|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: First though the leadership
of the Conservative Party. In the next few weeks Tory MPs will have to
vote on their choice. The names of the two who get the most votes will
then go forward to the constituencies and the whole party will make the
final decision. Who will it be? We have two of the candidates with us
this week, both regarded as being on the right of the party, David Davis,
and first Iain Duncan Smith.
Mr Duncan Smith
had a life before parliament. He was in the army as a regular officer.
He was elected in 1992 to Norman Tebbit's old seat. When the Tories
lost power five years later he was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet in charge
of Social Security. Two years ago he became the Shadow Defence Secretary.
Mr Duncan Smith, good afternoon.
IAIN DUNCAN SMITH MP: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: The one constant theme
throughout this race, indeed, since the election has been - we must break
with the past. Now you are regarded as Margaret Thatcher's one, what was
Margaret Thatcher's one as, yes as one of Margaret Thatcher's people.
Difficult for you to do that.
DUNCAN SMITH: Well my view is that yes,
we have to make a clean break from what the public perceive of us in the
past and I think that's very much pre 1997 and that's one of the reasons
I'm putting myself forward because I wasn't in the 1997 government and
I recognise even at the last election sadly, but the public still saw us
in terms of 1997 so, I think we do need to make a break and it's got to
be a clean break, too many of the people that perhaps were involved then
may well be involved again and I think we need to show that something has
changed.
HUMPHRYS: So that means saying,
thanks very much indeed for all you've done but goodbye Lady Thatcher.
DUNCAN SMITH: Well, Lady Thatcher, let's,
let us if we could just if we could for a second look at this. What did
Lady Thatcher represent? In the 1970s, you know the dead concensus that
you couldn't challenge state-owned industries, that we were on a decline
that had to be managed. What really Thatcherism was about was about change,
it was about the Conservative Party suddenly realising that they could
challenge all of these things, having the boldness and the foresight to
do so and literally turning Britain around, so when we say "what was Thatcherism?"
it was about a process of massive change and that's really what we've got
to go through again, it's not to argue about the same things as we were
arguing then, it's to actually say, the new agenda, to look at now the
new dead hand concensus of public services, health, welfare, education,
we've now got to challenge those and say people want choices in their lives,
they want solutions, they don't want to know whether it's state or private,
they want to know how it works for them, that's the key.
HUMPHRYS: So in that sense, the
Thatcher revolution if that's what it was, isn't over.
DUNCAN SMITH: Well the concept of change
is now where we need to be. We need to change again to take on what I think
is a failing concensus but it's not to do with Lady Thatcher's last agenda,
it's a new agenda, it's not the last ten years, it's about the next five
and ten years.
HUMPHRYS: But as you're very well
aware, she is a mighty powerful symbol if nothing else now in the Conservative
Party. Would you like to see that symbol, I don't know what you do with
symbols, de-symbolised - or whatever you do with symbols, demolished, or?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well parties move on. We
move on. It doesn't mean to say we lose sight of our history or the things
that we're proud of, and we are proud of the changes we made, but we now
have to make our values adapt themselves to what are the new requirements,
that's all and so, it's my generation who will have to do that as we move
on, so yes, I mean you just remember the good things, but you know that
you have to make these changes and do so without fear or favour.
HUMPHRYS: But you wouldn't want
to be seen for the purpose of this election as Thatcher's choice, let's
put it like that?
DUNCAN SMITH: John I'm my own man, if there's
nothing else in politics I like to think I've shown is that I have a mind
of my own and I'm prepared to back it, so I am my own man and if people
want to support me they do so on that basis.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's look at
what the great debate, part of this debate is about and that is inclusiveness,
we've heard a great deal from one of your rivals, Michael Portillo, about
the need for that. You've said "we need to be more tolerant" so, are,
let's try and test that in a couple of areas, should relationships between
gay couples, should stable relationships as they are now described, single
marriages and so on, should they, single parenthood, should they be just
as valid as the traditional family in terms of Tory Party thinking?
DUNCAN SMITH: I think the Conservatives
have got to look at this from a completely different perspective. They've
got to ask very carefully how society actually works. Out there, the vast
majority, their experience is bringing up children in a stable married
relationship, that's the fact of life, some...
HUMPHRYS: ...an increasingly small
majority though.
DUNCAN SMITH: Well it's not as small, I
mean it's between, it's you know about sixty, sixty-four per cent of all
children...
HUMPHRYS: ...but shrinking?
