ConservativeHome's 100policies

David T Breaker: Tax relief for 'homeworkers'

David is a student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Essex.

> Policy summary

A £500 tax break to encourage more people to work from home, and to encourage businesses to employ more teleworkers, as a means of boosting the potential labour force, reducing welfare dependency and cutting car usage.

> Policy explanation

According to the Office of National Statistics, 3.1 million people work from home in the UK, a total of 11% of the current workforce. Having more people working from home has many benefits. To start with it reduces congestion and traffic, however its benefit is far wider. People working from home can live anywhere, making it ideal for rural and deprived areas. For many people, working from home could be an alternative to unemployment or incapacity benefit, increasing the UK’s labour force and reducing welfare dependency.  By giving a small tax break to companies employing people in their own homes, and to the employees themselves, the government could encourage and support the growth of this idea.

In 2006 the opportunities for home working are huge. We’ve all heard of call centres moving to India, but virtual call centres exist too, connecting callers automatically to people in disparate locations. Call once and you could talk to Polly in Leeds, call again and speak to Norman in Chingford. As a system it already happens. But of course, it isn’t only for call centres. The internet means anyone, anywhere, can be linked to the World.

Under my idea, every homeworker would receive a £250 income tax rebate, whilst their employer would receive a £250 corporation tax rebate. A homeworker would be anyone working from home, but able to attend a out of home ‘office’ once per week.

> Political risks and opportunities

I don’t see many political risks, although it may be attacked as open to fraud. Opportunities however far outweigh the risk…it’s environmentally friendly, good for deprived areas and areas away from the South East, good for people with children, promotes flexibility, good for people with disabilities, good for retired people, good for employment. And, it’s a way of getting a tax cut!!!

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Who are ‘homeworkers’?
• Can we stop fraud?

> Costs

The base cost of the scheme would be £1½ billion per year, based on the 3.1 million people working from home. Naturally, the more people take up the scheme, the higher the costs. That said, there would be savings in benefits for every new home working employee, plus extra tax revenue from them. It could quite easily pay for itself. Cutting taxes is good for the economy anyway.

Anne Main MP: Council tax rewards for homes that improve their carbon footprints

Anne is a member of the DCLG select committee which has looked into delivering sustainable communities

> Policy summary

We must help tackle global warming through Green Council Tax Tariffs for homes that have significantly improved their carbon foot print.

> Policy explanation

Older Homes will continue to contribute to significant harmful carbon emissions unless we incentivise home owners to adopt greener measures.

Global warming is an accepted fact, we need to look urgently at the problem in the round and try to see where we can have a “win win” situation that people will buy into.  I believe to help tackle our carbon emissions we should incentivise greener homes through a green council tax band rating triggered by significant upgrades in the green rating of a home.

Currently approximately 27.3% of all carbon comes from the estimated 26 million homes in the UK, many older and poorer families live in older less energy efficient homes, these families are often hardest hit by fuel bills and indeed council tax.  They are conversely least likely to be ale to afford to put in measures that improve the overall green rating of their homes.

Currently if a green system such as solar panels is installed little if any pay back is seen by the investor and because of low volumes these systems and others remain expensive and not the norm. The elderly and the poor suffer the most from soaring council tax and fuel bills, but all of us would welcome homes that are cheaper and greener to run. In areas like my constituency of St Albans, which has one of the worst carbon footprints in the UK, few homes have adopted environmentally positive measures.

The Government has tentatively looked at new build homes and is suggesting, but not legislating, that they be greener.  However builders resist what they see are expensive investments that do little to add to the value of a home.  We need to break this cycle. Nothing in the Queen’s speech was said which would help us tackle the carbon emissions from homes. Only the motorist and air traveller are in the sights of the Government and it appears sticks rather than carrots are becoming the order of the day.

It is worth noting that new houses will only ever form a small percentage of housing stock and so if older homes made significant improvements to their energy and carbon ratings then they would be cheaper and more efficient to run and reduce carbon emissions and contribute significantly to carbon savings.  Upgraded, greener more environmentally homes should then be rewarded with a lower cost green council tax band rating, making them cheaper to run and afford.  The Government would recognise and compensate for any loss of council tax revenue through a proportionately higher grant award to the council.

I believe that, as Conservatives, we can argue from past experience that encouraging homes to upgrade can be well received and deliver real results.  We did after all pioneer concern for the environment and indeed set up the first Department for the Environment in the world in 1970.  We went on to build on this innovation in our 1974 manifesto by committing to seeking methods to avoid waste and unnecessary consumption of fuels and energy - this led to an energy saving scheme that included a loft and tank insulation drive in the 1970s. Those eligible obtained grants and soon focus was shifted onto delivering energy economies within the home.  It was popular and because it was seen to be cost effective it was well taken up.  Now we need to take this principle and yank it firmly into the 21st century. My policy would adopt the same principle but drive it much further.  A listed building on a company site called Renewable Energy Systems in my constituency has achieved a totally zero carbon foot print, that is beyond many of us but shows what we can all aspire to.

