concentrate on improving the quality of life in our
inner cities so we can make them attractive places for people to live in
the future.
HUMPHRYS: So they could say effectively
they'll pull up the drawbridge, we're alright.
NORMAN: No, they can't say that,
I mean, what we will say is that local councils will be obliged to meet
the evolving needs of their existing population, so they can't simply say,
we'll fossilise the local housing, the local housing situation. But what
we are saying is that where, the view from people's front-room, where there
are huge local developments are concerned, where villages and market towns
are going to be destroyed by new housing, local people should be able to
make that decision for themselves, and yes, the countryside and the green
belt should be protected. You know, Labour are now committed to reviewing
the green belt in five regions in this country, there are three instances
of very large house building that John Prescott has commissioned, or allowed,
on the green belt, it really is under threat, and you know, taxes can go
up and they can come down again, but once you concrete over the countryside,
it's lost forever.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
NORMAN: And you see my point, the
reason we care about this passionately is not just because we care about
the countryside, it is because we care about the inner cities, and we believe
the real challenge facing Britain today is to renew our inner cities and
make them attractive places where people want to live, where families and
able people want to live and have their children educated, and if we do
that, we'll do something that is lasting for future generations and tackles
at core the problems of welfare dependence and poverty in our country.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, as far as the
cities are concerned, then let's look at congestion charging, now you don't
like congestion charging. A lot of local authorities say, it's the only
answer, our cities are getting jammed up, we have to do something, they
wouldn't have the freedom to introduce congestion charging if they wanted
to?
NORMAN: No, they wouldn't because
the current problem as we all know in this country is that we tax the motorist
more than almost any country in Europe and fuel tax has gone up tremendously
under Labour, and what we're saying is that the car driver is already paying
enough, and that actually in many places, the people who are penalised
by congestion charges and more car parking charges, and this sort of thing,
are the people who depend on the car. Those are often pensioners, they
are people who happen to live in the countryside and have to come to town
to shop or to work, they are people with families who have to get their
children to school. And these taxes are very aggressive, they tend to
penalise the least well off people worst, and they produce no great advantages
in terms of the transport system. Until we can offer people a really attractive
public transport alternative, better buses and trains and tubes in the
case of London, there's no sense in trying to tax the motorist off the
road.
HUMPHRYS: So no freedom for people
who are fed up with sitting in traffic jams?
NORMAN: Well, the way to create
freedom for people who are fed up with sitting in traffic jams is firstly
to progressively improve the road system so that there are fewer jams.
And let's remember that Labour have cut the spending on our roads in the
last four years and brought about precious little improvement, and secondly
to say to those people, look we're going to provide for you a much better
bus service, a much better railway service, so if you wish you can leave
your car at home and take the public transport alternative. And yet, we've
seen in the last four years, if anything, a deterioration in the public
transport system.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, final area where
your commitment to freedom comes under a bit of a test, and that's section
twenty-eight, there are limits, it seems, to your willingness to give people
freedom. The government wants to get rid of it, failed to get rid of it,
next time around may or may not, you want to retain it, so you're not prepared
to say to people, to local authorities, you can decide on this, if some
schools or local education authorities want to accept homosexuality as
an alternative lifestyle, you may do so. You're not prepared to go that
far are you?
NORMAN: Well I think John you've
very seriously misrepresented in your introduction just then what section
twenty-eight is about. You know, we as Conservatives respect all people,
especially all children, to pursue their opportunities in life, regardless
of their sexual preference. What we don't think is right is that local
authorities should raise council tax, raise taxpayers money, and spend
it on propagating a particular lifestyle. Now this is an issue that was
considered by both houses in parliament during the last couple of years
and it's been rejected by parliament. We think it's a dead issue, we think
it's quite pointless to raise it again, and we do believe that there is
a case for saying that councils shouldn't be spending their money on propagating
a very particular lifestyle at the expense of any other.
HUMPHRYS: Archie Norman, have to
end it there. Thanks very much indeed for joining us this morning.
NORMAN: Thank you.
|