Blog

  • PRESS RELEASE : Turtle population thriving around Armed Forces bases in Cyprus [December 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Turtle population thriving around Armed Forces bases in Cyprus [December 2022]

    The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 29 December 2022.

    Turtle nests are thriving at beaches around military sites in Cyprus following conservation efforts by the Ministry of Defence and civilian volunteers to protect the species.

    A total of 172 Green and Loggerhead turtle nests were identified in 2022 within the Western and Eastern Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) and at Akrotiri, Episkopi and Dhekelia – home to UK Armed Forces supporting ongoing operations in the region.

    Volunteers made up of military and civilian personnel play a vital role in keeping a close eye on all nesting beaches. In addition to reporting turtle tracks they also report illegal and damaging activities. Nests have come under threat in recent years for a variety of reasons, including invasive species and human activity, however volunteering efforts have transformed nesting sites for turtles.

    SBAA Environmental Officer, Alexia Perdiou said:

    We are delighted with the increasing numbers of turtle nests on beaches in the Bases in recent years, which is down to the vital work we do alongside our legion of military and civilian volunteers – patrolling beaches and searching for turtle tracks in the early hours of the morning every day throughout the summer months.

    Being careful to not directly interact with any turtles or hatchlings, we ensure that nesting sites are protected from both human activity and invasive predators, which alongside wider conservation efforts being done throughout Cyprus will ensure these incredible animals continue to thrive.

    The Sovereign Base Areas Administration (SBAA) Environment Department co-ordinates turtle conservation work which focuses on minimum intervention, follows international best practices and mirrors the work undertaken in the rest of Cyprus. The work of the Department would not have been so successful without the invaluable help from volunteers who walk nesting beaches daily to identify turtle tracks so that nests can be protected until they hatch.

    The valuable co-operation between volunteers, the SBAA Environment Department and the SBA Police has resulted in the addressing of almost all offences on nesting beaches and a strong message has gone to beach users on the safeguarding of turtle nesting habitat, nests and hatchlings.

    The SBAA is supported by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), who provide Stewardship Funding to carry out conservation work to safeguard nesting beaches to meet common objectives and statutory obligations for protecting designated sites and habitats.

    DIO environmental staff based out in Cyprus also ensure that the conservation status of the turtles and their habitats is not compromised, by carefully managing and designing military activities and projects.

    DIO Technical Services Environmental Adviser in Cyprus, David Reynolds said:

    I am really delighted with this upturn in breeding success, it’s the result of a unique and strong partnership spanning many years of hard work and now we can really start to see the results of our work.

    Efforts to protect turtle nesting beaches include the blocking of access points to prevent people from driving on the seashore, and enforcement work to prevent and address damaging and illegal activities such as overnight camping and late-night beach parties lighting fires.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1983 Statement Following the Death of Michael Roberts

    Margaret Thatcher – 1983 Statement Following the Death of Michael Roberts

    The statement made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 11 February 1983.

    I believe that it would be the wish of the House to pay a spontaneous tribute today to our friend and colleague, Michael Roberts, Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who was taken ill at this Dispatch Box last evening, and who died later. And friend he was to many of us. Michael Roberts had been in the House for less than 13 years, and from the moment he came here he had a natural effortless ability for friendship which extended to all parts of the House. He had served a long apprenticeship in politics, having fought three elections before he became Member for Cardiff, North in 1970. He was for seven years the first headmaster of the Bishop of Llandaff high school. Throughout his service in this House he retained a deep interest in education, for which he held ministerial responsibility in Wales since 1979.

    He was a most assiduous constituency Member, a fine Minister, an enthusiast in all that he undertook, a notable orator in the Welsh tradition, always partisan, but retaining the respect and affection of all sides of the House. We extend our deep sympathy to his widow and family, and to his constituents whom he served so well.

  • BOOK REVIEW : Bash the Rich by Ian Bone

    BOOK REVIEW : Bash the Rich by Ian Bone

    This book is the autobiography written by Ian Bone, who the Sunday People branded the “most dangerous man in Britain”. Bone has been involved with the anarchist and class war movement in various forms for several decades, with this book being a well-written look at his role. The author doesn’t pretend that the movements were always well run and there’s no shortage of humour running through the title, but it is a reminder of how strong the feeling was against the move towards Thatcherism.

    There are elements of vandalism and damage being caused which do give more of an impression of the Bullingdon Club, but there is a different dynamic about wanting to change society for the better. Bone refers to the corruption within Swansea council from the elected Labour councillors, testament to his concern that this wasn’t just a movement against the Conservatives, it was against those who wanted to make the working class worse off. When recounting the story of a bomb attack the author notes that he felt “bombings were a sign of failure” and there was a purpose to what Bone wanted to achieve. Although the book doesn’t cover this period of Bone’s life, he was involved in the respected Bristolian newspaper which he edited for a time during the early 2000s.

    It’s undeniable that some will find it challenging to read about the dancing on the grave of Michael Roberts, a Conservative MP who died at the despatch box, but the book is likely one of the better accounts of the radical groups that were at the fringes of politics. And if the Sunday People thought that Bone might be disheartened or disappointed by their defining him as dangerous, they were seemingly very wrong. As to whether individuals love, hate or are indifferent to Bone, they’ll likely find this book authentic and genuine.

    For those who want to see Bone in action, here’s his appearance on television being interviewed by Jonathan Ross.

  • Ed Balls – 2002 Speech on New Localism at the CIPFA Conference in Brighton

    Ed Balls – 2002 Speech on New Localism at the CIPFA Conference in Brighton

    The speech made by Ed Balls, the then Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury, in Brighton on 12 June 2002.

    INTRODUCTION

    Let me thank you for inviting me to speak this morning at the start of what looks set to be a fascinating conference.

    CIPFA is widely recognised as a leading independent voice on local government and public finance issues. And, under the leadership of your President Chris Hurford and Chief Executive Steve Freer, you are a highly valued partner for central government. Let me thank you today, on behalf of the Chancellor and the Treasury, for your work in leading the steering group which has drawn up the new Prudential Code on Capital Finance for local government, in helping smooth the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting and in working towards the convergence of best practice accounting standards across the public sector.

    These close ties are a sign of the value ministers place on this partnership with local government. Last year’s White Paper set out the next steps for that partnership. And I know that you will be hearing more on these issues this afternoon from the lead minister, Nick Raynsford, who is publishing the draft local government bill today.

    As well as Nick, you have an impressive range of speakers for this year’s conference, with the Rt Hon Clare Short topping the bill tomorrow. I am glad that you have invited Derek Wanless, who did such an expert job on the Long-Term Health Review.

    I am also pleased to be the warm-up act for my friend and colleague Geoff Mulgan. And, given this morning’s match, it is a great tribute to you all that so many of you have arrived on time.

    There is a huge range of expertise here today from across the public sector – local government, public sector audit, the NHS, the police service, the Regional Development Agencies, the Competition Commission, the Environment Agency.

    And I know – whether through tax, fiscal policy, accounting rules, financial regulation, public spending or the financial framework for local government – that the Treasury has a real impact – directly or indirectly – on the ability of you all to do the job you want to do.

    The role of the Treasury is always controversial – no effective finance ministry can ever be universally popular. It is no surprise that Peter Hennessy – in his history of Whitehall – calls the Treasury “the most scapegoated department in the Whitehall constellation”.

    But to the extent that that the old historical caricature of the Treasury as short-termist, centralising, secretive or miserly was ever deserved, I believe those days are gone.

    So I am going to talk this morning about the role that the Treasury – a strategic and long-term Treasury – is playing in delivering the government’s long-term goals.

    And, with the concluding phase of the Spending Review now under way, I want today to make the case that, in the spirit of Bank of England independence and the new approach to regional policy, we now need a new devolution – a new localism – in public service delivery that breaks with the short-termism of the past.

    THE HISTORIC ROLE OF THE TREASURY

    The Treasury is the oldest department in Whitehall, the collector of taxes for over 900 years.

    And throughout the last century it was consistently unpopular. Keynes described the deflationary “Treasury view” of the 1920s as “the natural result of standing half way between common sense and sound theory: it is the result of having abandoned one without having reached the other.” And he parodied the “dead-hand” Treasury view as “you must not do anything because this will only mean that you can’t do something else”.

    Indeed, when then historian Peter Clarke discovered in the archives from that period the Treasury’s copy of Lloyd George’s 1929 pamphlet ?We can conquer unemployment?, he found that a senior and anonymous Treasury official had defaced it with the words ?extravagance, inflation, bankruptcy”.

    Consistently since then the Treasury was seen as an institution which had narrow objectives – low inflation, sound money, expenditure control; short-termist and peculiarly non-strategic – at its best in a crisis; centralising – jealous of its power within Whitehall and beyond; and secretive – protective of information and distant from the outside world

    In his memoirs, Bernard Donoghue – then at the No 10 Policy Unit – describes lunch in 1974 following the OPEC oil shock with a “very senior Treasury official”. He asks why No 10 had been sent no Treasury papers on the threat of hyperinflation. The Treasury official replied: “politicians never deal with serious issues until they become the crisis, so at the Treasury we’re waiting till the crisis really blows up.”

    Reputations earned are hard to be rid of. And fairly or not – and often criticism of the Treasury’s past record has been unfair – this “Treasury view” has often been used as the scapegoat for the series of economic policy failures that have plagued Britain in the post-war period. Short-term macroeconomic failures: the devaluations of 1949 and 1967, the Barber boom, the failure of monetarism in the 1980s and Britain’s 1992 exit from the exchange rate mechanism. And the failure to tackle historic long-term weaknesses: low productivity, inadequate skills, long-term under-investment in infrastructure and the public services.

    THE NEW ROLE OF THE TREASURY

    Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out his mission to lay to rest the Treasury’s traditional “dead-hand” image. As he said in a pre-election speech at the Manchester Business School, “a Labour Treasury will be both a ministry for finance and a ministry for long-term economic and social renewal”.

    And with the leadership of our Permanent Secretary – soon to be the Cabinet Secretary – Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Treasury today is playing a new role in government in marked contrast to this historical caricature. The Treasury rightly prides itself on the quality, experience and hard-working nature of its staff, and under the leadership of Sir Andrew the department has been recruiting top-class graduates in record numbers. Anyone who doubts the commitment of the civil service to reform and adapt need only look at the management reforms that have been put in place at the Treasury over the last few years.

    But this new role for the Treasury is not only a reflection of the wider ambitions of this government and this Chancellor to meet long-term economic and social goals: higher productivity, full employment in every region, the abolition of child poverty, and world-class public services. It reflects too, I believe, a proper understanding of the failures of the past and the new challenges of making policy in today’s world.

    Let me illustrate with reference to the first and one of the most significant reforms of this government – the decision to make the Bank of England independent.

    That decision, and sticking to inherited spending plans for the first two years, demonstrated that the new government and the Treasury were determined to make a decisive break with the short-termism of past Labour and Conservative governments.

    But it was also a unique opportunity to learn from the failures of monetarism and the old rigid, secretive and centralised approach to macroeconomic policy-making.

    The failure of monetarism – in the 1980s and then with the ERM – was to introduce rigidity into UK monetary policy making at just the time when the reality of global capital markets demanded greater flexibility.

    In today’s global economy and fast-moving capital markets, responding flexibly and decisively to surprise economic events is critical for establishing a track record for delivering long-term stability. But without a credible framework that commands trust and a track record for making the right decisions, it is hard for policy to respond flexibly without immediately raising the suspicion that the government is about to sacrifice long-term stability and make a short-term dash for growth.

    So in this new world of global capital markets, and building on the reforms put in place after 1992, we put in place a new and post-monetarist macroeconomic model based on “constrained discretion”. This new British model of central bank independence is an approach in which the government sets and is therefore constrained by the symmetric inflation target to stick to long-term goals; but because the institutional framework commands market credibility and public trust, the independent central bank has the discretion necessary to respond flexibly and transparently to economic events.

    And, at the same time, we applied this model – where the public interest is pursued by devolving power to an independent agency charged with achieving clear long-term goals – to other areas of financial policy – establishing the Debt Management Office and the Financial Service Authority.

    This devolutionary act belied the conventional prejudice that the Treasury is short-termist, secretive or controlling and jealous of its power. But this “constrained discretion” model of policy making has also had wider applicability across the public sector.

    Because the old approach to policy where goals were not specified, lines of responsibility unclear, power guarded jealously at the centre and proper performance information concealed from the public, is no more appropriate for running a modern health service or delivering the best local public services.

    As with macroeconomic policy, so effective public service delivery requires discretion for public service managers with the maximum devolution of power to encourage flexibility and creativity and meet consumer demands; but this discretion must be constrained by clear long-term goals and proper accountability.

    Today it is simply not possible either to run economic policy or deliver strong public services that meet public expectations using top-down one-size-fits all solutions of the past. Because new information technologies, greater competition, a premium on skills and innovation, a wide-ranging media, increasingly demanding consumers, and varying local needs all work to expose the contradictions of old-style centralisation and a command and control approach to delivering public services.

    So the principles which guide this new model of modern policy making are:

    Clear long-term goals set by the elected government;

    A clear division of responsibility and accountability for achieving those goals with proper co-ordination at the centre;

    Maximum local flexibility and discretion to innovate, respond to local conditions and meet differing consumer demands;

    And, alongside this devolution of power, maximum transparency about both goals and progress in achieving them with proper scrutiny and accountability.

    Embracing this new approach to policy-making – this new localism – requires a very different Treasury.

    Where the old caricatured Treasury had narrower objectives, today the Treasury has broader goals with a new mission “to raise the rate of sustainable growth and achieve rising prosperity through creating economic and employment opportunities for all”.

    Where the old caricatured Treasury focused on short-term crisis management, the Treasury today sees its role as long-term and strategic.

    Where the old caricatured Treasury was of an institution that wanted to suck power into the centre, the new Treasury wants to devolve power and responsibility with enhanced local discretion to take the initiative and be creative.

    And where the old caricatured Treasury emphasised secrecy and control through non-disclosure, there is a new premium on transparency and openness as the route not just to greater accountability but also better policy outcomes and wider public trust.

    I know that any speech from a Treasury official extolling the virtues of devolution will be met with a sceptical ear. And rightly so. Because the principles I will set out today are hard to put into practice. Change takes time. In some areas we have not gone far enough fast enough. The easy option is always to resort to the old ways on difficult issues. And there is sometimes a tension between the desire to devolve flexibility and encourage local innovation with the fact that, often, it is ministers at the centre who remain accountable to parliament and the public for fiscal stability, tax, value for money and performance, as with the public-private partnership for the tube. But to those people who remain sceptical about our motives, that this is the same old centralising wolf, I hope today to persuade you to think again. Let me do so by discussing productivity and regional policy, public spending and local government in turn.

    PRODUCTIVITY AND REGIONAL POLICY

    Our policies to promote productivity and full employment in every region of Britain are being shaped by this new approach to policy making.

    Take competition policy, where we have now legislated to make individual competition decisions independent of ministers for both cartels and now complex monopolies. The DTI and the Treasury in financial sector cases remains responsible for the long-term goals of competition policy, for key appointments to the competition authorities and have the power to over-ride in exceptional circumstances. But on a day-to-day basis, with the goals of competition policy more clearly defined in legislation, decision-making has been devolved to the Office for Fair Trading and the Competition Commission who are now accountable to Parliament directly for case-by-case decisions making.

    This new model, based on constrained discretion, is also guiding our approach to regional policy where, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the DTI, the Treasury has championed a greater role for strategic economic policy-making and policy innovation at the regional and local level.

    The first generation of regional policy, before the war, was essentially ambulance work getting help to high unemployment areas. The second generation in the 1960s and 1970s was based on large capital and tax incentives delivered by the then Department of Industry, almost certainly opposed by the Treasury. It was inflexible but it was also top-down. And it did not work.

    The new approach to regional economic policy, wholeheartedly promoted by the Treasury is based on two principles – it aims to strengthen the long-term building blocks of growth – innovation, skills, the development of enterprise – by exploiting the indigenous strengths in each region and city. And it is bottom-up not top-down, with national government enabling powerful regional and local initiatives to work by providing the necessary flexibility and resources.

    This new regional policy is based on a genuine devolution of power in economic policy making to the Regional Development Agencies – with expanded budgets and – just as important – the “single pot” with 100% flexibility, including full EYF, to spend these resources to meet regional priorities.

    This “single pot” is a radical departure for central government. It is requiring a big culture change. For central government departments? role is long-term and strategic rather than short-term and micro-managing. But also a culture change in the regions as this devolution requires other regional and local economic players – the Learning and Skills Councils and the Small Business Service as well as local government – to work as part of the RDA regional strategy.

    In return for this devolution of power and discretion in decision-making we have demanded greater transparency and accountability. Each RDA has been required to agree stretching and long-term output targets with national government for the years ahead. Not, as we have repeatedly reminded Whitehall departments, as a backdoor way to regain control but so that each RDA is held properly to account by the national taxpayer but also within the region and by local government.

    Strengthening this new regional economic policy – with further support for the RDAs to promote enterprise and job creation in the regions – is a priority for the Spending Review.

    For the first time this Review will be based on a wider collection of regional needs and priorities. The RDA and the Government Office in each region have already submitted a Regional Priority Document to the Treasury. And we will publish greater information on the regional impact of the Spending Review to meet our productivity goals.

    But enhancing the role of the RDAs is not only about resources. We must also ask how we can effectively harness the new strategic leadership of the RDAs and make better co-ordinated policy in the regions across a range of areas where public spending impacts on regional economic strategies – planning, skills, transport and housing.