> Policy risks

• This policy will need to clearly identify and give guidance to councils as to which environmental measures are considered to significantly improve a home and thus attracting funding via the Government and qualify for a council tax discount.
• Government must commit to refunding any grants etc given by councils and ensure there is no shortfall of funding to Councils who see a significant number of homes achieving a lower council tax rating through green improvements.

> Policy opportunities

We can achieve less carbon emissions, and ensure homes are cheaper to run and show an ongoing return on investment in green measures through the council tax reduction which benefits pensioners and those on low or fixed incomes the most. It is not just a one off grant that only benefits the original installer as the home will remain in the green council tax tariff. The council tax burden will be eased.  Environmental systems should start to become cheaper as volume purchase occurs.

The Stern report says we must see environmental improvements as an investment and the Government accepts this.  This is an opportunity to demonstrate in a positive and concrete way our commitment to investment in our environment.

> Questions

• Should we extend this concept to non domestic premises?
• Should grants on a sliding scale be available to all or only those on lower incomes?
• How many grades, if more than one broad band, of improvement should be considered-heritage houses may struggle to adopt more than a limited range - or should be seen as a percentage upgrading on the current carbon situation?

> Costs

Not known at this stage but cost of doing nothing is an ever growing contribution to carbon emissions and global warming.

 

Spencer Tasker: Hypothecation of revenues derived from specifically environmental taxes, charges and levies

As a first year student of Economics and Political Science Spencer was told by his tutor on more than one occasion that he ought to be taken out and shot because of his Tory opinions. More than two decades later he remains agreeably unleaded, despite his having subsequently studied at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. He is married with two teenage children, two dogs and opinions on almost everything.

> Explanation

All revenues from specifically environmental taxes, charges, surcharges and levies over and above the cost of collection should be hypothecated to environmental programs in the budget cycle following that in which they were collected. Such monies should be thus added to the amount which would normally be allocated to environmental programs out of consolidated revenue.

Directly Offsetting Cost Externalities – Environmentally destructive activities involve a transfer of cost, from the destructive party to innocent third parties. It is these latter parties who bear the cost in terms of degradation of environment.  By themselves, special taxes should be intended to result in the complete internalisation of these costs, thus, removing any economic advantage which attends the activity. Nevertheless, "making the polluter pay" does nothing to directly address the damage which the polluter has done or may continue to do, nor does it reduce the burden which falls on those who must live with the effects of environmental degradation. For example, spending monies collected from those who have damaged the rivers on some laudable project such as improving the levels of adult literacy leaves those who have to live with the damage no better off. There is a basic equity issue here. This policy initiative maintains that if we are to have a viable environment we must ensure that not only does the polluter pay, they must effectively make restitution for the damage they have done. In practice, environmental taxes must be used to fix the damage caused to the environment by the activities which occasioned collection of the taxes themselves.

Tax as Punishment – Environmental taxes are a form of punishment. They are intended to raise the cost of particular behaviours and, thereby, discourage them. As such they differ fundamentally from most other taxes in terms of their intention and represent a fiscal stick with which the offender may be beaten. Be this as it may the fact that this punishment involved a transfer of monies into the exchequer means that the state benefits from its meting out of punishment. As such it has a necessary interest in the crime. This being the case it seems worse than ingenuous for a Government to benefit fiscally from those activities which is ostensibly attempting to discourage.

The appearance of evil – Maybe I am cynical, but it would be a terrible thing if governments simply looked on environmental taxes as nothing more than a new way of raising revenue. To the extent that this is seen to be the case the greater will be the erosion of credibility which such taxes (and the governments which introduce them) will suffer. The hypothecation of such revenues sends an unequivocal message which circumvents this outcome.

Bring forth the carrot – If we are genuinely interested in doing our part for the planet then we should be glad of additional financial resources. Just as negative behaviours should cost the doer more, so positive ones should cost people less. Hypothecation provides a ready means of financially reinforcing positive behaviours ( e.g. subsidising the cost of insulation).

> Political risks and opportunities

There are very few political risks associated with this policy initiative.

Chi Chi and Friends - Potentially we could be seen as pandering to the greens.  But we already have expressed a commitment to the environment, so there is little for anyone to say in those grounds.

Less money for other programs - Consolidated revenue is diminished, and the fiscal flexibility of the Government is reduced by hypothecation of revenues – But most of these taxes are new, so the state is less habituated to these monies than would otherwise be the case.

Monies would be wasted – By only making revenues available in  the following year's budget cycle we better planning could take place than could otherwise be the case.

> Costs

Undetermined.

 

Dominic de Mariveles: National Domestic Waste Strategy

Dominic lives in South East London and has been a party member and activist for 10 years, previously he was head of Conservative Future for Surrey Heath.

