Our Kingdom: Zac Goldsmith has just emailed us a rebuttal of some of the appalling coverage dolled out on his and John Gummer's Quality of Life Policy Review. It was linked to by ConservativeHome where the comments give you a taste of the venom in the Tory party. You can also find an Executive Summary of the Report here. (Simon Jenkins in today's Sunday Times has a more interesting and constructive column than most.) Here is Zac's response:
QUALITY OF LIFE POLICY REVIEW
The Quality of Life Review was launched this week – and the media coverage since has been amazingly misleading. The report is not about bans, punishments or telling people what to do. It's about making green decisions possible for everyone - not just the wealthy. It's about pushing business to be less wasteful and more efficient.
Why Does the Report advocate so many Bans?
The report actually puts very little emphasis on Bans. We propose banning landfill of waste that can be composted or recycled. But that’s about it. The emphasis is on raising standards as far as possible, but never more than existing technology allows. There are huge savings to be made through greater appliance efficiency.
Reports that we want to ban Plasma screens are wrong. We want to encourage plasmas that are less wasteful. Nor are we proposing to ban the standby. We want to have an automatic switch-off mechanism fitted so that appliances switch off after a set period of time.
Will these recommendations mean more Regulations?
We don’t want more regulation. We have some of the most difficult regulations in Europe, and some of the lowest standards. We want to replace prescriptive – process-oriented regulations – with outcome-specific standards. So - we would abolish the Building Regulations. In farming – the most regulated of all activities – we would move to a process of self-certification based on trust. On Planning, we would decentralise the process to avoid situations where the Central Government is able to rule on genuinely local issues, against the wishes of local people and Local Authorities.
Will these recommendations mean more Taxes?
The report does not advocate higher taxes. We believe pollution and the use of scarce resources are a rational base for generating revenue – far better than taxing families or work. Where we propose taxes, they are balanced by cuts elsewhere.
Taking the examples most frequently cited:
Car Tax: We want to make it easier for people to buy cleaner cars that cost much less to run. We therefore advocate the introduction of new taxes on the dirtiest cars – and reduce taxes (VAT) on the cleanest. This will be revenue neutral.
Aviation: We are categorically NOT proposing to tax holidays. We are ONLY targeting domestic, short-haul, commuter flights to destinations easily reached by train, and within the same sort of time frame. Much of the proceeds will be used to improve the rail alternatives.
Would it be more expensive to improve/extend your home?
No! We are saying that all home improvements should be VAT free (currently 17.5%). So the cost will be dramatically less. The reason is two-fold. 1. We want to encourage better use of existing buildings, reducing the need for construction of new buildings. 2. We are saying that because of the VAT relief, we would require homeowners to upgrade the energy performance of their homes.
It has been reported that we would require people to fit their homes with efficient appliances if they want to improve their home. This is plain wrong.
How can you justify introducing Supermarket Parking charges?
Forcing supermarkets to pay for parking is not an issue for central government. If Local Authorities decide to charge supermarkets for parking - they would be required to use the proceeds to lower the cost of parking on the highstreet to help reverse the closure of independent shops (2,000 each year). It's not about emissions. It's not about congestion. It's about balancing the playing field. If Local Authorities want to do it – we think they should be able to. If it's an unpopular decision, then we are proposing generally that local people should be able have direct influence (possibly through local referendums) local decisions.
Are you really saying that the government should replace GDP with a ‘Happy Planet Index’?
No. We point out that despite huge material gains for most people in recent decades, our children are among the unhappiest in the world. We base this view on the results of a large number of studies including UNICEF and the so-called Happy Planet Index. This is a huge issue. Our view is that greater access to the outdoors, better food, stronger communities is part of the answer.