    To ensure proper regional and local accountability, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor last year allocated £5m to fund the eight Regional Assemblies outside London. Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister’s White Paper set out the detailed route map for those regions that want to go further and move to elected regional assemblies. And the Treasury has worked closely with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office to draw up a package of further financial freedoms and flexibilities to match greater accountability.

    FISCAL POLICY AND PUBLIC SPENDING

    The principles underpinning this new approach – clear long-term goals, a strategic centre, effective devolution matched by transparency and accountability – are also guiding the Treasury’s approach to fiscal policy and public spending.

    Since 1997 the Treasury has introduced and stayed with the same two long-term fiscal rules defined over the economic cycle. We have enshrined in legislation a Code for Fiscal Stability to codify in law the Treasury’s fiscal obligation and responsibilities. And while devolution of the management of the public finances and tax policy would not make sense, we have enhanced openness and transparency in fiscal policy-making, with key fiscal assumptions audited by the independent National Audit Office. It is this credible commitment to fiscal discipline that is enabling us to release record new resources to invest in the NHS and public services.

    At least as radical have been the changes that the Treasury has introduced in public spending planning and control since 1997 – one area where the old caricature clearly bears a resemblance to the truth.

    It is now widely recognised that the ideals of the Plowden approach, that set out to guide public spending decisions from the 1960s, were progressively eroded over the next two decades. This left a public spending regime that was short-termist, with annual budgeting and no distinction between current and capital spending which meant that long-term capital investment was too often sacrificed to meet short-term current pressures.

    It was ad-hoc and incrementalist with the centre of government paying too little attention to the need to coordinate between departments.

    Departments were not devolved the necessary freedom to plan properly, with no certainty about the following year’s budget, no End-Year Flexibility to carry forward under-spends and central control over public sector pay.

    And, worst of all, it emphasised controlling inputs rather than delivering outputs with no proper attempt to be accountable to the public for outcomes.

    The new approach to public spending, introduced since 1997, makes it possible to plan for the long-term with a clear distinction between current and capital spending as we steadily tackle the backlog of under-investment.

    Spending decisions are based on in-depth policy review, not simply on last year’s figures, and informed interdepartmental reviews to strengthen co-ordination across government.

    We have devolved spending power to departments with a three-year not one-year cycle and there is full End Year Flexibility for departments to move their budgets from one year to the next. With the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, departments will have greater freedom to manage their assets properly.

    And, most important, it is results-driven with targets for outputs set out in the Public Service Agreements which the Treasury agreed with each department as part of the 1998 and 2000 Spending Reviews – with floor targets to raise the performance of below average services and tackle inequalities in all the main public services – education, health, transport and crime.

    The introduction of PSA targets in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review was the most ambitious attempt internationally to set explicit goals for outcomes across the whole of Government.

    Some have interpreted the introduction of PSAs and output targets as an increase in Treasury interference and control. I disagree. We have rightly moved away from the old days when the Treasury signed the cheques or had to approve each and every spending project.
    The Treasury does work closely in partnership with a range of departments in the development of economic policy. But far from being a way of pulling power into the centre, PSAs are the constraint which allows effective and accountable devolution and discretion for departments. And making a reality of this devolution requires government to cascade these targets and financial flexibilities down from departments to front-line mangers instead of the old input controls of the past – and here progress has not been always as fast as it could have been.

    The resources and reforms announced for health in this year’s Budget chart the way forward. The Treasury has agreed a five year budget with the department and full End-Year-Flexibility. The Department of Health and the NHS Executive are the strategic centre, setting objectives and shaping incentives. There is growing devolution of money, multi-year budgets and flexibility down to Primary Care Trusts and hospital Trusts, with money increasingly following patients. And there will also be new, tough and streamlined audit and inspection with two national regulators for health and social services with an annual report to Parliament and local reporting. Because the public has a right to know how their money is being spent and that spending and reform are being combined to deliver outputs.

    The role of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees, working with the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and No 10 – and increasingly central government departments too – should not be to direct and control the detailed delivery of services. It should be to create a framework in which local public service deliverers have the discretion to innovate and improve the services they provide, constrained by the need to reach high minimum standards. That is why, since the last election, the Delivery Unit in the Cabinet Office, working very closely with the Treasury, has assessed the strategic capacity of each main department to meet key PSA targets by incentivising good performance in local service delivery, working with the private and voluntary sectors where appropriate. And the Office of Public Service Reform, also in the Cabinet Office under the leadership of a former local government Chief Executive, Wendy Thomson, has also been developing this approach since last year.

    This philosophy is guiding our approach in this year’s Spending Review, now in its final phase. And we are again breaking new ground.

    In the 2000 Spending Review, we took the opportunity to improve the structure of the Government’s objectives and set more streamlined PSAs covering the additional expenditure and focusing harder on the things that really matter, with fewer targets, better focused on the important issues, and with data systems audited by the NAO.

    For the first time in this review, we are able to assess spending strategies in the light of performance to date against existing PSA targets. Which means that, the process of matching money with reform is being done in the light of experience of which reforms so far have worked and which have failed to meet expectations.

    Most important, in this Spending Review – working with hospitals, schools, police forces, transport and housing – the government is determined to go even further in matching money with reform through clear long-term targets and national standards and proper audit and accountability to ensure standards are met, combined with a new localism in public service delivery – greater local devolution, greater flexibility to achieve greater results and greater choice for consumers.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Let me turn finally to local government. Just as we made a start with regional policy in the last Parliament we also made a start in devolving power to local government, moving away from the destructive centralism characteristic of the years marked by universal capping, strict limits on borrowing and then the Poll Tax.

    The old caricature of the Treasury was of a department which – because of its desire to centralise power – was hostile to local government and to devolving real financial flexibility and accountability. I do not believe that this reputation is entirely fair.

    But, as in regional economic policy, so in local service delivery, a proper strategic division of responsibilities requires us to recognise that Whitehall does not know best – that effective service delivery for families and communities cannot come from central command and control but requires local initiative matched by local accountability. And with the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in the lead on local government issues, I can assure you that you have powerful champions across Whitehall.

    So to build a long-term and strategic partnership between central and local government, this government has devolved resources and flexibility and boosted financial support for councils, through real terms increases in revenue and in capital expenditure for four years.

    We have matched devolution with greater accountability with new constitutions for local government following local consultation and expanded the capacities of local government by introducing statutory community strategies produced by local partners.

    And we have developed Local Public Service Agreements, which match resources and greater flexibilities to outcome targets. And as we increase the number of local PSAs from 20 local authorities last year to the top-tier 150 by 2003, we will match them with further steps towards greater flexibility: flexibility and resources in return for reform.

    The White Paper last December set out new reforms that will significantly expand the freedoms and flexibilities available to local government and we have made good progress since then.

    There is not time today for an exhaustive list. But as you know, in addition to consulting on providing greater freedom for all councils to decide council tax discounts and exemptions, we intend to legislate for further freedom to use income collected locally from charges, we are making progress in Whitehall in identifying unnecessary bureaucracy to achieve the target of a 50 per cent reduction in the numbers of plans and strategies that government requires councils to produce and we are focussing on the difficult issue of ring-fencing as part of the Spending Review. And you know too that we intend to make councils themselves responsible for deciding how much they can prudently borrow. I know CIPFA are playing a leading role in drawing up the prudential guidelines for controlling capital investment. This will provide greater freedom for councils to invest. But it will also place more responsibility in the hands of individual councils to manage their own affairs – real financial flexibility in a prudent framework.

    Based on the same principles of constrained discretion high performing councils will receive extra freedoms to lead the way to further service improvements. For these councils, we will not use our reserve powers to cap council tax increases, as a first step towards our long term goal of dispensing with the power to cap altogether; we intend to legislate for new powers to free up councils to trade and work in partnership; we will grant more discretion over best value review programmes; and introduce a much lighter touch inspection regime.

    Decisions about high performing authorities will be based on the new comprehensive performance framework for local government – currently being piloted with 10 pathfinder areas. CPA will provide clear and concise information about councils’ performance, enabling us to make our inspection regimes more proportionate, to target support where it is most needed, to identify the small minority of failing councils in need of tough remedial action. It is also key to allowing us to go further with freedoms and flexibilities for councils.

    As the Chancellor said at the end of last year following the publication of the White paper, we are ready to go even further to enable local people to do more to make local decisions about meeting local needs and consider further radical options to ensure devolution of power and responsibility go hand in hand so that the public can get the best possible services. And once we have carried out further analysis, we shall establish a high level working group involving ministers and senior figures from local government to look at all aspects of the balance of funding, reviewing the evidence and looking at reform options.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, I believe that we have moved beyond the old caricature of the Treasury as the department that likes to say no – reactive, short-termist, centralist and secretive – to a new long-term model for British economic policy based on clear and long-term objectives, devolution of power and transparent mechanisms for accountability. It is a new model – with power devolved to those best placed to make expert decisions to meet national goals and standards – that we are already applying from monetary and fiscal policy to financial service regulation, competition and regional policy and the new financial regime for local authorities – and we must now go further in the Spending Review with a new localism in public services.

    This new model requires – as the Prime Minister’s pamphlet on public service reform says – “a genuine partnership between government and the people in the front line.”

    The Treasury is committed to working in partnership – with departments, with the regions and local government. Because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech to the Local Government Association last December, it is only by national and local government working together – matching devolution and accountability – that we can hope to meet our shared long-term goals, creating a more enterprising economy and a fairer society.

    Thank you.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Adding it Up to better public services [June 2002]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Adding it Up to better public services [June 2002]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 5 June 2002.

    Further improvement in vital public services will be more readily achievable through a new website sharing evidence which underpins key Government policies, Chief Secretary Paul Boateng announced today.

    Launching the website www.addingitup.gov.uk, Mr Boateng said:

    “The Adding It Up website marks a significant further step forward in improving public services.

    “It will enable Government Departments to enhance their store of important evidence used to determine the right policies to meet Government objectives, and to share the most up to date information about their own evidence base.

    “It will further strengthen the policy making process and, perhaps most importantly, influence the research community and stimulate debate to generate positive approaches to make further progress in the vital area of public service improvement.”

    Under the Adding It Up initiative major spending Departments have been asked to set out evidence organised according to their Public Service Agreement (PSA) Objectives. They have provided references to :

    • the most important research that has informed policy choice
    • set out work in progress that may influence future policy choices
    • programmes already in place to strengthen the evidence base further.

    The website actively seeks to stimulate debate with outside experts. Its aim is to give the research community wider perspectives on policy research priorities while also opening up Departments’ evidence bases, enabling them to gain insights from research activity being carried out elsewhere.

    The initial information contained in the website will be regularly updated and expanded to reflect the debate generated and the improvement of the evidence base over time.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Responsibilities of Treasury Ministers [June 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Responsibilities of Treasury Ministers [June 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 26 June 2001.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has decided the following allocation of Ministerial responsibilities:

    The Chief Secretary, The Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP

    • Public expenditure planning and control (including local authorities and nationalised industries finance);
    • Value for money in the public services, including Public Service Agreements (PSAs);
    • Departmental Investment Strategies including Capital Modernisation Fund and Invest to Save budget;
    • Public/Private Partnerships including Private Finance Initiative;
    • Procurement policy;
    • Public sector pay;
    • Presentation of economic policy and economic briefing;
    • Welfare reform;
    • Devolution;
    • Strategic oversight of banking, financial services and insurance; and
    • Resource Accounting and Budgeting.

    The Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo MP

    • Strategic oversight of taxation as a whole, including overall responsibility for the Finance Bill, closer working between Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise (including with other departments), and European and international tax issues;
    • Departmental Minister for Inland Revenue and the Valuation Office;
    • Personal taxation (except company car tax, savings and pensions), national insurance contributions and tax credits;
    • Direct business taxation and tax aspects of the enterprise agenda, including: corporation tax, North Sea taxation, share schemes, small firms and venture capital;
    • Capital Gains Tax;
    • Inheritance Tax;
    • Treasury interest in childcare issues;
    • Regulatory Reform Minister for the Chancellor’s departments; and
    • Welfare Reform Group (welfare fraud).

    The Financial Secretary, The Rt Hon Paul Boateng MP

    • Departmental Minister for Customs and Excise;
    • Environmental issues, including tax and other economic instruments, urban regeneration and transport taxes, including climate change levy, aggregates levy, landfill tax, road fuel (and other mineral oil) duties, taxation of company cars, vehicle excise duty, air passenger duty;
    • VAT; alcohol and tobacco duties; betting and gaming taxation;
    • Support to the Paymaster General on the Finance Bill;
    • Productivity and enterprise (working with PMG on tax issues);
    • Competition and deregulation policy;
    • Science, research and development;
    • Export credit;
    • Welfare to Work and social exclusion issues;
    • Charities and charity taxation;
    • Support to the Chancellor on international issues; and
    • Support to the Chief Secretary on public spending issues (including Parliamentary financial business, Public Accounts Committee, National Audit Office and general accountancy issues).

    The Economic Secretary, Ms Ruth Kelly MP

    • Banking, financial services and insurance, and support to the Chief Secretary on the implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Act;
    • Financial services tax issues, including ISAs, taxation of savings, Stamp Duty, Insurance Premium Tax and pensions;
    • Foreign exchange reserves and debt management policy;
    • Support to the Chancellor on EU issues;
    • EMU business preparations;
    • Economic reform in Europe;
    • Responsibility for National Savings, the Debt Management Office, National Investment and Loans Office, Office for National Statistics, Royal Mint and the Government Actuary’s Department;
    • Personal savings policy;
    • Support to the Chief Secretary and Financial Secretary on public spending and productivity issues;
    • Support to the Paymaster General on the Finance Bill;
    • Womens’ issues; and
    • Departmental Minister for HM Treasury.
  • PRESS RELEASE : Joint statement from the International Coordination and Response Group for the victims of Flight PS752 [December 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Joint statement from the International Coordination and Response Group for the victims of Flight PS752 [December 2022]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 28 December 2022.

    Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have issued a joint statement on Iran’s shooting down of Flight PS752 in January 2020, killing 176 civilians.

    The International Coordination and Response Group for the victims of Flight PS752 today issued the following joint statement:

    We, Ministers representing Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, have taken concrete action to ensure that our efforts to hold Iran to account for the unlawful downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (Flight PS752) can progress to the dispute settlement phase.

    In particular, we have requested that Iran submits to binding arbitration of the dispute related to the downing of Flight PS752 by 2 surface-to-air missiles launched unlawfully and intentionally by members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) air defence unit pursuant to Article 14 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation of 1971.

    The Coordination Group remains committed to pursuing efforts to hold Iran accountable for its multiple breaches of its international legal obligations pursuant to several treaties.  This action is part of our broader approach to ensuring there is transparency, justice and accountability the victims and their families.

  • General Election Manifestos : 1970 Conservative Party

    General Election Manifestos : 1970 Conservative Party

    The 1970 Conservative Party manifesto.

    A Better Tomorrow

    FOREWORD

    This Manifesto sets out the policies of the Conservative Party for a better Britain. It provides a programme for a Parliament, how fast we can go will depend on how difficult a situation we find when we take office.

    But good government is not just a matter of the right policies. It also depends on the way the government is run. This is something which I have thought about deeply. Indeed, it has been one of my main interests since I entered the House of Commons in 1950.

    During the last six years we have suffered not only from bad policies, but from a cheap and trivial style of government Decisions have been dictated simply by the desire to catch tomorrow’s headlines. The short-term gain has counted for everything; the long-term objective has gone out of the window. Every device has been used to gain immediate publicity, and government by gimmick has become the order of the day. Decisions lightly entered into have been as lightly abandoned.

    It is not surprising that under this system several senior Labour Ministers have at different times left the Government in disgust at the way it is run. It is not surprising that when ever I have travelled abroad in recent years friends of Britain have told me of their sadness at the way in which our reputation has shrunk. It is not surprising that young people in this country looking at politics for the first time should be suspicious and cynical.

    I am determined therefore that a Conservative Government shall introduce a new style of government: that we shall re-establish our sound and honest British traditions in this field.

    I want to see a fresh approach to the taking of decisions. The Government should seek the best advice and listen carefully to it. It should not rush into decisions, it should use up-to-date techniques for assessing the situation, it should be deliberate and thorough. And in coming to its decisions it must always recognise that its responsibility is to the people, and all the people, of this country.

    What is more, its decision should be aimed at the long term. The easy answer and the quick trick may pay immediate dividends in terms of publicity, but in the end it is the national interest which suffers. We have seen that too often in the recent past

    Finally, once a decision is made, once a policy is established, the Prime Minister and his colleagues should have the courage to stick to it Nothing has done Britain more harm in the world than the endless backing and filling which we have seen in recent years. Whether it be our defence commitments, or our financial policies, or the reform of industrial relations, the story has been the same. At the first sign of difficulty the Labour Government has sounded the retreat, covering its withdrawal with a smokescreen of unlikely excuses. But courage and intellectual honesty are essential qualities in politics, and in the interest of our country it is high time that we saw them again.

    So it will not be enough for a Conservative Government to make a fresh start with new policies. We must create a new way of running our national affairs. This means sweeping away the trivialities and the gimmicks which now dominate the political scene. It means dealing honestly and openly with the House of Commons, with the press and with the public.

    The decisions which a Government has to take affect the livelihood and perhaps the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. No-one has any business to take part in public life unless he is prepared to take such decisions with the seriousness which they deserve.

    This is my strongest personal conviction, and I shall not be content until it is the guiding principle of the government of this country.

    EDWARD HEATH

    A BETTER TOMORROW

    This election is about Britain’s tomorrow. The choice of a Government for the next five years will go far to determine the future of our country right through the seventies and beyond.