> Policy Summary

A new national policy framework in the form of an update of the 2000 Waste Management Act is needed to provide us all with a clear procedure for domestic recycling and waste disposal.

> Policy Explanation

Over 100 million tonnes of waste is created in the UK each year and various governments have legislated on disposal of this waste over past 2 decades and yet the UK is still left with only 23% of waste being recycled. Business has been heavily influenced by European regulation and the record for their recycling and disposal of waste is rapidly improving and business are realising the benefits to be had of selling green credentials. However, domestic waste policy has been left to local councils; and a mixed bag of success these have proved. Some council's such as Woking are held up as paragon’s, others such as Scarborough are disliked for imposing a complex, autocratic and typically bureaucratic system. People want to recycle and play their part but suffer from variable quality of services across the country.

This has led to very unequal levels of recycling across the country and more specifically if you ever move house you will find a bewildering array of different boxes/bins/bags to fill with your domestic waste; to cap it all there is even no promise to actually re-cycle any of the waste that you have carefully sorted.

We need to learn from more advanced countries here such as Germany and Denmark. They have clear colour coding across the nation for all waste, dedicated bins for all households in the same colours and indeed more waste disposal capacity from the home, in the street and at re-cycling centres. All of this means they have rates of 80% compared to our goal of 25%.

Councils should and will be in charge of waste disposal organisation, but the current system whereby they can design Byzantine systems and are now even talking about extra-charges for these demonstrates their desire for revenue over fairness; a national policy will be a saviour for householders and taxpayers alike.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

The positives here are manifold:

- Householders who wish to recycle will have a much better idea of what they should be doing, all over the country and wherever they move. This policy builds on the Vote Blue, Go Green message.

- Repetitions of the Scarborough revolt will be reduced as councils lost their power to develop unfair strategies.

- Councils can dispense with unnecessary consultancy projects and staff designing their ever more complex individual strategies, let alone expensive fact-finding missions for councillors. A national policy can even make them work together to share the burden on resources.

- Councils will also gain transparency of cost by their waste management contractors allowing for a better pricing market to develop across the country.

- Taxpayers will benefit as the current threats of some councils to increase charges and demand greater re-cycling or impose fines.

- Finally, although a national issue it is about local priorities and could potentially help us in every ward election.

As for the negatives, the main one as ever is that the Conservatives are against centralisation and in favour of devolving power to the local level. However, this policy is not about budgetary control and oversight; just more effective guidelines for domestic waste disposal. Councils may complain that the national policy may add to their local waste management costs and this will need to be managed as part of a careful policy formulation.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What do you think the specifics of the policy should look like?
• How do we persuade councils to agree to this after Labour centralisation fiascos?
• How much of our campaigning should we devote to green issues?

> Costs

We have to set a policy and enforce it nationwide, although Defra exists already to set the policy and the councils to carry it out; the new policy may mean extra spending on waste disposal nationally, conversely it may lower the overall cost through efficiency savings.

Peter Franklin: "Blacklist ugly and dysfunctional buildings"

Peter Franklin is a Conservative policy advisor, speechwriter and contributor to The Guardian's Comment Is Free.

> Policy summary

A national blacklist of ugly and dysfunctional buildings that should be demolished and replaced.

> Policy explanation

The current listing system for buildings allows planning authorities to identify and protect the most precious features of our architectural heritage. The system also helps direct the flow of public and private conservation funds to where they’re most needed.

However, in order to give due recognition to the carbuncles as well as the gems, the listing system needs to be supplemented by a blacklisting system for the worst buildings in our villages, towns and cities.

Bad architecture is much more that just an eyesore. Various studies have shown, as commonsense would lead one to expect, that ugly buildings have a negative impacts on local economies, community cohesion, neighbourhood security and even mental health.

Under the new arrangements, local people would have the right to petition their councillors to have their least favourite buildings blacklisted. Given enough signatures, the council would be obliged to vote on each petition. As with the existing system there would a grading system, with grade 2, grade 2* and grade 1 blacklisted buildings.

Government planning guidance would be amended with provisions requiring planning authorities to take blacklisting into account when considering planning applications and development plans.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is a possibility that a blacklisting system would allow a bunch of Prince Charles types to launch a national witch-hunt against modernist architecture. Well, that’s the opportunity; the risk is that it might not turn out that way! Still, it’s worth a try.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What should the hurdle be in terms of signatures required to get a building blacklisted?
• What sort of features deserve grade 2* status as opposed to the normal grade 2 blacklisting?
• How should the most spectacular horrors, deserving of grade 1 status be identified?
• What practical consequences should blacklisting have?

> Costs

The blacklisting system shouldn’t have any extra costs. Local campaigners would be responsible for the expense of organising a petition. Planning departments would be responsible for maintaining an up-to-date register of blacklisted buildings which would be published on the council website.

The system could even raise money by surcharging the owners of blacklisted buildings, the money raised going into a conservation fund for ‘whitelisted’ buildings or as grants for the demolition of blacklisted buildings.