DUNCAN SMITH: Yes. But that's the key question
we have to ask ourselves. We know that the core of a stable society is
in that framework. If that is destroyed or broken then society itself will
be the less and so we recognise that what government has to understand
and this is my point, it's what has it done to put the pressure on that
relationship to break it down, the regulations, the taxes, the way in which
people can't make choices about education in their own lives, we need to
redress that, so we need to be more positive about that aspect, at the
same time, we do need to recognise that there are other, other relationships,
other lifestyles out there, which themselves for the sake of the children
and others, we need to be a little more positive about in the sense that,
you know there are, through no fault of their own, a lot of single parents
out there, most of whom are there because of divorce. You know, they want
to know how they're going to be able to make the choices in their lives
about bringing up their kids and so we need to have messages for them as
well, so it's a balanced ticket, but we don't, you don't enhance the structure
of society or help it, if you attack the basic core structure. What you
want to do is take the pressure off them, because that'll stop the breakdown
on the margins whilst addressing that problem of single parents.
HUMPHRYS: You say you need to be
a little more positive about those other relationships. My question really,
I suppose, is are they - those other relationships as you describe them
and the traditional family, are they equally valid?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well they are valid in terms
of the people who are bringing up their children..
HUMPHRYS: ..no but I mean in terms
of...
DUNCAN SMITH: ..and they must be valid
to us..
HUMPHRYS: ..and in terms of your
estimation, in terms of the Conservative Party's estimation of their importance
to society and all the rest of it - are they equally valid. In other words
are you as happy with the other sort of relationship that you described
as with the traditional family?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well we have to be because,
you know, single parents - perhaps in the majority of cases for no fault
of their own are having to struggle to bring up their kids. We need to
have a message that says 'look, we want to give you the choice and the
power over your own lives. We recognise that your choices are more limited
but we want to make sure that you do have something that we can give you
some of that choice'. But, and this is the important but John, the problem
with the present government is they have done that by attacking what I
would consider to be the core structure and all they are going to do is
break that down faster. That will end up with more and more people facing
the limited choice that I've been describing. So you succeed over this
by actually enhancing, by strengthening the structure which brings up kids,
two parents. You want to have a strong and powerful message to them but
at the same time you need to have some message that goes towards the others
saying we know your problems, we want to assist you with those.
HUMPHRYS: But let's put messages
to one side for the moment and consider actions. Would you therefore have,
or would you not have, tax breaks aimed specifically at the traditional
family?
DUNCAN SMITH: I think that the amount of
tax that married couples, that are bringing up kids have had to pay over
the thirty years has risen disproportionately, I mean, back in the 1960s
a married couple with one child, a blue collar worker, C1s as we call
them now, they would have been paying tax at around about a hundred and
thirty per cent of a single person's income, they are now paying tax at
something like seventy per cent of a single person's income. In other words
they are paying tax earlier and thus paying more tax and that puts huge
pressure on them. So when we look at that we say, why does government need
to punish them for doing something which they actually know they are doing
for the benefit of their kids.
HUMPHRYS: So you would seek policies,
you'd look for policies that benefited them specifically..
DUNCAN SMITH: ..as a group.
HUMPHRYS: ..as a group. As against
the other sorts of relationships.
DUNCAN SMITH: No, because this is the other
point you see...
HUMPHRYS: Well you can't benefit...you
can't prefer one or the other without the other suffering.
DUNCAN SMITH: Well this is the ridiculous
stale choice that we are talking about. I mean the present government is
doing just that and previous governments have failed to recognise it. My
point is that by taking the pressure off that group you will help stabilise
that marginal breakdown, at the same time, you need to be able to say to,
as I said earlier on, single parents trying to bring up kids in difficult
circumstances, perhaps even on marginal incomes, and I'm very passionate
about this, you need to be able to say to them, there are reliefs and ways
in which we can help you make choice if you have to have your children
being looked after during the day so at least that choice is a good one,
that you are not restricted by the pressure on your income, that is because
the government is taking too much in tax away from you, you can make those
choices. So, a message to one group is a similar message to the other
but recognising their choices are a little bit more limited.
HUMPHRYS: What about homosexual
relationships for instance? Would you offer them any help through the tax
structure. Some of them of course have children.
DUNCAN SMITH: Some of them do but it's a
very small minority. I think what we have to do is deal with the core group
of people. The two groups that I am deciding about here with children are
actually what the real problem is all about, it's about that marginal breakdown
and I was saying earlier on this week that we need to look at the Welfare
State in terms of the welfare society. We need to look at how to strengthen
what is really delivering welfare out in the country, its people going
about their lives, looking after their mothers, their elderly parents,
their sick relatives, doing so without state aid but being pressured because
the state takes more and more off them and cuts their choices down. So
I am simply saying, the more we can do to be positive to that group, the
more we can do to take that pressure off them, the less of the breakdown
on the margins there is and thus the state picks up less people.
HUMPHRYS: Sounds very much to me
like the sort of thing that you were saying during the last election. Doesn't
seem as if you've changed anything there.
DUNCAN SMITH: Well I think the problem
may have been at the last election was (a) partly the rhetoric and (b)
also that we needed to expand that message to have something positive,
much more positive to say to those who were in difficulties as single parents
trying to bring up their kids...