    The Failures of Today

    The nation now knows what five years of Labour rule can mean. Hundreds of thousands of extra families suffering the hardship and insecurity of unemployment. Increasing problems of poverty and homelessness. Pensioners helpless as they watch the extra shillings eaten up by the fastest price rise for twenty years. Housewives struggling to make ends meet. £3,000 million a year of extra taxation equivalent to £3.10.0d a week for every family. A devalued £. A new load of foreign debt, some of it stretching ahead into the twenty-first century.

    Britain has paid many times over in lost opportunity for the benefit of any improvement on our overseas trade account. The nation has lost £12,000 million in potential wealth as the result of Labour’s failure to maintain expansion. That’s about £750 for every family in the country.

    Our economy has expanded more slowly than that of any other comparable country in the world. Almost everywhere in Western Europe and North America the standard of living grows faster than in Britain. International experts are predicting that if these trends are allowed to continue Britain will soon be the poorest major country in the West.

    As a nation, we have been starved of achievement. We have become conditioned to failure.

    To pay our way, normal in Conservative years, now seems like a miracle. High unemployment is no longer the exception but the rule. We have become resigned to the value of the £ in our pockets or purses falling by at least a shilling a year. For a year to pass without a crisis has become cause for congratulation.

    Yet before these locust years of Labour, we had the Conservative years of rising prosperity. Years when Britain’s industry expanded faster. When the standard of living grew three times as fast. When prices rose more slowly. When unemployment was low. When tax rates were cut time after time. When pensions rose twice as fast as prices. When the social services at home advanced more rapidly, and Britain played a proper part in helping poorer countries overseas.

    Conservatives are proud of yesterday’s achievements. Angered by today’s failures. Determined that tomorrow shall be better again.

    We remember 1966, when the strengthening balance of payments which was Labour’s true inheritance was smothered by the disastrous irresponsibility of a Party whose one concern was electoral success. Before the election, surplus and smiles. Afterwards, savage tax increases, the wage freeze, and a headlong plunge into deficit, devaluation and debt. It need not and must not be allowed to happen again.

    Labour Has Nothing to Offer

    Labour’s policies for the future are their policies of the past. Nothing to curb the rise in prices. Nothing to cut the human waste of unemployment. Nothing to see that extra social help goes where the need is greatest.

    More taxes. More blanket subsidies. More state ownership. More civil servants. More government interference.

    No new encouragement to earn and save. No new incentive to invest and expand. No new policy to bring about better relations in industry. No new deal for our farmers.

    Just the mixture as before.

    They have little to boast of in their record. Even less to put forward for the future. So they talk, instead, of their ideals.

    But lust what are those ideals?

    What ideal is it that leads a government to policies that double the rate of unemployment?

    What ideal is it that makes it impossible for so many young couples to afford a home of their own, sets out to prevent people buying the council house they live in, and brings about the biggest drop in house-building in a quarter of a century?

    What ideal is it that makes the poor get poorer, and three times votes down pensions for the over-eighties?

    What ideal is it that breaks our country’s word abroad, weakens our defences, leaves our friends in the lurch, and cuts down our overseas aid?

    What ideal is it that has to be propped up by rigging electoral boundaries?

    What ideal is it that leaves a litter of broken promises wherever it goes?

    Labour must answer for itself. But whatever its ideals may be, they have nothing in common with the values which Conservatives proclaim.

    The Conservative Way

    We want to build a better Britain. A Britain we can all be proud of. A Britain in which future generations will be happy to live. A. Britain which other nations will admire.

    We want a country which makes the fullest use of all its human and material resources to build a new prosperity. A country which uses that prosperity wisely and well, helping the elderly and those in need, providing new educational opportunity for our children, investing for the future as well as giving us a fuller life today. A country confident in itself, playing a full part in the world’s affairs, accepting and meeting its responsibilities to others.

    We want a society in which material advance goes hand in hand with the deeper values which go to make up the quality of life. A society which cares for its cities, towns and villages, its rivers, its coast, its countryside.

    We want people to achieve the security and independence of personal ownership greater freedom of opportunity, greater freedom of choice, greater freedom from government regulation and interference. A responsible democracy based on honest government and respect for the law.

    Despite all the failures and frustrations of recent years, Britain is still the best country n the world in which to live. But at best we have been marking time, at worst slipping back. It could and should be so much better.

    Programme for a Parliament

    In this Manifesto we present our policies to end the retreat and begin instead a new advance.

    Our policies are not, like Labour’s, a collection of short lived devices. They make up a strategy for the next five years – a programme for a Parliament.

    Nor are they a set of promises made only to be broken. The last Conservative Government kept all its promises. So will the next.

    We start with the economy because this remains the key. The true problem in social policy is not that we spend too much but that with Labour stagnation we can afford too little.

    Britain now faces the worst inflation for twenty years. This is mainly the result of tax increases and devaluation. In implementing all our policies, the need to curb inflation will come first. For only then can our broader strategy succeed.

    Our theme is to replace Labour’s restrictions with Conservative incentive. We utterly reject the philosophy of compulsory wage control. We want instead to get production up and encourage everyone to give of their best.

    • We want an economy based on more jobs, higher wages that are well-earned, and lower costs.
    • We will reduce and reform taxation, giving first priority to reducing income tax so that people will keep a fairer reward for their work.
    • We will create the basis for these reductions by giving new incentive to saving and by cutting out unnecessary state spending.
    • We will strengthen responsible trade unions and good management by establishing fair, up-to-date rules for industrial relations.
    • We will greatly increase opportunities for men and women to train for new and better jobs.
    • We will stop further nationalisation, and create a climate for free enterprise to expand.
    • We will introduce effective regional development policies to bring prosperity to every part of our country.
    • We will give agriculture a real opportunity to increase production.

    These are policies to enable people and government to work together to create new national wealth. Only on the secure basis of this foundation can we help everyone to build a better tomorrow for themselves and their families.

    Our education policy will give greater priority to the primary schools, where an inadequate start can so easily destroy the chance that every child must have to develop its talents to the full.

    We will reverse the decline in building, make home ownership easier again, and concentrate Government subsidies where they are most needed.

    We will give priority to those most in need – the over-80s without pensions, the elderly, the disabled, the chronic sick, the children in families below the poverty line.

    Our policies will reduce the causes of racial tension, and we will ensure that there will be no further large scale permanent immigration.

    We will protect Britain’s interests overseas, and play our part in promoting peace and progress in the world.

    These policies will strengthen Britain so that we can negotiate with the European Community confident in the knowledge that we can stand on our own if the price is too high.

    A New Opportunity

    The aim of these policies is to create the new opportunity for a better tomorrow.

    • A better tomorrow with living standards rising again at a reasonable rate so that every family can enjoy a fuller life.
    • A better tomorrow for all: for the families that are homeless today, for the unemployed; for the children still in poverty, and for the old and the lonely.
    • A better tomorrow with greater freedom: freedom to earn and to save, freedom from government interference, freedom of choice, freedom from fear of crime and violence.
    • A better tomorrow in a better Britain: with the beauty of our countryside preserved and improved, with our towns and cities made more pleasant to live in. A better tomorrow with a deeper appreciation of the quality and goodness of life.

    Our nation has so much to be proud of and so much to offer. All we need now is a new opportunity that will allow the people of Britain to create for themselves a better tomorrow.

    OUR PROGRAMME

    These are our plans for making tomorrow better than today.

    Lower Taxes

    We will reduce taxation. We will simplify the tax system.

    We will concentrate on making progressive and substantial reductions in income tax and surtax.

    These reductions will be possible because we will cut out unnecessary Government spending and because we will encourage savings. And as our national income rises we will get a larger revenue with lower tax rates.

    We will abolish the Selective Employment Tax, as part of a wider reform of indirect taxation possibly involving the replacement of purchase tax by a value-added tax.

    The value-added tax, already widely adopted in Western Europe and Scandinavia, is in effect a general sales tax, operated in a way which allows for desirable exemptions – for example, exports. It could help to make our system of taxes on spending more broadly based, less discriminatory, and fairer in its impact on different types of industry and service.

    It would not apply to food, except for those few items already subject to purchase tax. It would not apply to normal farming activities, nor to very small businesses; and special arrangements would be made for housing. No Opposition could commit itself finally in advance of an election to a major new tax of this kind which would need detailed consultation with the civil service.

    Labour’s betterment levy has increased bureaucracy and put up the price of land and houses. We will do away with it and collect any tax due on a sale of land through the capital gains tax, with exemption for owner-occupiers.

    We will end the tax nonsense which makes some married couples pay more tax on their joint earnings than they would if they were not married. We will repeal the Labour changes which have imposed new penalties on children’s income and disallowed the interest on many loans as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

    We will encourage the flow of private funds to charities including voluntary social service, sport and the arts.

    Labour has put tax rates up by over £3,000 million. We are determined to reverse this process. High taxation discourages effort and saving, deadens the spirit of enterprise and causes many of our best brains to leave the country.

    In the thirteen years of Conservative prosperity we cut tax rates by £2,000 million – as well as doubling expenditure on the social services. We have done it before: we can do it again.

    More Savings

    When savings go up, taxes can come down. If savings had increased as fast during the last six years under Labour as they did in the previous six years with the Conservatives, taxation could now be £2,000 million lower – the equivalent of the whole of the selective employment tax and more than two shillings off income tax.

    We will encourage all forms of saving, and saving at every level of earnings. Every family should be able to accumulate savings to give security and independence, to provide for their old age and their children’s future.

    Our tax policies will stimulate savings. We will introduce a more imaginative contractual savings scheme designed particularly to attract new savings. Our plans for more home ownership and an extension of private and occupational pension schemes must mean higher personal savings. We have already done much and will do more to develop a ‘property-owning democracy’: now we must also progress towards the capital-owning democracy of the future, for individuals and families who save and accumulate wealth serve the nation as truly as they serve themselves.

    Controlling Government Spending

    Under Labour, there has been too much government interference in the day-to-day workings of industry and local government. There has been too much government: there will be less.

    We will reduce the number of Ministers. We will reduce the number of civil servants: under Labour their numbers have grown by over 60,000. The Land Commission will be abolished. The functions and responsibilities of all departments and government agencies will be systematically rationalised. There will be cost-reduction plans for every single Ministry in Whitehall, and the widespread application throughout government of the most modern management, budgeting and cost-effectiveness techniques. Some present government activities could be better organised using competent managers recruited from industry and commerce. Plans to achieve this new style of government are well advanced. It will be more efficient and less costly.

    Detailed policies set out in this document will also lead to reductions in the weight of government spending.

    Steadier Prices

    The cost of living has rocketed during the last six years. Prices are now rising more than twice as fast as they did during the Conservative years. And prices have been zooming upwards at the very same time as the Government have been taking an ever-increasing slice of people’s earnings in taxation. Soaring prices and increasing taxes are an evil and disastrous combination.

    Inflation is not only damaging to the economy; it is a major cause of social injustice, always hitting hardest at the weakest and poorest members of the community.

    The main causes of rising prices are Labour’s damaging policies of high taxation and devaluation. Labour’s compulsory wage control was a failure and we will not repeat it.

    The Labour Government’s own figures show that, last year, taxation and price increases more than cancelled any increase in incomes. So wages started chasing prices up in a desperate and understandable attempt to improve living standards.

    Other countries achieve a low-cost high-wage economy. So can we. Our policies of strengthening competition will help to keep down prices in the shops. Our policies for cutting taxes, for better industrial relations, for greater retraining, for improved efficiency in Government and industry – all these will help to stimulate output. This faster growth will mean that we can combine higher wages with steadier prices to bring a real increase in living standards.

    Under the last Conservative Government, wages rose twice as fast as prices, living standards rose three times as fast as they have under Labour, and Britain achieved one of the best records in Europe for steady prices.

    The Labour Government’s policies have unleashed forces which no Government could hope to reverse overnight. The first essential is for the new Government to give a new lead. We will subject all proposed price rises in the public sector to the most searching scrutiny. If they are not justified, they will not be allowed. In implementing our policies, we will give overriding priority to bringing the present inflation under control.

    Fair Deal at Work

    There were more strikes in 1969 than ever before in our history. Already in the first three months of 1970 there were 1,134 strikes compared with 718 in the same period last year, when the Labour Government said the position was so serious that legislation was essential in the national interest. This rapid and serious deterioration directly stems from Labour’s failure to carry through its own policy for the reform of industrial relations.

    We will introduce a comprehensive Industrial Relations Bill in the first Session of the new Parliament. It will provide a proper framework of law within which improved relation ships between management, men and unions can develop. We welcome the TUC’s willingness to take action through its own machinery against those who disrupt industrial peace by unconstitutional or unofficial action. Yet it is no substitute for the new set of fair and reasonable rules we will introduce.

    We aim to strengthen the unions and their official leadership by providing some deter rent against irresponsible action by unofficial minorities. We seek to create conditions in which strikes become the means of last resort, not of first resort, as they now so often are.

    Our new Act will establish clear rights and obligations for unions and employers. It will lay down what is lawful and what isn’t lawful in the conduct of industrial disputes. It will also introduce new safeguards for the individual – the right of appeal against unjust dismissal by an employer or unjust action by a union.

    The framework of law we will establish will provide for agreements to be binding on both unions and employers. A new Registrar of Trades Unions and Employers’ Associations will ensure that their rules are fair, just, democratic, and not in conflict with the public interest. In the case of a dispute which would seriously endanger the national interest, our Act will provide for the holding of a secret ballot and for a ‘cooling-off period’ of not less than sixty days.

    Associated with our new Act will be a Code of Practice laying down guidelines for good collective agreements and standards for good management and trade union practices in the individual company.

    Training for Better Jobs

    We want to help people seeking new and better jobs. This involves provision for redundancy, opportunities for retraining, the maintenance of living standards during retraining, and assistance – particularly with housing – for those who have to move. Existing arrangements are inadequate: they will be improved. We will stimulate a massive retraining programme for men and women in industry. We will closely examine the work of the Industrial Training Boards and the operation of the levy/grant system, so as to root out unnecessary bureaucracy and ensure the full support of industry and the closest co-operation with further and higher education.

    We will also encourage wider and better provision for management training. Modern industry imposes new and heavy burdens on all levels of management. Good management is essential not only for efficiency and the proper use of capital resources, but also for the creation of good industrial relations.

    Industrial Progress

    Competitive free enterprise ensures choice for the consumer. Profitable free enterprise provides the resources for both capital investment and higher wages. We will pursue a vigorous competition policy. We will check any abuse of dominant market power or monopoly, strengthening and reforming the machinery which exists.

    We reject the detailed intervention of Socialism which usurps the functions of management and seeks to dictate prices and earnings in industry. We much prefer a system of general pressures, creating an economic climate which favours, and rewards, enterprise and efficiency. Our aim is to identify and remove obstacles that prevent effective competition and restrict initiative.

    We will sharpen the disclosure requirements in the accounts of public companies subject to an exemption procedure and reduce them for most private companies, and will institute an inquiry into other aspects of company law. As prosperity increases we will progressively reduce restrictions on overseas investment.

    Small businesses have had a raw deal from Labour. They have had to suffer higher and more complicated taxes, and waste more time filling up forms. Our policies for reducing taxation and reducing government interference in industry will reduce the heavy burdens on the small firm. We will decide the best method of providing advice and encouragement for small businesses in the light of the Bolton Report.

    We are totally opposed to further nationalisation of British industry. We will repeal the so-called Industrial Expansion Act which gives the Government power to use taxpayers money to buy its way into private industry. Specific projects approved by Parliament will continue to be given Government support. We will drastically modify the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act.

    The quality and cost of transport services affect the fares and prices everyone pays. We will continue an expanding road programme, improving in particular roads in Scotland, Wales, the South West, and the development areas. 85 per cent of the freight throughout the country is carried by road. Cheap and efficient service must be combined with high standards of public safety. We will repeal the Labour Government’s law which would prevent lorries driving more than 100 miles without a specially obtained licence.

    We will progressively reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries, for example in the steel industry, so as to improve their competitiveness. An increasing use of private capital will help to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, get better investment decisions, and ensure more effective use of total resources.

    The railways have a vital part to play in the modernisation of the transport system. They need to provide new passenger facilities, interchanges with the car and bus, and freight depots outside the urban areas. Shipping lines, hotels, parking facilities, catering services, vacant land, can all be developed more effectively in partnership with private enterprise. This will give better service to the public.

    We will prevent the waste of £76 million on the nationalisation of the ports. We will end the uncertainty hanging over both large and small ports by giving them the freedom to build, in competition with each other but coordinated through a strong central authority.

    The bureaucratic burden imposed upon industry by government departments, agencies and boards has steadily increased in recent years. We will see that it is reduced.

    We will encourage investment through tax allowances or reductions rather than by means of grant – with differential arrangements in favour of the development areas. And the more flexible system of grants under the Local Employment Acts will be retained as an important part of our regional policy. These changes will be subject to transitional arrangements and will not in any way be retrospective. Special assistance for particular industries like shipping will be continued.

    Prosperity For All Areas

    We regard an effective regional development policy as a vital element in our economic and social strategy; economically, because both prosperous and less prosperous areas are affected by the present regional imbalance and waste of resources it involves; socially, because we are not prepared to tolerate the human waste and suffering that accompany persistent unemployment, dereliction and decline.

    We will stimulate long-term growth by increasing the basic economic attraction of the areas concerned. This is a markedly different approach from that followed by Labour, who have five separate and often uncoordinated government departments spending very large sums of money with little regard to the practical effect. Despite the Government’s lavish spending of the taxpayer’s money during the last six years, in Scotland, Wales, and most regions of England there are hundreds of thousands fewer jobs. Since 1966, the country has experienced the longest period of high unemployment since the 1930s.

    We will link expenditure more closely to the creation of new jobs, especially in industries with growth potential, and to improvements in the economic facilities of the development areas. We will maintain regional assistance to each development area. We will initiate a thorough-going study of development area policy as was recommended by the Hunt Committee. We will phase out the Regional Employment Premium, taking proper account of existing obligations and commitments. We will maintain financial incentives for investment in the development areas, making greater use of the powers given by the Local Employments Acts, and these powers will also be used where appropriate in the intermediate areas. We will give fairer treatment to the service industries and to commerce. We will give special attention to the needs of the development areas in our plans for a massive increase in retraining facilities.

    Some resources could with advantage be switched from the present general subsidies towards the better training schemes and the infra-structure needed to make both development and intermediate areas more attractive to live in – and to invest in. More skilled workers, good housing, better schools, and first-class communications provide a surer long-term answer to the problems of regional development than indiscriminate financial hand-outs.

    We will continue to provide financial assistance to the Northern Ireland Government so that all parts of Northern Ireland may enjoy the full benefits of United Kingdom prosperity.

    Food and Farming

    Farmers are frustrated and disgruntled. Labour has failed to allow British agriculture to expand and prosper. We will provide new opportunities for the farming community to increase production, improve their incomes, and make a further massive contribution through import-saving to the balance of payments.

    We will retain the Annual Price Review system, the production grant system, and the marketing boards, but will introduce levies on imports in order to enable us to eliminate the need for deficiency payments in their present form. These levies, variable at very short notice, will deal effectively and immediately with dumping from overseas and will thus do away with the old cumbersome and slow procedures. The changeover will be spread over at least three years. The present support system will be maintained in full throughout this transitional period, although its cost will decline. Thereafter it will continue in the form of a ‘fall-back’ guarantee. Before the new system is introduced, there will be full discussions with our inter national suppliers and with the farmers’ unions.

    This fundamental change will provide much-needed scope for agricultural expansion. The resultant small increase in food prices will amount to just over a penny in the £ per year on the cost of living for three years – a small increase in comparison with the five shillings in the £ rise of the last six years. The Exchequer will benefit by some £250 million, which can be used for tax reductions and for selective improvements in social security payments.

    We will free from rates all buildings which a farmer uses for producing food from his land.

    We will continue to encourage the development of British horticulture through the Horticultural Improvement Scheme. We will also maintain, and where appropriate expand, statutory provision through the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, to encourage better and more uniform marketing of horticultural produce.

    A thriving and expanding forestry industry can reduce dependence upon costly imported timber and can, particularly in Scotland, make good use of difficult land and provide a comparatively high level of employment.

    We will promote the prosperity of the fishing industry, and will ensure that the home fishing industry is enabled to compete effectively in British markets without unfair competition from dumped imports.

    Homes for All

    New drive and impetus is urgently needed to reverse the biggest decline in the housing programme for a quarter of a century. Labour has failed to honour its pledge to build 500,000 houses a year by 1970. It is scandalous that this year, as last year, fewer houses will be completed than in 1964 when Labour took over. And far fewer are under construction. One million people to whom Labour promised a new home by 1970 are still waiting.

    Our vigorous new housing drive for the 1970s will have three main objectives:

    • To house the homeless, to concentrate on slum clearance and to provide better housing for those many families living without modern amenities.
    • To bring about a great increase in home ownership so that the majority of our nation fulfil their wish to live in a home of their own.
    • To see that the tenant, whether of a private property or of a council house, receives a fair deal.

    Under the present subsidy system, too little help goes to the homeless and the badly housed; too little help also goes to provide housing for the elderly and the disabled. We will re-negotiate the housing subsidy system so that the full weight of Government assistance goes behind tackling the worst areas of our housing problems.

    The problem of the homeless is concealed by unrealistic official statistics. We will lay down a more sensible definition, and then make sure that families without a home or living in intolerable conditions receive priority.

    We seek a big increase in the programme of modernisation of our older houses, in co-operation with movements such as Shelter.

    We will, in consultation with the voluntary housing movement, give a new momentum to housing associations, co-ownership and cost-rent groups. This movement, if encouraged and assisted in its organisation and financing, can do much to cope with and to care for the problems of the elderly and the homeless.

    Too often those confronted with housing problems have nowhere to turn for advice. Housing advisory centres will be set up in co-operation with voluntary housing organisations and the local authorities. People will then have an easy means of discovering how they can apply for a council house or an improvement grant, how they can obtain a mortgage, how the ‘fair rent’ system works, or where to contact a housing association or a cost-rent society.

    The number of new houses built for owner-occupation has declined month by month. The increase in the cost of new houses and the highest mortgage interest rates in our history have prevented thousands of young people from becoming owners of their own homes. Labour promised cheaper houses and lower mortgage interest rates. But today the mortgage repayments on the average-priced new house are £3 per week more than when Labour came to power.

    Our policies to abolish the Selective Employment Tax and to abolish the Land Commission, and to get more land released for building, will help to keep down house prices.

    We will make both the 100 per cent mortgage scheme and the mortgage option scheme more flexible.

    The improvements we will make to the Save As You Earn scheme will encourage a larger flow of funds into building societies.

    We will encourage local authorities to sell council houses to those of their tenants who wish to buy them. Thus many council house tenants of today will become the owners of their own homes tomorrow. As a result, more money will be immediately available for the local authorities to provide housing for the aged, for the disabled, and for those on the housing lists.

    Our policies for encouraging home ownership will also mean that more council house tenants can move into homes of their own, thus releasing their council houses for those in need.

    The present system of government council house subsidies is wasteful and inefficient; all too often those receiving subsidies are better off than those who pay for them through rates and taxes. We will change the system so that subsidies are used for adequate rent rebates for those tenants who cannot afford to pay fair rents, and also for slum clearance and other essential programmes.

    We will maintain the security of tenure provisions of the 1965 Housing Act, and the fair rent system. We will continue the process – started under Labour’s Housing Act of 1969 – of their gradual extension to the remaining controlled tenancies.

    We will review and improve the machinery of compensation to see that it is fair and just to those whose property is compulsorily purchased or adversely affected or blighted by road and redevelopment schemes.

    Social Service Advance

    The fundamental problem of all Britain’s social services – education, health, provision for the old and those in need – is the shortage of resources.

    Of course money isn’t everything. Much will always depend on the devoted work and care of teachers, doctors, nurses, welfare workers of all kinds, both professional and voluntary. But too often today their most dedicated efforts are frustrated and undermined by inadequate facilities and never-ending worry about finance.

    With Labour’s economic stagnation it is little wonder that in many cases these problems are getting steadily worse. The slow-down in economic growth which Labour Government has brought has already cost our country some £12,000 million in lost production. Even one-tenth of the revenue lost by the Government as a result of this stagnation would have paid for 100 hospitals and 1,000 schools.

    In our last five years of Government, spending on the social services increased at a much faster rate in real terms than in the five years of Labour Government. Taking account of rising prices, Selective Employment Tax, the family allowance clawback, and the increased cost of unemployment benefit, our spending increased 36 per cent compared with only 25 per cent under Labour.

    Our aim is to develop and improve Britain’s social services to the full: here too, tomorrow must be better than today.

    Immediately we can help by establishing more sensible priorities. But the only true solution is to increase what we can afford. The theme and purpose of our policies for the economy is to enable government and people to work together to create new national wealth. Only then will there be a firm foundation for new social advance.

    Better Education

    In education above all the problem of resources is crucial. The number of children in the schools is rising. More and more are qualifying to go on to colleges, polytechnics and universities. That they should be able to develop their abilities to the full is not only right in itself but a vital national investment in the future.

    Within the education budget itself, we shall shift the emphasis in favour of primary schools – the foundation on which all later education and training is built.

    We also recognise the need for expansion of nursery education. This is especially important in areas of social handicap, such as the poorer parts of our large cities, where it is so vital to give children a better start.

    In secondary education, a number of different patterns have developed over the years, including many types of comprehensive school. We will maintain the existing rights of local education authorities to decide what is best for their area.

    They will take into account the general acceptance that in most cases the age of eleven is too early to make final decisions which might affect a child’s whole future. Many of the most imaginative new schemes abolishing the eleven-plus have been introduced by Conservative councils.

    Local councils must ensure that the education they provide is the best for the children, taking into account the suitability of the buildings, the supply of staff, the travelling distances involved, the advice of teachers, and the wishes of parents and local electors. And they must be certain that they provide properly for the late developer. And they will naturally be slow to make irrevocable changes to any good school unless they are sure that the alternative is better.

    We believe that the proper role of the central government is to satisfy itself that every local education authority provides education which will enable a child’s talents and abilities to be developed to the full, at whatever age these may appear. All children must have the opportunity of getting to ‘O’ level and beyond if they are capable of doing so.

    We therefore believe that Labour’s attempt to insist on compulsory reorganisation on rigid lines is contrary to local democracy and contrary to the best interests of the children.

    We will raise the school leaving age to sixteen as planned. Opportunities should be given to some children, under the authority of their head teacher, to take advantage in their final year of the facilities available in colleges of further education.

    We will encourage the direct grant schools. Many of these schools have an excellent record and provide opportunities which may not otherwise be available for children of academic ability, regardless of their parents’ income.

    Parents must have the freedom to send their children to independent schools if they wish.

    The demand for higher and further education in universities, polytechnics and other colleges will increase during the 1970s. We will expand the number of places available.

    Concern about teacher training is widespread. We will institute an inquiry into teacher training, as the Plowden Committee recommended. We wish the teaching profession to have a career structure which will attract recruits of high quality into the profession, and retain them.

    Care for Those in Need

    Between 1951 and 1964, Conservative Governments increased pensions five times, and the real value of the basic State pension rose by 50 per cent. We will review retirement pensions every two years to ensure that they at least maintain their purchasing power and that pensioners’ living standards are properly protected.

    The next Conservative Government will take urgent action to give some pension as of right to the over-eighties who now get no retirement pension at all. We will improve the benefits payable to those who are seriously ill or disabled, and introduce a constant attendance allowance for the most seriously disabled. We will improve the present situation where a woman who is just over fifty when she is widowed gets a pension but a widow just under fifty gets nothing.

    We will continue to ease the earnings rule for retirement pensions and we will also increase the additions to the pension which can be earned by postponing retirement beyond the minimum age.

    We believe that everyone should have the opportunity of earning a pension related to their earnings. But, in contrast to the Labour Party, our view is that, for the great majority of people, this can and should be achieved through the expansion and improvement of occupational schemes. And we will ensure that everyone can take their pension rights with them when they change their job.

    There are some people who may not be covered by an occupational scheme, and for them there will be a reserve earnings-related State scheme over and above the basic flat-rate scheme. But this is intended as a reserve scheme, and all approved occupational schemes will be enabled to contract out of it completely under simple conditions.

    Labour’s complicated pension scheme would be unfair to existing pensioners and would harm the pension prospects of the twelve-and-a-half million members of occupational schemes. It would severely damage the growth of savings and mean ever-increasing taxation.

    Our proposals will be fair to those who are now old, and also fair to those now working. Under Labour’s scheme their pension prospects would depend upon the willingness of future generations to pay an ever-increasing pensions bill through mounting taxation. Under our proposal, a growing part of the future cost of pensions will be met through genuine savings.

    Retirement pensions, sickness, unemployment, widowhood and industrial injuries benefits will continue to be paid as of right, and without means tests, in return for National Insurance contributions. These contributions will be graduated according to earnings, and the present flat-rate contributions – which have become a heavy burden on the lower paid during recent years – will be abolished.

    We will lower the age at which public service and armed forces pension increases become payable to fifty-five, and the pensions of those who retired before 1956 will be brought up to the same level as if they had retired then with appropriate increases since. The purchasing power of public service pensions will also be protected by a two-yearly review. Special treatment will be given to war pensioners and their widows.

    We will take firm action to deal with abuse of the social security system. We will tighten up the administration so as to prevent the whole system being brought into disrepute by the shirkers and the scroungers.

    We will tackle the problem of family poverty and ensure that adequate family allowances go to those families that need them. A scheme based upon negative income tax would allow benefits to be related to family need; other families would benefit by reduced taxation. The Government has exaggerated the administrative problems involved, and we will make a real effort to find a practical solution. If this can be done, it will increase incentive for those at work, and bring much-needed help to children living in poverty.

    We welcome the recently announced improved rates of supplementary benefit.

    More emphasis is required on the provision of care for the elderly, the chronic sick and handicapped people, and particularly on the expansion of those services which provide help in the home. We welcomed the Seebohm Report’s recommendations on local authority social services and supported the legislation which followed. We will, in consultation with the local authorities, improve local social services so that help is more readily available to those in need.

    We recognise the important contribution to social welfare that volunteers and voluntary organisations are already making, and we believe there is scope for considerable expansion and development. We are convinced that many of the social problems that now scar society can only be solved through a genuine partnership of effort between statutory and voluntary organisations – between the professional and the volunteer.

    We will give active support, both financially and legislatively, so that new opportunities may be created in co-operation with the local authorities for all those – and in particular the young people and the retired people – who want to do voluntary social work.

    As a result of the slow rate of economic growth under Labour, the resources going into the Health Service are inadequate. There are too many outdated hospitals, too many old people not getting the care they need in their own homes, too many mentally ill people either in overcrowded hospital wards or getting insufficient care through local community services. And too many of those working in the health service lack a decent career structure.

    We will improve the administration of the health service so that its three main branches – hospitals, general practitioners, and local health services – are better co-ordinated. This will mean better value for money and better care for the patient. We will also improve the ways of dealing with suggestions and complaints from both patients and staff.

    In forward planning for health, we will put more emphasis on community services. This will enable more people to be looked after at home where they are happier, rather than n hospitals and residential institutions. We will increase the number of health centres and encourage more group practice to improve the working conditions for doctors.

    Labour see ‘danger’ in the growth of private provision in health and welfare. We believe it right and proper that people should be free to provide for themselves and their families if they wish.

    Race Relations and Immigration

    Good race relations are of immense importance. We are determined that all citizens shall continue to be treated as equal before the law, and without discrimination. Our policies for education, health and housing will help to reduce the causes of racial tension. The sooner prosperity returns, the sooner additional resources will be available to tackle the problems of poverty, decay and squalor in our towns and cities. Local authority services are under great strain in many of the towns and cities where large numbers of immigrants have settled. We believe that additional funds should be made available to these local authorities in order that they can deal with these problems effectively without placing heavy burdens on their ratepayers.

    We will establish a new single system of control over all immigration from overseas. The Home Secretary of the day will have complete control, subject to the machinery for appeal, over the entry of individuals into Britain. We believe it right to allow an existing Commonwealth immigrant who is already here to bring his wife and young children to join him in this country. But for the future, work permits will not carry the right of permanent settlement for the holder or his dependants. Such permits as are issued will be limited to a specific job in a specific area for a fixed period, normally twelve months. There will of course be no restrictions on travel.

    These policies mean that future immigration will be allowed only in strictly defined special cases. There will be no further large scale permanent immigration.

    We will give assistance to Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin, but we will not tolerate any attempt to harass or compel them to go against their will.

    Government and the Citizen

    The Government in Whitehall is overloaded, and as a result people in the regions grow increasingly impatient about the decisions being made in London which they know could be better made locally. Under our new style of government, we will devolve government power so that more decisions are made locally.

    Scotland, with its distinct identity, traditions and legal system, is particularly conscious of these problems.

    The Report of the Committee set up under Sir Alec Douglas-Home offers a new chance for the Scottish people to have a greater say in their own affairs. Its contents, including the proposal for a Scottish Convention sitting in Edinburgh, will form a basis for the proposals we will place before Parliament, taking account of the impending re-organisation of local government.

    We are publishing separate manifestos for Scotland and Wales.

    We reaffirm that no change will be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the free consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

    We support the Northern Ireland Government in its programme of legislative and executive action to ensure equal opportunity for all citizens in that part of the United Kingdom. We will provide the military and other aid necessary to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in keeping the peace and ensuring freedom under the law; with the Ulster Defence Regiment as a strong and efficient reserve force capable of playing a significant role in maintaining peace and security.

    The independence of local authorities has been seriously eroded by Labour Ministers. On many issues, particularly in education and housing, they have deliberately overridden the views of elected councillors. We think it wrong that the balance of power between central and local government should have been distorted, and we will redress the balance and increase the independence of local authorities.

    We are convinced of the need for reform of the present structure of local government. Unfortunately, the Terms of Reference given to the Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley Royal Commissions which examined this problem in England and in Scotland respectively were restricted. As a result, the crucial questions of devolution of power from the central government and of local government finance were not adequately dealt with in their Reports. We believe that these matters must be considered and that those concerned in local government must be fully consulted before final decisions are made.

    We will bring forward a sensible measure of local government reform which will involve a genuine devolution of power from the central government and will provide for the existence of a two-tier structure. There will be full consultation about the pattern of boundaries and the effect of changes upon existing resources of local government.

    We will ensure that the legitimate interests of existing local government staff are fully safeguarded in any changes made in the structure of local government. Similarly, reductions in the number of civil servants can be achieved by restricting recruitment and allowing the normal processes of retirement and resignation to reduce numbers. Adequate financial compensation will be paid to any civil servant or local government officer made redundant, and the career prospects of those who are transferred will be safeguarded.

    Traditionally, changes in Parliamentary constituency boundaries are made on the recommendation of the impartial Boundaries Commission. The Labour Government has broken this tradition in order to gain an unfair advantage at this election. We will return to the previous honest and fair system.

    Freedom Under the Law

    Protection of the individual citizen is a prime duty of government. Urgent action is needed to check the serious rise in crime and violence. The Labour Government cannot entirely shrug off responsibility for the present situation since they restricted police recruitment at a critical time.