HUMPHRYS: ...but I'm not quite
sure what you're saying now that is much more positive than...
DUNCAN SMITH: ...well because I don't think
we had a strong message there, I don't think we had any particular position
that we had enunciated at the time that we actually announced, and so my
point is you get a much more balanced ticket across and your rhetoric then
matches that, you know you have a sense, and they should have a sense that
what we are is a party that really believes that whoever's bringing up
children at the end of the day needs to have more of their own and more
choice.
HUMPHRYS: What about Section 28
which has something to say about the promotion of homosexuality or at least
that's how it's interpreted, Steven Norris has said it is homophobic nonsense,
what's your view?
DUNCAN SMITH: I don't agree that it's homophobic,
I recognise...
HUMPHRYS: ...so you still support
it, do you, you want to keep Section 28?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well, to be honest, let's
put it in context, the present government has no plans to scrap it and
my position is that, look what it's trying to do, and it may do so in a
rather unbalanced way, I recognise that, we may need to look at that, but
what it's trying to do is just protect children from influences from the
state using adults to try and swing them one way or other...
HUMPHRYS: ...but you understand
that it's a very important touchstone isn't it, it's one of those issue
that...
DUNCAN SMITH: ...I understand that, John
I understand that and I think that's one of the areas we need to look at,
I mean the Scots have looked at solutions to this, we perhaps need to look
again at this, but my...the real point we mustn't lose is it is important
to protect minors, children away from influences before they are able to
make rational choices and I think that's the key. So, as has been said,
time and again, the principle of what it's trying to do needs to be upheld,
whether it then looks to a particular community as distinctly against them,
well clearly one needs to take that into consideration but the principle
I think is important.
HUMPHRYS: But you see, if what
you were saying earlier about the two sorts of families being equally valid
lifestyles, why would that matter, why would Section 28 matter at all?
DUNCAN SMITH: In which context?
HUMPHRYS: Well, if what you do
not want to happen, this is what Section 28 does not want to happen, is
that the teaching that there is no specially good relationship, that both
lifestyles are of value and that is what some schools had taught until
Section 28 came along, some still do of course, now what...
DUNCAN SMITH: Well, with respect John,
there is no evidence at all that any school has been curtailed in talking
to children about lifestyles and about their behaviour. That's not the
case, there's not one single teacher that I'm aware of that's said to anybody
this has created a problem for them. We're not dealing with it from the
practical point, you are talking about it, maybe legitimately as a totem,
that's a different argument altogether. Practically, it had no effect on
the teachers, it only had an effect on saying that public money from the
local authority should not be spent in promoting, that was the big difference...
HUMPHRYS: Alright...
DUNCAN SMITH: ...so maybe as a totem, maybe
there are problems but not certainly in practical effect.
HUMPHRYS: Let's change the subject
and look at Europe for a moment just to try and assess where you are on
the continuum as it were, you wanted a line drawn in the sand in Europe
in, way back in 1992, since when that was after one treaty, we've had three
treaties since then, none of which you have wanted because you wanted that
line drawn way back then. How can you stay in a Europe that has gone so
hugely wrong from your perspective?
DUNCAN SMITH: Well actually quite a lot
of it is going wrong from the perspective of a lot of other people, you
know the Irish referendum...
HUMPHRYS: ...sure ...
DUNCAN SMITH: ...what was going on in Sweden...
HUMPHRYS: ...so how can you, how
can you stay in the European...
DUNCAN SMITH: ...well because I think Britain
has a role here, I think it is our role, if not our destiny to be able
to reshape the debate that is Europe at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: But you can't rewrite
all of those treaties, you can't rewrite the last treaty...
DUNCAN SMITH: ...I don't know why you should
be so pessimistic about what we can do. It takes bold leadership. Well
you'd have said in the middle 1970s you can't take on the consensus as
said, Britain is into decline, my answer is you can take anything on you
if you have the courage to do it. What we need to argue for is a European
Union that is flexible, that allows various countries to develop in their
own ways, that isn't hide-bound and heading down some road, some artificial
road towards a superstate. We want to break all of that.
HUMPHRYS: But if it continued to
do that, that's to say, in your view, that's to say if it continued down
the road of greater integration you would stay in, come what may?
DUNCAN SMITH: I think what we have to say
is this is no longer the agenda and we would simply not want to sign up
to this perpetual process down towards some superstate. In fact, as I say,
the irony is, if Britain were but to carry on that argument, we would find
alliances now across Europe amongst peoples who are frankly fed-up with
this political elite in Europe that drives on with no other purpose other
than they have some vague political dream to create this state. We want
to have a Europe that works, trades, co-operates, functions together but
recognises that the nation state is not just valuable, it is vital to keep
people's allegiances and to understand how democracy works. Break that,
and you break it at your peril.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Duncan Smith, thank
you very much indeed.
|