    The best deterrent to crime is the likelihood of being caught. We will strengthen the police force. We will restore the prison building programme, taking special care to provide secure detention for the most dangerous criminals.

    In some respects the law needs modernising and clarifying, and needs to be made less slow and cumbersome, particularly for dealing with offences – forcible entry, obstruction and violent offences concerned with public order – peculiar to the age of demonstration and disruption. A Conservative Government will do this.

    We will also change the law so that the demonstrator who uses violence, or the criminal who causes personal injury or damages property, will be obliged to compensate his victim in addition to fines or other punishments imposed by the Courts.

    A tolerant and civilised society must continue to permit its citizens to assemble, march and demonstrate in support of the ideals and principles they believe in. Our purpose is to protect the citizen against disruption of lawful activities and, to that end, we will immediately institute an inquiry into the law affecting trespass. Such a reform of the law would in no way inhibit the peaceful use of the right to demonstrate or strike.

    We will eliminate unnecessary secrecy concerning the workings of the Government, and we will review the operation of the Official Secrets Act so that government is more open and more accountable to the public.

    The functions and powers of government have expanded so much in recent years that the traditional safeguards for the citizen no longer suffice. Although we will reduce government activity and interference, a better system of control and examination of decisions by civil servants, public bodies and local authorities which affect individual citizens is also needed. Parliament during recent years has often passed government legislation which has infringed individual rights and given wide discretionary powers to Ministers and their civil servants. We will closely examine ways of safeguarding more effectively and equitably the rights and freedom of the individual citizen.

    A Conservative Government introduced equal pay for women in the teaching profession, in local government, and in the non-industrial Civil Service in the 1950s. We have supported and sought to improve the equal pay legislation.

    But this alone does not ensure genuine equality of opportunity. Many barriers still exist which prevent women from participating to the full in the entire life of the country. Women are treated by the law, in some respects, as having inferior rights to men, we will amend the law to remove this discrimination.

    We will clear away the remaining anomalies in family law and make fairer provision for women in the event of separation or bereavement. We will help deserted wives by improving the enforcement of maintenance orders.

    A Better Environment

    Economic growth and technological innovation are the principal means of achieving a continuing improvement in our standard of living. But the effects of technological change can sometimes lead to a deterioration in the natural environment and in the quality of life. The public are rightly concerned about these dangers.

    We will improve the machinery of government for dealing with these problems. We will review existing legislation to ensure proper and sensible control in the future. The damage of the past must be repaired. The worst scars are in and around our industrial cities and towns. We will ensure that the natural beauty of our British countryside and seashore is conserved and wild life is allowed to flourish.

    We intend to launch a major campaign in which government, local authorities and voluntary organisations will combine to produce a healthier, pleasanter Britain. We will vigorously pursue international agreements for the safeguarding and improvement of the environment. We will set clearly defined aims and target-dates for the achievement of cleaner air and rivers, and for the clearance of derelict land.

    The Arts, Broadcasting and Sport

    We will continue to give full financial support and encouragement to the Arts. The Arts Council will be strengthened so that it can take a more active role in stimulating regional co-operation and in establishing effective regional arts associations. Local authorities will be encouraged to play a larger role in patronage of the Arts. We recognise the vital importance of private patronage. We will devote special attention to those areas of artistic life such as museums and music colleges which face particularly acute problems.

    We believe that people are as entitled to an alternative radio service as to an alternative television service. We will permit local private enterprise radio under the general supervision of an independent broadcasting authority. Local institutions, particularly local newspapers, will have the opportunity of a stake in local radio, which we want to see closely associated with the local community.

    We will ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation continues to make its effective and essential public service contribution in both television and sound broadcasting. Equally, we will ensure that the independent television companies are not prevented from providing a responsible service by too high a government levy on their income.

    The Sports Council is fulfilling an important function in carrying out research and advising the Government on capital investment in recreation by local authorities, and on grant-aid to voluntary organisations. We will make the Sports Council an independent body, and make it responsible for the grant-aiding functions at present exercised by the Government.

    A Stronger Britain in The World

    If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.

    But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.

    Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.

    A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making

    this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents and have in mind, as is natural and legitimate, primarily the effect of entry upon the standard of living of the individual citizens whom they represent.

    We will stand by our alliances and strengthen our defences. We will continue to make our contribution to the forces of NATO and will seek to revitalise this organisation which is basic to the defence of Britain.

    In the past, British forces in the Gulf, and in Singapore and Malaysia, have helped to ensure stability beneficial to the countries concerned and without which Britain’s valuable interests would not have flourished. By unilaterally deciding to withdraw our forces from these areas by the end of 1971, the Labour Government have broken their promises to the Governments and peoples of these areas, and are exposing these British interests and the future of Britain’s friends to unacceptable risk.

    We have proposed a five-power defence force to help maintain peace and stability in South-East Asia. We will discuss this with our allies and Commonwealth friends – Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. Similar talks will be held with leaders in the Gulf.

    We are satisfied that all these peacetime defence needs can be fulfilled by our Regular forces without the need for conscription. We deplore the destruction of the Territorial Army, and will provide adequate volunteer reserve forces for the defence and security of these islands.

    We believe that Britain must in the last resort retain independent control of its nuclear weapons to deter an aggressor; as at present, those assigned to NATO can be withdrawn if supreme national interests are at stake.

    We will foster the development of official and unofficial links within the Common wealth, believing that this unique organisation can be a force for peace and understanding. We believe that the independence of each of its members must be respected, and that their internal affairs and individual responsibilities are matters for their individual decision alone, and that jointly they should only consider those matters freely agreed upon as being of common interest.

    We will give the United Nations full, constructive but not uncritical support. We will seek to build on its successes and to remedy its shortcomings. We intend to go on working for sound schemes of disarmament and arms control.

    Labour has failed to solve the Rhodesian problem, to the detriment of all concerned. We will make a further effort to find a sensible and lust solution in accordance with the five principles which we have consistently maintained.

    Britain must play a proper part in dealing with world poverty. We will ensure that Britain helps the developing countries:

    • by working for the expansion of international trade;
    • by encouraging private investment overseas;
    • by providing capital aid and technical assistance to supplement their own efforts.

    We have accepted the UNCTAD target for aid to developing countries, and will increase the British programme as national prosperity returns. We will re-examine the objectives and performance of the programme so that the maximum mutual advantage is gained.

    The Choice

    The choice before the electors today is not just between policies and programmes. It is about the way of life our country shall follow in the next five years, and far beyond that.

    In purely practical terms, it is a choice between another five years of the kind of incompetent, doctrinaire Government we have had for nearly six years and a new and better style of Government.

    Faced with any problem, the instinctive Socialist reaction is to control, to restrict, and to tax. We aim to reduce the burden of taxation, and to extend individual choice, freedom and responsibility.

    Socialists believe in the extension of the power of the State: government today is trying to do too much, managing too much, bringing too much to the centre for decision. We plan to clear away from Whitehall a great load of tasks which has accumulated under Socialism; to hand back responsibilities wherever we can to the individual, to the family, to private initiative, to the local authority, to the people.

    It is also a choice between a Government which by its conduct has done much to discredit the value of the politician’s word, and an alternative Government which is deter mined to restore honesty and integrity to political life.

    Under a Conservative Government, the gap between the politician’s promise and government performance will be closed, so that people and government can be brought together again in one nation united in a common purpose – a better tomorrow.

  • General Election Manifestos : February 1974 Liberal Party

    General Election Manifestos : February 1974 Liberal Party

    The February 1974 Liberal Party manifesto.

    ‘Change the face of Britain’

    THE CRISIS OF GOVERNMENT

    This country has seen two parties, Labour and Conservative, alternating in office during the last fifty years. For the last five years, both parties have had to deal with very similar problems; both have offered similar solutions; both, in Opposition have opposed the policies of their opponents and then adopted them on becoming the Government. In 1967 Labour in office introduced a compulsory policy of prices and incomes control which the Conservatives, in opposition, opposed vehemently. At the same time the Labour Party re-opened negotiations for Britain’s entry into the Common Market and these negotiations concluded with the offer of terms of entry which were accepted by Labour in 1969. In 1969, the Labour Government also introduced its White Paper ‘In Place of Strife’ which advocated legislation to control Industrial Relations. The Conservative opposition opposed this measure. When the Conservatives returned to office in 1970 they immediately introduced the Industrial Relations Act which was bitterly opposed by Labour, despite the fact that many of the provisions for union registration and protection of employment had been in their own proposals. When the Conservative Government in early 1971 elected to join the Common Market on terms which Mr. Roy Jenkins asserted were similar to those negotiated by the Labour Government, Labour opposed entry. Finally, having persistently opposed compulsory prices and incomes control, the Conservative Government did one more U-turn and introduced its own pay and price freeze in 1972 to be followed by Phase II and Phase III. Once more the Labour opposition stood on its head and opposed what had formerly been its own policy.

    A Crisis of Confidence

    Britain cannot be governed effectively when parties continuously change their policies and principles to make cheap political gains and without regard for their own principles or for public opinion. The crisis of inconsistent government has led to a crisis of public confidence in the two parties which have ruled this country for the last fifty years. Liberals refuse to accept that the present crisis is induced by any one political party, Tory or Labour. It is caused by the type of policies and politics which both parties espouse; policies which employ short term, instant cures, but which leave behind more problems than they solve; politics which are partisan, dividing and polarising the nation into confrontation between classes whether they be rich or poor, manager or worker, house owner or tenant. This country cannot be ruled from the extremes of right and left which set the people against each other – it must be run by a government whose neutrality is unquestioned, whose policies are fair-minded, and whose politics is not governed by vested interests.

    A New Type of Politics

    Politics has become sterile; the old two-party system has finally proved its inadequacy. Old political theories of unbridled free enterprise and undiluted socialism have been shown to be irrelevant. Even leading members of the Conservative and Labour Parties admit that their own administrations have failed to deal with our fundamental problems and yet they hang on limply to political power. Politics has gone away from the people and this, in a democracy, is the most dangerous development of recent years.

    The Liberal Party’s concern for the individual person expressed in our ‘Community Politics’ campaigns has been criticised by the old-fashioned politicians as the politics of the paving stone. Yet they forget that politics is fundamentally about people, and their problems – however trivial they may seem – should dominate the minds of all politicians. Liberals believe in the supremacy of the

    individual and that political institutions should serve, not enslave, the people. Fundamentally Community Politics is an attempt to involve people in the decisions that affect their daily lives at the time when the individual viewpoint can really be expressed effectively – not six months after the decision has been reached, through a futile protest or enquiry. Our policies to decentralise government; to democratise the vast bureaucracies which run our Education system, our Industrial Relations and our Health and Welfare services, are all designed to further the goal of ‘people participation’.

    A New Party

    But a party which seeks to transform the politics and administration of Britain must itself be organised in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls of compromise partisanship and inconsistency which have befallen parties in the past. The Liberal Party is a party of no vested interest – financial or individual. Opinion Polls have consistently shown that we draw our support almost equally from all sections of the population, whichever way it is divided up, and that between 40 and 50 per cent of the people at any given time would vote for the Liberal Party if they thought that a Liberal Government would be elected. Our five by-election victories have indicated that many people feel that the time has come for a Liberal Government.

    Unlike the other two parties we draw on no permanent source of financial support, while the Conservative Party consistently draws on at least a million pounds per year from the vested interests of big business, and Labour relies on the vested interests of the Trade Unions for over 90 per cent of its election funds. Is it any wonder that the country is polarised by Tory-Labour confrontation?

    The Liberal Party is tied to no sectional interest. That is why we can justly claim that we approach the problems of our country with no doctrinaire prejudices, no class inhibitions and no sectional interests.

    NEW POLICIES – A RADICAL PROGRAMME OF RECONSTRUCTION

    Most of all, the present crisis demands fundamental changes in the policies which we adopt. The old values which have led to inequalities in wealth, property and power must go. Government must be seen to be acting fairly in the interests of all the people instead of the interests of the very few. We must set aside the sterile class conflicts, the debates about capitalism or socialism, and the policies that divide and weaken us as a nation. We must rigidly question any new initiative by asking the question: ‘will it narrow the gulf between the classes; will it reduce conflict?’ No policy will achieve any lasting progress without national acceptance. Until we achieve the ideal of national unity, any other policy aims to achieve economic growth or industrial efficiency, will be unattainable. What is therefore needed is a fearless programme of economic, social and industrial reconstruction and a clearout of the old values which have so dogged the progress of the nation.

    Liberal Policy Aims

    1 Establish the universal right to a minimum income balanced by a fairer distribution of wealth, through a credit income tax system and national minimum earnings guarantees.
    2 Create an equal partnership between employers and employed in recognition of the equal importance of their contributions to the success of industry.
    3 Decentralise government and bring political power to Scotland, Wales and the regions of England so as to ensure that decisions are taken as close to people as possible.
    4 Involve people in exerting influence within their communities through participation; and encourage proper consultation in the exercise of national responsibilities for Health, Education and General Welfare.
    5 Break-up monopolistic concentrations of political and economic power so that individual initiative is not suppressed.
    6 Conserve and protect finite resources for the lasting benefit of the whole community.

    All these aims have one end; to serve the individual and to create the conditions in which he can develop his personality to the full.

    THE LONG TERM CRISIS

    Since the War, politicians, business leaders, trade unionists and journalists have all assumed that a high economic growth rate is desirable and have encouraged expectations that put a premium on the acquisition of more money to spend on material goods. But the pursuit of unlimited growth has been accompanied by soaring prices, high unemployment and high domestic demand which has led to recurring balance of payments crises. The usual remedy adopted by Tory and Labour Governments has been ‘stop go’ – boom followed by freeze and squeeze.

    The Wilson and Heath Governments have even acted similarly – and mistakenly – in either holding out against devaluation of the pound until world pressure forced an uncontrolled devaluation, or holding on to a mistaken belief in the importance of maintaining our balance of payments at the expense of rising unemployment, which finally reached the million mark in early 1972.

    The result of these policies has been the frustration of targets unreached and the deception of unfulfilled promises, as the following examples illustrate:

    Value of the Pound

    Labour 1964-1970

    ‘Devaluation does not mean of course that the £ here in Britain, in your pocket, or purse, or in your bank has been devalued.’

    Harold Wilson TV Broadcast November 19, 1967

    REALITY In six years of Labour Government the £ lost nearly 20 per cent of its value.

    Conservative 1970-1974

    ‘We have become resigned to the value of the £ in our pockets or purses falling by at least a shilling a year.’

    REALITY The £ of June 1970 dropped in value to 75p (or about 15/- in pre-decimal terms) in January 1974 (House of Commons Question/Answer), a drop of well over a shilling a year.

    Unemployment

    Labour 1964-1970

    ‘We see no reason why unemployment should rise at all, apart from seasonal increases.’

    Harold Wilson (Labour Party Press Conference March 29, 1966)

    REALITY In six years of Labour Government Britain experienced the most prolonged period of high unemployment since 1940. For three-quarters of this period the number of unemployed was over half a million!

    Conservative 1970-1974

    ‘If we could get back to Tory policies, the unemployment position would be a great deal better than it is today.’

    Robert Carr, May 6, 1971

    ‘We accept absolutely the responsibility for the level of unemployment.’

    Robert Carr November 23, 1971

    REALITY During 1971 and 1972 unemployed was running at record war levels. Unemployment averaged 758,000 (3.3 per cent of working population) in 1971, and 84,000 (3.7 per cent of working population) in 1972.

    Cost of Living

    Labour 1964-1970

    ‘The continual rise in the cost of living can, must, and will be halted to give the housewife relief and her family a genuine rise in their standard of living.’ George Brown, Swadlingcote September 27,1964

    REALITY In just over live years under the Labour government prices rose by 25 per cent.

    Conservative 1970-1974
    ‘In implementing our policies we will give overriding priority to bringing the present inflation under control.’
    Conservative Manifesto June 1970

    REALITY Retail prices have risen by over 33 per cent since the 1970 election. Food prices by nearly 50 per cent (Dept. of Employment index of retail prices, December, 1973).

    Statutory Wage Control
    Labour 1964-1970
    ‘As to the idea of freezing all wage claims, salary claims . . . I think this would be monstrously unfair . . . I do not think you can ever legislate for wage increases, and no party is setting out to do that.’
    Harold Wilson BBC Election Forum March 10, 1966

    REALITY Four months later measures were taken to freeze wages and prices until the end of 1966, followed by 6 months of ‘severe restraint’.

    Conservative 1970-1974
    ‘Labour’s compulsory wage control was a failure and we will not repeat it.’ Conservative Manifesto June 1970

    REALITY A compulsory price and wage freeze was introduced by the Conservatives in November 1972, followed quickly by Phase II and culminating in the crisis of Phase III.

    Housing

    Labour 1964-1970
    We have embarked on a massive expansion of the housing programme reaching by 1970 no less than 500,000 new dwellings. This is not a lightly given promise, it is a pledge.’
    Harold Wilson (Election Speech) Bradford March 27, 1966

    REALITY It was abandoned in January less than two years later. In 1970 less than 365,000 new houses were built, fewer than the 373,000 built in 1964.

    Conservative 1970-1974
    ‘It is scandalous that this year (1970), as last year, fewer houses will be completed than in 1964 when Labour took over. And far fewer are under construction.’
    Conservative Manifesto June 1970

    REALITY This Government completed only 293,000 in 1973, the lowest number since 1959, and on current trends they will again fail to achieve 300,000 in 1974.

    THE QUALITY OF LIFE

    In addition, the damage to the fabric of society and the environment as a result of the pursuit of unlimited growth has been enormous. To the extent that growth has been achieved, it has not increased human happiness. Instead there has been evidence of increased social disintegration to which the growth in crime, mental illness, drug taking and divorce all testify. Furthermore, the destruction of whole communities in the interest of ‘redevelopment’, the scarring of the landscape by motorways and the shattering noise of jets over rooftops near major airports are a few of the more obvious symptoms of incompatibility between unlimited material growth and the good life.

    The Liberal Strategy

    Whether or not continued expansion is desirable, we now have to ask if it is indefinitely feasible. The Liberal Party believes that we now have to begin planning for an age of stability. The resources of this planet are limited and we shall not be able to go on increasing consumption of energy, raw materials and foodstuffs at current rates. The steep rises in world commodity prices and the restrictions imposed by the producer nations on oil supplies, are strong indications of a turning point in history, the significance of which has yet to be grasped by most politicians.

    We must therefore act on two fronts to cut back on demand for our limited resources, firstly by effectively controlling domestic inflation which is causing intense pressure on our balance of payments and adding to the chaos of our industrial relations as well as preventing the development of long-term economic and social policies.

    But secondly, we must now abandon the policy adopted by past Governments, based, almost entirely, on the crude maximisation of Gross National Product. GNP is not a measure of real benefit, including, as it does, outputs that are good, bad and indifferent, and to talk simply of unlimited increases in growth is to deprive people of the power to choose between the beneficial and the harmful.

    Liberals advocate a policy of controlled economic growth, by which we mean the careful husbandry of resources and the limitation of private consumption by the few in favour of better public services for the majority of our citizens.

    In terms of human resources a policy of controlled economic growth also recognises that the obligation to provide employment and a safe environment can no longer be sacrificed to the maximisation of industrial efficiency. People cannot be treated as ‘lame ducks’.

    INFLATION – THE PRESENT CRISIS

    The major single problem facing the next Government will be that of inflation. Given the long-term crisis of resources which we face it is unlikely that inflation will ever be completely conquered but it can be controlled with determined and fair policies which have the support of the people. Conservatives and Labour Governments have pandered to vested interests to the detriment of the population as a whole. Both have been fearful of embarking on long-term policies to control the economy and attack inflation for fear of denting the profits of the big corporations and the wage packets of the strongest unions. Hence their timid attempts at controlling inflation have been undercut by promises of an ultimate return to a free for all.

    Liberals would control inflation through a combination of industrial reconstruction and a permanent prices and incomes policy enforced by penalties on those whose actions cause inflation. We propose that prices, dividends and average earnings within a company should be limited to an agreed annual rate of increase. Any company which increased prices faster than that rate would suffer an extra surcharge on its Corporation Tax payments equivalent to the amount by which its prices had exceeded the agreed norm. Excessive dividends and profits pay-outs would also be penalised by a tax surcharge, on a sliding scale according to the amount by which such increases exceed the norm.

    If average earnings per person (including fringe benefits) within a company rose faster than the agreed annual rate, then both the employer and the employees concerned would have to pay an extra surcharge on their graduated National Insurance Contributions, again on a sliding scale according to the amount by which earnings had exceeded the norm.

    Of course, there would have to be provision for appeal and this would be best achieved by the compilation of ad hoc reports on earnings levels and pricing policies in particular industries along the lines of the old National Board for Prices and Incomes. Such reports would also cover changes in relativities and wage differentials, which will have to be narrowed considerably, and Parliamentary consent would have to be obtained before reports could be implemented.

    Thus instead of countering inflation by increasing everybody’s taxes, as Mr. Powell and the Labour Party advocate, Liberals would tax only those who cause inflation and would control the supply of money into the economy without having to resort to the blunt instrument of brutal cuts in expenditure on social services which once again hit the poor hardest of all.

    A great merit of this policy is that it would enable wage bargaining to take place without direct government intervention and inevitable accusations of partisanship. Yet it would still enable the Government to maintain overall control of the economy. But no policy can hope to succeed unless it is accepted and seen as fair by the great majority of people. Two major defects in past policies must be remedied if this policy is to succeed: the unfairness of the present wage bargaining system which favours those who shout loudest must be ended, and a fairer pricing policy must be evolved to ensure that price increases do not merely contribute to increased profits.

    Fair Prices

    Liberals would strengthen price controls by relating them to absolute rather than percentage margins. We would also insist that middle-sized companies were obliged to submit applications to increase prices, as are top companies. We would strengthen the powers of the Monopoly and Mergers Commission to investigate and regulate monopoly companies. The Government must stimulate competition where it can still be made to work, break up and control monopolies, prevent non-productive mergers and stamp out widespread restrictive practices. Nationalisation will not solve the problem of high prices or monopolies. As we have seen in so many nationalised industries, the public either has to suffer high prices or subsidise non-profit-making industries. Either way the consumer pays more.

    But in the meantime, where there are rapid increases in prices which are beyond the Government’s control, Liberals favour the incorporation of guaranteed wage increases into any agreed pay policy to allow compensation for any excessive rise in food prices which occurs. With food prices having risen by fifty per cent in three-and-a-half years such action is now required immediately.

    A National Minimum Earnings Level

    We must work to narrow the differentials between the highest and lowest paid in our economy. At a time when average earnings have reached over £40 a week, six million working people still earn less than half of this sum. A Liberal Government would introduce a statutory minimum earnings level for a normal working week and no employer would be allowed to pay less than this amount.

    The importance of such legislation has been starkly illustrated by the three-day week. Those who suffered most in reduced wages and redundancies have been the poor – precisely those who do not have earnings guarantees.

    But we must also reform the wage bargaining free-for-all in which the poorest inevitably come off worst. To do this effectively we must reconstruct our frame work of industrial relations to spread the monopoly power now vested in a few very powerful Unions.

    A NEW CHARTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    Britain lost more than 24 million working days last year – more than any other European country and almost double the amount lost in Italy, our nearest rival. Yet what have our opponents to offer as an antidote to industrial chaos? The Industrial Relations Act and the impotent Industrial Relations Court stand as monuments to attempted Tory repression, and a perpetual reminder to the Labour Party of its capitulation to Union pressure while in Government. Whatever the merits of the Act’s provisions for contractual obligation and redundancy protection its practical effectiveness has foundered on Union opposition and Conservative folly. The dues which were expropriated from the AUEW political fund were drops in the ocean, but the action which confiscated money earmarked for the Government’s opponents, was a devastating piece of party political warfare.

    The Industrial Relations Act must be repealed and replaced by far-reaching legislation to introduce real democracy into industry. The Labour Party talks glibly about Industrial Democracy by which it means Union domination and the effective exclusion of over fifty per cent of our work force which does not belong to a union. The Liberal Party believes that all individuals should be involved in the industry in which they work and this has been the cornerstone of our policy for over fifty years. We believe that the two-party system in Britain based on a party of organised capital confronting a party of organised labour has helped to divide industry into two camps to the detriment of the community as a whole. We therefore advocate industrial partnership not merely as an aid in solving the economic problems of our country, but as a system which is right and just, and which will unite instead of dividing.

    Liberal industrial policy has three objectives. Firstly, employees must become members of their companies just as shareholders are, with the same clearly defined rights. Secondly, it must be accepted that directors in public companies

    are equally responsible to shareholders and employees. Employees should be entitled to share in the election of the directors on equal terms with shareholders, and Works Councils representing all employees must be set up at plant level with wide powers to negotiate pay and conditions of work. Thirdly, employees should share in the profits of the company and the growth of its assets.

    In the long term, the implementation of Liberal co-partnership policies will contribute to the solution of wage inflation, by ensuring that all employees benefit from wage increases and by including a measure of responsibility into wage bargaining. For in the day-to-day negotiations within each company employees would realise that there is little to be gained by wage increases in excess of productivity. Such increases would simply reduce the amount available in which the workers would share. In short our policies would achieve the identification of employees’ interests with those of the firm by providing a visible link between the immediate limitation of wage demands and the future prosperity which will be generated for both employees and shareholders as a result. We cannot believe that any reasonable employer would prefer an industrial strike and the loss of millions of pounds to the hope of industrial harmony and responsible wage bargaining through industrial partnership. Similarly, no responsible employee would refuse the opportunity to become an equal partner in his firm with an equal share in its profits in favour of continued confrontation, inequality and insecurity.

    THE ENERGY CRISIS

    The short-term problems caused by the miners’ industrial action and the interruption of Middle East oil supplies demanded immediate action to reduce consumption, and in the main the Liberals supported Government restrictions in the use of energy and the three-day week, both of which we were convinced were necessary to avoid even more serious disruption of economic life as stocks would otherwise have fallen below the danger level. However, we have been critical of the inflexibility of the Government’s anti-inflation policy, which prevented the National Coal Board from entering into proper negotiation on the miners’ claim. Instead of being recognised as the life blood of a nation now deprived of a large portion of its energy supplies, the miners were made the scapegoat for the Government’s obstinacy in clinging to out-dated policies. Any settlement with the miners must be permanent and ensure continuing reward for their contribution to the alleviation of the Energy Crisis. We believe that a settlement could have been reached if, in addition to the increases offered under Phase III, the NCB could have undertaken to make further rises available as the industry expands.

    All political parties, including the Liberals, must share the blame for the decline in coal output since the middle sixties. In order to reverse the decline, the NCB should be encouraged to press ahead with the development of new coal reserves in Yorkshire and the Midlands.

    The Government’s policy of exploiting North Sea Oil and Gas must be done at a rate determined by a National Energy Policy so as to allow indigenous industries to acquire the necessary expertise and equipment. The policy must also have regard to the longer-term future when imports of hydrocarbons are likely to be even more expensive and difficult to obtain. Royalties from the production of North Sea oil should be used in part to encourage the development of other industries in Scotland and the North East – and later, if exploration in the Celtic Sea is successful, in Wales. We are not satisfied that the revenues accruing to the nation from our own oil are fair in relation to the latest assessments of the size and value of the fields, and Liberals will ensure that huge windfall profits are not made by the licensees, many of whom are foreign concerns who have been given licences on exorbitantly advantageous terms.

    The Liberal Party advocates continuity of work on British nuclear reactor systems. The first advanced gas-cooled reactors will come into operation during 1974, and it would be a grave mistake to switch horses now to the American pressurised water reactor system, as it is suggested we are likely to do. The evidence from the United States shows that they are less safe. But energy policy should not consist solely of adjusting supply to meet whatever demand is created by existing market forces. Governments can influence demand as well as supply by pricing policy, incentives and capital projects. At a time when public spending on education, housing and health is being cut, it is not acceptable to press on with the £3,000 million projected expenditure on Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel simultaneously, quite apart from energy and environmental considerations. Since, however, air travel will become far more expensive as jet fuel increases in cost, Maplin is no longer necessary, and the airlines will not buy Concorde, the former should be scrapped and the latter severely curtailed. Similarly, fewer people will be able to afford Continental motoring holidays with petrol at £1 a gallon, as predicted by Lord Stokes, and the Channel Tunnel should therefore be rail only, saving £240 million. These are all complex problems, and it cannot be denied that we have been caught unprepared by recent changes in the energy situation. The importance of the matter has been recognised implicitly by the Government, in the creation of a separate Department responsible for energy, but there is still no authoritative body to give impartial advice to both Government and Parliament. We need a permanent Royal Commission, serviced by adequate professional staff and with funds to commission research by industry, universities and government research establishments. This body would be required to publish reports at regular intervals, the first of which should be on the long-term proposals in the coal industry. Such reports should then be debated in Parliament.

    Finally, the Government’s long-term plan to reorganise the steel industry and close some steelmaking plants should be reviewed in the light of the changed situation. Liberals believe that concentration on bigger and fewer plants, on the scale adopted by the Japanese, of which we have no experience, may prove detrimental, particularly if uncertainties over fuel supplies continue. In addition, the economic and social dislocation within traditional steelmaking communities affected by such closures provides a very powerful argument for a complete rethink of strategy by both the Government and the European Coal and Steel Community.

    SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

    Underlying all our policies for social reconstruction are the twin themes of participation and individual freedom. Indeed the first is dependent on the second, for no person can play his full part in society unless he has the freedom to do so, and this must include freedom from discrimination, freedom from poverty and illness, the security of a roof over his head and the prospect of an equal start in life.

    We are still a long way from achieving these goals even in 1974. Once again promises have been lightly made and cruelly broken because they have all been founded on assumptions of maximum production and economic growth. Only when we rid ourselves of the false logic that sees all social advancement as a product of economic efficiency will the well-being of society truly become a social service.

    Health and Social Welfare

    The reorganisation of the National Health Service has failed to unify the Health Service or to ensure adequate public participation in the decisions which affect them. Liberals would bring local authority welfare services into the main structure of a unified NHS by placing them under the financial and administrative control of the area Health Authorities. We also favour democratic election to Area Health Boards so as to ensure a strong voice for the community.

    The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, having been a Private Members Bill, has, in many areas, failed to give people the comprehensive services that were intended as it gives local authorities additional responsibilities without providing extra funds to discharge them. We would introduce a Bill encompassing the provisions of the 1970 Act, so that central finance can be made available for its implementation, and extending provision for the disabled to other fields such as education where urgent national provision is required in facilities and finance.

    The Liberal Party opposed the increase in prescription charges, the abolition of free school milk in junior schools and increased school meal charges – all callously petty economies introduced by a Conservative Government and all hitting directly at the poor and needy in our society.

    Security without Means Tests – A Credit Income Tax Scheme

    Liberals have long advocated a system of credit income tax whereby social security payments would automatically be paid to those in need. The Government’s tax credit scheme, however, falls well short of the Liberal ideal because it values administrative efficiency above adequate provision for social need, while the Labour Party still pins its faith in the paternalism and stigma of the old means tested welfare system.

    The Liberal scheme represents a major onslaught on the Means Test Society and would replace most of the 44 means tests to which under-privileged and handicapped people are subjected.

    The Liberal credit income tax scheme would sweep away existing tax allowances, family allowances, national insurance benefits, nearly all supplementary benefits, housing subsidies, rent and rate rebates, family income supplements and a wide variety of miscellaneous benefits. All income would be taxed according to a progressive scale from the very first pound, but everyone would be entitled to various ‘credits’ or allowances depending on circumstances. Where the liability to tax exceeded the value of credits there would be net tax to pay. Where the value of the credits exceeded the liability of tax the difference would be paid to the individual. automatically, through the tax system. Thus a redistribution of income could automatically be effected in favour of those needing help. There would be three types of credit – personal, housing and social. The most important would be the personal credit. This would be paid to every person and would be fixed at a level sufficient to guarantee a subsistence living to that individual. The credit for an adult would be greater than for a child. In the case of children under 16, the credit would be paid to the mother.

    Then there would be a universal housing credit, paid regardless of whether the individual lived in rented or owner-occupied accommodation.

    The third category of credits would correspond to national insurance benefits. There would be a credit for pensioners and for short- and long-term unemployment, sickness and disablement.

    Whereas the Government scheme helps to tackle the poverty problem it has no intention of guaranteeing in every case that a family with no further help from the state would have enough to live on. The Liberal scheme does just this. It has estimated that a combined income and social security tax of 40 per cent (against the present 36 per cent) plus a recasting of VAT (but not on food) would be sufficient to operate the scheme. In the transitional period before the full introduction of our credit income tax scheme we propose that family allowances should be extended to the first child, and social security benefits proportionately increased with increases in average earnings. This is particularly urgent in the case of those such as widows whose circumstances can change so dramatically.

    Provision for our Pensioners

    Pensioners have had a bad deal from both Tory and Labour Governments. Amid extravagant claims that they have kept pace with increases in the cost of living, pensioners have actually been left behind in the great wage race. Under the Labour government pensions only rose marginally as a percentage of average earnings. The single pension represented 19 per cent of average earnings in 1964: and 21 per cent by the time Labour left office in 1970. Under the Conservatives the single pension has actually fallen back to 19 per cent of average earnings.

    The Conservative Government’s Occupational Pension Scheme incorporates a degree of compulsion which is anathema to Liberals in forcing everyone to contribute to a second pension scheme which will do nothing for today’s pensioners. The last Labour Government had similar idealistic plans.

    Liberals reaffirm the Beveridge commitment to introduce a basic pension which provides an adequate income irrespective of further financial provision. We would therefore increase the retirement pension in stages to 50 per cent of average earnings for a married couple and 33.5 per cent for a single person. Thus we would spread over a number of years a cost which if incurred immediately would amount to about £1,400 million. However, there would be a considerable saving in supplementary benefits which at present are claimed by a third of our 8 million pensioners, at a cost of £400 million.

    This first phase of our pension plan would be a transitional stage, prior to the introduction of our full credit income tax scheme. Pensioners would be included in this scheme and would be entitled to a personal credit and housing credit as well as a pension credit resulting in an income of approximately two-thirds of average national earnings for a married couple. In addition we would reduce the retirement age for men to sixty. We would also abolish the earnings rule which penalises those who wish to go on doing a valuable job of work.

    Education

    Liberals have long recognised that resources for education are limited and across the board advance is impossible. We therefore took care to work out a ten-year development plan which would allocate clear priorities. In our view these should be:

    1 The full implementation of the Plowden Committee’s recommendations paying special attention to the need for pre-school education particularly in those areas of underprivilege and social deprivation, and the urgent reduction in the size of primary school classes to a maximum of 30 pupils.
    2 The reorganisation of secondary school education on non-selective lines. There are more ways than one to organise a non-selective secondary school and we would allow local authorities maximum flexibility within minimum standards to adapt their system to local conditions.
    3 A major reorganisation of curricula and school institutions to provide a more realistic last three years education for non-academic children.
    4 The abolition of the binary system of further education and the closer integration of Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education. In particular we would seek to establish Community Colleges open to all age groups, with the ultimate aim of providing further education to all who desire it. To this end an adequate student grant through our credit income tax scheme would be provided.

    Homes for all

    The Liberal Party opposes the present Government’s housing priorities because it considers them socially divisive.

    They have severely cut local authority house building at a time when rising house prices have hit those trying to buy their own home; rents have been raised under the Housing Finance Act while, at the same time, wages have been frozen and then reduced by the three-day week; finally, the Government has failed to reform the mortgage system and failed to act effectively to curb land hoarding and speculation.

    Liberal policy would fundamentally change our system of housing finance and property taxation, providing help to householders and tenants on an equal basis and concentrating a two-pronged attack on the housing shortage by building more houses and preserving as many houses as are inhabitable. In particular, we would end the divisiveness and inefficiency in the national housing programme by encouraging more flexible and enterprising policies which will allow for greater co-operation between local authorities, particularly in respect of the homeless, and an enhanced role for self-build organisations, possibly through the establishment of Government-approved consortia.

    These are our proposals:

    1 Freeze all rents during the period of economic restraint.
    2 Repeal the Housing Finance Act and replace it with a genuinely fair rents system geared to true housing costs and pay a single housing allowance to tenants and householders on an equal basis automatically through the tax credit system.
    3 Make all new urban office building contingent on the grant of a certificate of social need and concentrate the resources of the building industry on the housing programme.
    4 Institute a crash programme of house-building in both public and private sectors with full use being made of industrialised building techniques.
    5 Concentrate on housing renovation and repairs wherever possible, rather than on wholesale demolition.
    6 Oblige Building Societies to stabilise interest rates by drawing on their reserves. Introduce new types of mortgage for first home buyers with low level initial repayments which rise with increased incomes and the cost of living.
    7 Withdraw tax concessions and improvement grants for second home purchasers.
    8 Give greater financial encouragement and responsibility to Tenants’ Co operatives and Housing Associations.
    9 Give local authorities power to acquire at cost price those properties which have stood unoccupied for three years.

    PAYING FOR SECURITY – A RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

    To finance all these proposals, there must be a radical redistribution of income and inherited wealth, the credit income tax proposals being the principal instrument for the former, and the Liberal proposal for a Gifts and Inheritance Tax, to replace Estate Duty and related in its incidence and rate to the gift or legacy and the wealth of the recipient, for the latter.

    Site Value Rating

    We must also ensure that a proper contribution is made by those who own property and land.

    As a means of reforming the present rating system which penalises those who improve their property while subsidising those who let it decay, Liberals have long advocated that rates should be levied on the value of the site only, and not on the value of the site and buildings as now. This would enable much of the present burden of rates to be shifted from householders.

    The rating of site values would also be levied on land which, after proper inquiry, had been zoned for development but which had not been developed within a reasonable period. This would be an effective punitive measure against land hoarders and speculators.

    Site value rating also recognises the undisputed fact that today a major source of wealth resides in development land and property rather than in income. Over a period of years there is no doubt that the rating of land values could gradually replace income tax as a main source of revenue. It would also recover for the community a proportion of the increased value of land created by mere assignment of planning consent.

    THE STATUS OF WOMEN

    Liberals will put particular emphasis on securing equality of opportunity and equal treatment for women. As a nation we can no longer afford to ignore the talent and energies of half our population as we have done so often in the past. We would legislate to ensure equal opportunities for women in all spheres of activity particularly in regard to employment, remuneration and social interaction. In particular we advocate the establishment of an independent Sex Discrimination Board, establishment of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, tougher legislation to outlaw restrictive and discriminatory practices in industry and equal social security benefits for men and women, with adequate provision for maternity leave. Our aim is to provide the opportunity for women who so wish freely to seek satisfying goals other than a lifetime of childbearing.

    CIVIL LIBERTIES – A BILL OF RIGHTS

    Every person is entitled to protection from arbitrary interference in his personal and private affairs. Liberals are concerned that in our increasingly complex and bureaucratic society, fundamental freedoms should not be impaired or the individual citizen put at a disadvantage in his dealings with authority. Hence we have long advocated that minority and individual liberties should be guaranteed through a Bill of Rights effective in all parts of the United Kingdom and at all levels of Government and administration. Among protected guarantees should be the freedom of speech and assembly, the right to a fair trial, and protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex or national or social origin. We would establish a small Claims Court where redress for minor injustices could be sought without recourse to the complexity and delay of the court circuit. Finally, we oppose any laws which penalise people retrospectively for actions done in the past, when through lapse of time they have become immune from prosecution or administrative action.

    IMMIGRATION AND RACE RELATIONS

    The Liberal Party regards freedom of movement as an important basic principle. However, since 1965 we have accepted that a densely-populated country such as ours cannot, at present, adequately cater for all those people who wish to come here. Accordingly we have supported a system of regulation whereby would-be immigrants are allowed to enter the United Kingdom only if they possess a work voucher showing that they have an actual job waiting for them or they possess particular skills which are needed in this country. While opposing illegal entry we strongly oppose the retrospective provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act and would take immediate action to remove these and other discriminatory clauses in that legislation.

    We believe that we have a primary obligation to citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, and also to Commonwealth citizens whose right to register as UK citizens after five years’ residence in this country was removed by the 1971 Act and should be reinstated. We believe that a Royal Commission should urgently examine and clarify the rights of UK and Commonwealth citizens on the lines outlined above. In the meantime husbands and children from Uganda should be allowed to join refugees who have settled here. We are opposed to all forms of racial discrimination. The goal of integration is of critical importance and there should be a separate Minister for Community Relations and greater financial support for the Community Relations Commission.

    THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY

    The Environment

    Liberals recognise the need for an urgent re-appraisal of the use man is making of his material environment. We are concerned that in the present economic crisis panic measures should not be taken for the sake of short-sighted expediency, that might cause irreversible damage

    The Liberal Party was the first to adopt a National Population Policy which includes free family planning advice as part of the NHS and a programme of education stressing the need for responsible parenthood in this era of scarce resources.

    We insist on stringent controls on the use of all potential pollutants and in particular the establishment of a regionalised Pollution Inspectorate with investigatory and punitive powers over the use of noxious substances. In particular we are concerned that there should be the maximum recycling of all materials and that individuals and communities should have the legal means to resist, where necessary, threats to their environment from Government or commercial agencies.

    The protection of our environment must be extended to the preservation of natural resources including our sources of energy, our landscape and our country side. We strongly support the principles of nature conservation and assert that the co-ordination of policies in other fields such as agriculture and transport must be pursued urgently.

    Finally, the global environment, of which Britain is only a small part, can only be permanently preserved through international co-operation and support for United Nations environmental agencies.

    Transport

    Transport is inextricably bound up with overall development and must be integrated with national, regional and town and country planning. Our main priority must be to provide for integrated policies which acknowledge the changed roles of our various modes of transport. Conservative and Labour Governments have consistently worked on a piece-meal basis, Liberals assert that it is time to work out an overall strategy. In particular we advocate the prohibition of any further closures of railways and waterways until a study group has reported on the possibilities of further transferring freight carriage to rail and water. A new attitude must be taken to our railways which takes into account social and environmental factors as well as capital expenditure.

    Transport has become a social service in many cases, particularly the regions and rural areas. We believe that County Councils should collaborate with the Ministry of Transport in promoting research studies into rural transport needs and preparing schemes for meeting them. Liberals hold the view that there must be a limitation of access for private vehicles to designated areas of city and town centres. Adequate parking facilities on the outskirts must be complemented by free, reliable public transport within these areas. Liberals would also establish Regional Transport Authorities to determine priorities of investment in all forms of transport, co-ordinate long-term planning of main roads, ports, airports, railways and inland waterways. Immediate attention must be given to assess the impact of increased oil prices upon our transport infrastructure.

    AGRICULTURE AND THE COMMON MARKET

    Liberals are well aware of the grave difficulties being experienced at the present time in many sections of the agricultural community. The Government, so far, has been deaf to the Liberal warnings and appeals concerning the plight of the dairy farming and livestock sections of agriculture. This could result in an actual food shortage in this country, particularly with regard to fresh foods arising from the excessive slaughter of breeding animals by farmers who, overwhelmed by the high cost of feedingstuffs and the very high interest rates, believe that their future is extremely insecure.

    Help should be given to these sections of agriculture immediately, for the sake of both the farmer and the consumer. To build up to a sufficient level of profitability for the farmer and maintain a decent basic price for the consumer can be achieved in a variety of ways. One way which is capable of instant implementation is to compensate the consumer by raising pensions, and increasing family allowances which should also be extended to the oldest child. In our view it is necessary to create a farm structure which will encourage young men to enter agriculture as a career, with a possibility of achieving management and ownership. In the immediate term an improved wage structure for the industry must be established. The Agricultural Credit Corporation must also be swiftly expanded into a Land Bank. Loans would be available at a fixed rate of interest for projects which might properly be regarded as medium-term, in particular for the purchase of livestock and for projects now covered by Government grants, but should not be available for the purchase of farms or of land. In the present climate, it is essential that United Kingdom Marketing Boards should be retained and voluntary co-operatives encouraged. The Annual Price Review should certainly be retained but be coupled with a five-year strategic review.

    In order to help keep down the price of land and make farms more readily available to genuine farmers, agricultural losses should no longer, in any circumstances, be allowable against profits from other businesses. Furthermore, Estate Duty relief should be restricted to bona fide agriculturalists. This would help prevent the major transference at the present time of city assets into agricultural land. Agricultural land in productive use would be zero-rated under our policy for Site Value Rating.

    The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community must represent a just balance between the interests of consumers, efficient producers and international trading. The widening of the Community has already resulted in a less protectionist attitude but Britain must make an all-out effort to broaden and deepen this attitude. In the UK we do not have the problem, which has existed in the Community, of uneconomic farming units and we accept the need for measures to reduce their number. Finally, Liberals believe that there should be a rapid expansion of domestic production and an energetic drive by this country to secure allies in the Common Market for a major modification of the Common Agricultural Policy, so as to secure reasonably-priced food for the consumer and an acceptable return for the farmer.

    POWER, PEOPLE AND THE COMMUNITY

    The Liberal Party believes in devolution, decentralisation and electoral reform. We favour the immediate implementation of the Kilbrandon recommendation to establish elected Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and to this effect a Bill has already been introduced into the House of Commons by Liberal MP, Jo Grimond.

    In the long term we would establish a federal system of Government for the United Kingdom with power in domestic matters transferred to Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and Provincial Assemblies in England. The Westminster Parliament would then become a Federal Parliament with a reformed second chamber in which the majority of members would be elected on a regional basis. If Britain is to have effective and successful centres of commerce and finance outside London there must be a real devolution of political and economic power to the regions. Recent Local Government reform has removed decision-making even further from the people. We advocate the setting up of Neighbourhood Councils below the District Councils to act as efficient transmitters of protest and suggestion from the community.

    Liberals would introduce proportional representation by the single transferable vote for all elections. The present electoral system buttresses the discredited ‘two- party system’ of confrontation. Electoral Reform, while giving fairer representation to different sections, will make co-operation between them easier. The success of proportional representation in Northern Ireland in uniting a divided community through a power-sharing executive is strong testimony for its introduction in Britain as a whole to heal the rifts in our society.

    Parliament has lost touch with the country. It must be brought back to the people and its proceedings opened up to the broadcasting media. Its formality must not deter improvements in the organisation of business to make Parliament more efficient and effective, with really full-time members elected for fixed five-year periods.

    Liberals urge the establishment of direct elections to a European Parliament which would give full democratic power of control over Community activities.

    Maximum opportunity must be offered at all levels for involving citizens in the process of Government, through the fullest possible provision of information.

    EUROPE AND THE WORLD

    We must not allow our present national crisis to let us forget the immense problems of instability in the world, that have loomed and threatened in the last few months. The need for international co-operation and understanding has never been more pressing and the contribution of Britain to building a better world as well as our hopes of a better life in these islands depend on partnership with our democratic neighbours.

    The European Economic Community

    Liberals have always insisted on the duty of Britain to play a leading role in transforming Western Europe from warring rivalry into a united community, hence our consistent support for British membership of the Common Market. Further more, it is only as a full participant in the world’s largest trading entity that we can hope to solve our chronic balance of payments problem and at the same time develop the political unity that will guarantee peace and free us from the spectre of domination by the super powers.

    We deplore the delay in joining the Common Market for which Conservative and Labour Governments were equally to blame, but we are even more critical of the narrow-minded nationalism of many so-called ‘internationalists’ in the Labour Party who still shun their responsibility to represent their constituents in the European Parliament. We also condemn the Conservative Government for abdicating their great opportunity to develop the Community in a democratic and outward-looking manner in favour of meek compliance with the interests of the French Government. The present Common Market structure is not what we voted for and the Liberal representatives in the European Parliament have lost no opportunity to point the way in which we feel the Community should develop. Liberals are thus effective but constructive critics of the policies of the Common Market. We want to reform its institutions to see real power exercised by an elected European Parliament. We want to see the progressive reduction of the protectionist aspects of the Common Agriculture Policy, an imaginative and effective regional policy and the harmonisation, not bureaucratisation, of economic and social policies, for the benefit of all members. Finally, we want to see the adoption of an outward-looking trade policy towards the rest of the world and particularly the developing countries. We believe that the great purposes of the Community can be achieved with far-sightedness and vision.

    Foreign Affairs and Defence

    Looking beyond the EEC we are in favour of the maintenance of NATO until such time as a new European security system based on mutual withdrawal and the mutual reduction of forces in the East and West has been successfully negotiated. Within this limit we support efforts at détente and in particular the Ostpolitik of the West German Government. We are opposed to the admission to the European Community of any country which has not a democratic form of government, and are unhappy about the association with NATO of countries like Portugal and Greece which are not democratic. The purpose of NATO should be to defend democracy.

    But the maintenance of our traditional alliances is also of critical importance if we are to return stability to world commodity and money markets and absorb the massive disruption that has and will continue to be caused by the quadrupling of oil prices. Positive international agreements are vital to bring a new radical world monetary framework that could save the world from damaging economic recession and exacerbated racial tension. Finally, it is essential that through a new monetary framework Britain and the developed world recognise the plight of the third world and begin to grant realistic exchanges for raw materials and commodities that will raise the Third World from starvation and deprivation.

    CONCLUSION

    This is the Liberal Party’s programme for national reconstruction. It is fundamental because we believe that the crisis which faces us as a nation is deep-seated and requires a fundamental response. It is ambitious because the multiple crisis that faces us offers the opportunity to put the past behind us and embark on a new era of reconstruction. Above all it is idealistic because we must raise our sights beyond selfish personal concerns, we must stop internal feuds which weaken and divide us and look to a future without class conflicts, partisan bitterness and excessive self-criticism.

  • General Election Manifestos : February 1974 Labour Party

    General Election Manifestos : February 1974 Labour Party

    The February 1974 Labour Party manifesto.

    Let us work together – Labour’s way out of the crisis

    FOREWORD

    By Harold Wilson
    Leader of the Labour Party

    I welcome this Election – I welcome, more than anything else, this opportunity for the British people to give their verdict upon the last three years and eight months of Conservative Government. Let the people vote; let us work together again.

    This Manifesto was published by the Labour Party National Executive Committee and Parliamentary Committee on 11 January last. Since then the situation has deteriorated gravely, and the nation knows it is in crisis. This is Labour’s policy for that crisis-and to this we pledge ourselves when elected.

    The Government called this election in panic. They are unable to govern, and dare not tell the people the truth.

    Our people face a series of interlocking crises. Prices are rocketing. The Tories have brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy and breakdown. More and more people are losing their jobs. Firms are going out of business. Housing costs are out of reach for so many families. The Common Market now threatens us with still higher food prices and with a further loss of Britain’s control of its own affairs. We shall restore to the British people the right to decide the final issue of British membership of the Common Market.

    The British people were never consulted about the Market. Even more, the country was deceived in 1970 about the Government’s intentions on jobs and prices. They will not be deceived again. Today the people of Britain know that reasonable leadership by Government can achieve an honourable settlement of the mining dispute and get the country back to work. Only stubborn refusal by an arrogant Conservative administration stands in our way.

    The new Labour Government will see that the present dispute is settled by negotiation. We shall control prices and attack speculation and set a climate fair enough to work together with the unions.

    This Election is not about the miners. They are in the firing line today. The housewife has been in the firing line ever since Mr. Heath was elected. Let us now choose a Government willing to face up to Britain’s problems; let us elect a Government of all the people; let us work together.

    HAROLD WILSON

    Britain needs a new Government, and the Labour Party is ready with the policies essential to rescue the nation from the most serious political and economic crisis since 1945. We do not say that the dangers confronting us can be quickly dispelled; rising prices and housing costs and the new threat to our livelihood from the world-wide oil crisis cannot be held in check at a stroke. We do say that the problems cut so deep that the solutions must cut deep also. The sooner Labour gets the chance to heal the savage wounds inflicted upon our society in recent years, and to turn the hopes and exertions of our people in a new direction, the better for the nation as a whole.

    In this sense, we face not merely economic perils of a new dimension; we face a crowning test of our democracy – whether we can show the resilience, the ingenuity, the courage, the imagination, the sense of community necessary to meet the economic perils.

    The Labour Party is proud of the contribution we made to the nation’s salvation at critical times in our history, and it is in the same mood that we approach the interlocking crises of the 1970s.

    Immediately, for the vast majority of families, the economic crisis takes the form of fear for their jobs, ever-rising prices, particularly food prices, and ever-rising housing costs, particularly council rents and high mortgage rates, coupled with the most drastic cuts in their income which our people have experienced since the 1930s – caused by the three-day working week introduced in panic by Government decree on January 1. For the nation the economic crisis involves an appalling balance of payments deficit, mounting debt and an ever sinking pound.

    Apparently, the aim of the Prime Minister is to continue the scourge of the three-day week until he has secured a political victory over the miners. He scolds them as national enemies at the very moment when their services are more than ever indispensable to the nation. The folly of this style of politics passes description. But one day soon the Government will have to make a settlement with the miners; let us hope the clash has not by then become so bitter that the long-term prospect of sustaining an effective coal industry is fatally impaired.

    The Tory Legacy

    The longer the Conservative Government survives the more desperate the situation a Labour Government will inherit. The British people will understand if we are then compelled to give so absolute a priority to rebuilding the economic fabric of the nation that some of our expenditure will have to be delayed. The graver our economic situation the more important it will be to protect the poorer members of the community – such as the pensioners – by a drastic re distribution of wealth and income. However, the nature of the crisis will require that the structural changes we propose should be made even more urgently.

    Whatever the circumstances in which we take office, we shall still have to meet the menaces of the mounting price of oil, of a £2,000 million deficit on the balance of payments, and of even more rapidly rising prices. How Labour will tackle that long-standing challenge of inflation naturally forms a central part of this document. But let us consider first the energy crisis.

    The Energy Crisis

    A huge addition is now being made to the price Britain must pay for oil from the Middle East and elsewhere, including heavy additional burdens on the balance of payments. Every available step must be taken to enforce the most efficient use of fuel and this must clearly be decided on a national scale. Government intervention in the allocation of precious energy resources would be willingly accepted by the community as a whole.

    First, and with the utmost urgency, the coal industry must be given a new status, perspective, and security. In particular, the case which the National Union of Mineworkers has long presented is now more than ever seen to be in the national interest. A Labour Government will give the mining industry the backing it needs to revise its plans on a more ambitious scale. Immediately, the present Government should set up a Commission, composed of representatives of the NCB, the NUM, and the Government itself, to re-examine the industry’s future, including distribution, in the light of the new necessities, and to report within three months.

    Second, the new situation has greatly strengthened Labour’s determination to ensure not only that the North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas resources are in full public ownership, but that the operation of getting and distributing them is under full Government control with majority public participation. We cannot accept that the allocation of available world output should continue to be made by multi-national oil companies and not by Governments. We will not permit Britain’s own resources to be parcelled out in this way. It is public owner ship and control that will enable the British people, through its Government, to fix the pace of exploitation of our oil, and the use to which it is put, so as to secure maximum public advantage from our own resources.

    Third, a British Government should take the initiative to set up an Inter national Energy Commission. Such a body, designed to establish a rational international allocation of available oil resources, together with research into new forms of fuel, should represent not only the industrialised nations but also the developing countries, which are bound to suffer most cruelly.

    Fourth, the energy crisis has further profound implications for the way we conduct our whole transport system. If we are to conserve precious fuel we must do two things: one, move as much traffic as possible from road to rail; and two, develop public transport to make us less dependent on the private car. This will involve large scale investment in railways, tubes and buses and a fares policy which puts the needs of the travelling public first.

    Fifth, the oil crisis is only one example of the problems which confront all nations in connection with the exploitation of the finite natural resources of raw materials of the earth. A Labour Government must co-operate internationally to use carefully the world’s resources in the long-term public interest of both the developing and developed nations and to reject the present concepts of profiteering exploitation.

    THE UNDERLYING CRISIS

    Three years ago when Labour was in power, Britain had a big and growing surplus on the balance of payments. Mortgage rates stood at 8.5 per cent; Labour had built two million houses in six years; and the rise in the cost of living had been held down to less than 5 per cent a year. Today interest rates are at record high levels, and house building is at its lowest for more than ten years. The cost of living has gone up by 10 per cent a year and food prices have risen by no less than 18 per cent in one year.

    The present Government came to office with promises of lower taxation, stable prices, reduced unemployment and increased financial strength. Three years later we have experienced a 20 per cent devaluation of the pound (or a ‘float’ downwards of that extent); unemployment has been over a million and is now rising again; prices have risen faster than at any time in living memory; and tax cuts for the rich have been paid for by price rises for the rest of us. We now have the lowest house building programme since 1963 combined with rampant inflation in rents and house prices. Wages are controlled whilst unearned incomes and capital values soar. The banks have doubled their profits through the record interest rates their customers have to pay. 1974 will certainly produce the biggest balance of payments deficit in our history.

    The Common Market

    Britain is a European nation, and a Labour Britain would always seek a wider co-operation between the European peoples. But a profound political mistake made by the Heath Government was to accept the terms of entry to the Common Market, and to take us in without the consent of the British people. This has involved the imposition of food taxes on top of rising world prices, crippling fresh burdens on our balance of payments, and a draconian curtailment of the power of the British Parliament to settle questions affecting vital British interests. This is why a Labour Government will immediately seek a fundamental re negotiation of the terms of entry.

    We have spelled out in Labour’s Programme for Britain our objectives in the new negotiations which must take place:

    ‘The Labour Party opposes British membership of the European Communities on the terms negotiated by the Conservative Government.

    ‘We have said that we are ready to re-negotiate.

    ‘In preparing to re-negotiate the entry terms, our main objectives are these:

    ‘Major changes in the COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, so that it ceases to be a threat to world trade in food products, and so that low-cost producers outside Europe can continue to have access to the British food market.

    ‘New and fairer methods of financing the COMMUNITY BUDGET. Neither the taxes that form the so-called “own resources” of the Communities, nor the purposes, mainly agricultural support, on which the funds are mainly to be spent, are acceptable to us. We would be ready to contribute to Community finances only such sums as were fair in relation to what is paid and what is received by other member countries.

    ‘As stated earlier, we would reject any kind of international agreement which compelled us to accept increased unemployment for the sake of maintaining a fixed parity, as is required by current proposals for a European ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION. We believe that the monetary problems of the European countries can be resolved only in a world-wide framework.

    ‘The retention by PARLIAMENT of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies. Equally we need an agreement on capital movements which protects our balance of payments and full employment policies. The economic interests of the COMMONWEALTH and the DEVELOPING COUNTRIES must be better safeguarded This involves securing continued access to the British market and, more generally, the adoption by an enlarged Community of trade and aid policies designed to benefit not just “associated overseas territories” in Africa, but developing countries throughout the world.

    ‘No harmonisation of VALUE ADDED TAX which would require us to tax necessities.

    ‘If re-negotiations are successful, it is the policy of the Labour Party that, in view of the unique importance of the decision, the people should have the right to decide the issue through a General Election or a Consultative Referendum. If these two tests are passed, a successful renegotiation and the expressed approval of the majority of the British people, then we shall be ready to play our full part in developing a new and wider Europe.

    ‘If re-negotiations do not succeed, we shall not regard the Treaty obligations as binding upon us. We shall then put to the British people the reasons why we find the new terms unacceptable, and consult them on the advisability of negotiating our withdrawal from the Communities.’

    An incoming Labour Government will immediately set in train the procedures designed to achieve an early result and whilst the negotiations proceed and until the British people have voted, we shall stop further processes of integration, particularly as they affect food taxes. The Government will be free to take decisions, subject to the authority of Parliament, in cases where decisions of the Common Market prejudge the negotiations. Thus, the right to decide the final issue of British entry into the Market will be restored to the British people.

    Social Justice

    Clearly, a fresh approach to the British crisis is required, and Labour insists that it must begin with an entirely new recognition of the claims of social justice.

    To that end, urgent action is needed to tackle rising prices; to strike at the roots of the worst poverty; to make the country demonstrably a much

    fairer place to live in. For these purposes, a new Labour Government, in its first period of office, will:

    1 Bring immediate help to existing PENSIONERS, widows, the sick and the unemployed by increasing pensions and other benefits to £10 for the single person and £16 for the married couple, within the first Parliamentary session of our Government. Thereafter these figures will be increased annually in proportion to increases in average national earnings. We shall also follow this by replacing the Conservative Government’s inadequate and unjust long- term pensions scheme by a comprehensive scheme designed to take future pensioners off the means test and give full equality of treatment to women.

    2 Introduce a new scheme of help for the DISABLED.

    3 Help the low paid and other families in poverty by introducing a new system of CHILD CASH ALLOWANCES for every child, including the first, payable to the mother.

    4 Introduce strict PRICE CONTROL on key services and commodities. Bulk purchase and new marketing arrangements will help stabilise food prices, and selective use of subsidies will be applied to the items bearing most heavily on the family budget. We shall re-negotiate those elements of Common Market policy which deliberately impose food taxes on the people.

    5 Repeal the HOUSING FINANCE ACT, and give back to local authorities the right to fix rents which do not make a profit out of their tenants. We shall extend protection from eviction to tenants of furnished accommodation; limit rent increases in unfurnished and furnished lettings; encourage the municipalisation of privately rented property (except where an owner-occupier shares a house with a tenant); and take steps to secure a steady supply of mortgage funds at reasonable rates of interest to those wishing to buy their own homes; and abolish the agricultural tied cottage. We shall raise the total subsidy for local authority house building to that granted to owner- occupiers on their mortgage payments. This will be vital to reversing the serious fall in the housing programme under the present Government.

    Land required for development will be taken into public ownership, so that land is freely and cheaply available for new houses, schools, hospitals and other purposes. Public ownership of land will stop land profiteering. It will emphatically not apply to owner-occupiers.

    6 REDISTRIBUTE INCOME AND WEALTH. We shall introduce an annual Wealth Tax on the rich; bring in a new tax on major transfers of personal wealth; heavily tax speculation in property – including a new tax on property companies; and seek to eliminate tax dodging across the whole field.

    Industrial Relations

    These measures affecting prices and taxation policy will prove by deeds the determination of the new Labour Government to set Britain on the road towards a new social and economic equality. After so many failures in the field of incomes policy – under the Labour Government but even more seriously under the Tory Government’s compulsory wage controls – only deeds can persuade. Only practical action by the Government to create a much fairer distribution of the national wealth can convince the worker and his family and his trade union that ‘an incomes policy’ is not some kind of trick to force him, particularly if he works in a public service or nationalised industry, to bear the brunt of the national burden. But as it is proved that the Government is ready to act – against high prices, rents and other impositions falling most heavily on the low paid and on pensioners – so we believe that the trade unions voluntarily(which is the only way it can be done for any period in a free society), will co-operate to make the whole policy successful. We believe that the action we propose on prices, together with an understanding with the TUC on the lines which we have already agreed, will create the right economic climate for money incomes to grow in line with production. That is the essence of the new social contract which the Labour Party has discussed at length and agreed with the TUC and which must take its place as a central feature of the new economic policy of a Labour Government.

    A Labour Government will, therefore:

    (i) Abolish the PAY BOARD apparatus set up by the Tories

    (ii) Repeal the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT as a matter of extreme urgency and then bring in an Employment Protection Act and an Industrial Democracy Act, as agreed in our discussions with the TUC, to increase the control of industry by the people

    (iii) Establish a standing ROYAL COMMISSION to advise on income distribution, both earned and unearned, with particular reference to differentials and job evaluation

    (iv) Establish a non-governmental CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE, with the task of tackling industrial disputes at both national and local level.

    Employment and Expansion

    However, more will be needed if we are to create a new spirit in industry. The British people, both as workers and consumers, must have more control over the powerful private forces that at present dominate our economic life. To this end we shall:

    7 Sustain and expand industrial development and exports and bring about the re-equipment necessary for this purpose through the powers we shall take in a new INDUSTRY ACT and through the Planning Agreement system which will allow Government to plan with industry more effectively.

    Wherever we give direct aid to a company out of public funds we shall in return reserve the right to take a share of the ownership of the company.

    8 In addition to our plans set out in point 6 above for taking into common ownership land required for development, we shall substantially extend PUBLIC ENTERPRISE by taking mineral rights. We shall also take shipbuilding, shiprepairing and marine engineering, ports, the manufacture of airframes and aeroengines into public ownership and control. But we shall not confine the extension of the public sector to the loss-making and subsidised industries. We shall also take over profitable sections or individual firms in those industries where a public holding is essential to enable the Government to control prices, stimulate investment, encourage exports, create employment, protect workers and consumers from the activities of irresponsible multi-national companies, and to plan the national economy in the national interest. We shall therefore include in this operation, sections of pharmaceuticals, road haulage, construction, machine tools, in addition to our proposals for North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas. Our decision in the field of banking, insurance and building societies is still under consideration. We shall return to public ownership assets and licences hived-off by the present government, and we shall create a powerful National Enterprise Board with the structure and functions set out in Labour’s Programme 1973.

    9 We intend to socialise existing nationalised industries. In consultation with the unions, we shall take steps to make the management of existing nationalised industries more responsible to the workers in the industry and more responsive to their consumers’ needs.

    10 Regional development will be further encouraged by new public enterprise, assistance to private industry on a selective basis, and new REGIONAL PLANNING MACHINERY, along the lines set out in Labour’s Programme 1973. We will retain and improve the Regional Employment Premium. Revenues from North Sea oil will be used wherever possible to improve employment conditions in Scotland and the regions elsewhere in need of development.

    11 We shall develop an active manpower policy with a powerful NATIONAL LABOUR BOARD. In the longer term, redundant workers must have an automatic right to retraining; redundancy should then lead not to unemployment, but to retraining and job changing.

    Social Progress

    These are our measures for transforming British industry into a responsible economic system. It is outrageous that, at a time when enormous private wealth is being accumulated, so little effort has been made to maintain and improve our public services. A Labour Government will:

    12 Revise and expand the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; abolish prescription charges; introduce free family planning; phase out private practice from the hospital service; and transform the area health authorities into democratic bodies.

    We also intend to establish a disability benefit.

    13 Expand the EDUCATION SERVICE by the introduction of a national scheme of Nursery Schools, including day care facilities, and by a big expansion of educational facilities for 16-18 year olds, by finally ending the 11+ and by providing additional resources for children in special need of help. We shall speed the development of a universal system of fully comprehensive secondary schools. All forms of tax-relief and charitable status for public schools will be withdrawn.

    14 Pay special attention to the MANPOWER NEEDS of all public services now approaching breakdown, particularly in our inner urban areas. Our cities desperately need and must get better services, which are properly manned, and the resources to make this possible.

    Not all of our proposals should be judged on economic tests. It is the duty of Socialists to protect the individual from discrimination on whatever grounds. Here several of our proposals have the advantage of bringing benefits at little economic cost.

    15 WOMEN AND GIRLS must have an equal status in education, training, employment, social security, national insurance, taxation, property ownership, matrimonial and family law. Women at work, whether wives and mothers or those otherwise caring for dependent relatives, must receive more consideration from the community. We shall create the powerful legal machinery necessary to enforce our anti-discrimination laws.

    16 Review the law of NATIONALITY so that our immigration policies are based on citizenship, and in particular to eliminate discrimination on grounds of colour.

    17 Set up a NATIONAL CONSUMERS AUTHORITY with adequate finance to redress the balance between the consumer and the manufacturer and seller.

    Peace and Justice in a Safer World

    As in domestic policy the lesson of the last few years in Foreign Policy is that a narrow, selfish, inward looking approach to international problems is doomed to failure. We are, more than ever, one world and Labour’s foreign policy will be dedicated to the strengthening of international institutions and global co operation in response to the threats to the peace and prosperity of us all. To this end the foreign policy of a new Labour Government will be guided by four main principles.

    One We shall seek to strengthen international organisations dedicated to the promotion of human rights. the rule of law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. In particular, we shall re-dedicate Britain to the ideals of the United Nations and the Commonwealth, two organisations treated with scant regard by the present Government.

    Two We shall commit Britain to a policy of equality at home and abroad which would involve radical changes in aid, trade and development policies. In particular, the next Labour Government will seek to implement the United Nations Development Target of 0.7 per cent of GNP official aid and will increase the aid programme to meet it, and will actively seek to re-establish a more generous and more liberal world trading pattern for the developing countries.

    Three We shall oppose all forms of racial discrimination and colonialism. This will mean support for the liberation movements of Southern Africa and a disengagement from Britain’s unhealthy involvement with Apartheid. We shall intensify the policy of sanctions against Rhodesia and agree to no settlement which does not have the whole-hearted consent of the African majority.

    Four Whilst maintaining our support for NATO as an instrument of détente no less than of defence, we shall, in consultation with our Allies, progressively reduce the burden of Britain’s defence spending to bring our costs into line with those carried by our main European allies. Such a realignment would, at present levels of defence spending, mean savings on defence expenditure by Britain of several hundred million pounds per annum over a period. At the same time we shall work for the success of détente. We shall participate in the multilateral disarmament negotiations and as a first step will seek the removal of American Polaris bases from Great Britain. The ultimate objective of the movement to wards a more satisfactory relationship in Europe must be the mutual and concurrent phasing out of NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

    Let the Nation Decide

    The aims set out in this manifesto are Socialist aims, and we are proud of the word. It is only by setting our aims high, even amid the hazards of our present economic situation, that the idealism and high intelligence, especially of our young people, can be enlisted. It is indeed our intention to:

    (a) Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families

    (b) Eliminate poverty wherever it exists in Britain, and commit ourselves to a substantial increase in our contribution to fight poverty abroad

    (c) Make power in industry genuinely accountable to the workers and the community at large

    (d) Achieve far greater economic equality – in income, wealth and living standards

    (e) Increase social equality by giving far greater importance to full employment, housing, education and social benefits

    (f) Improve the environment in which our people live and work and spend their leisure.

    Of course, as we insisted at the beginning, these aims, like the particular items In the programme, cannot all be fulfilled at once. We cannot do everything at once, and these are the priorities we have chosen. This preliminary manifesto, drawing upon the new policy statements which the Labour Party has discussed by its democratic process, over the past three years, sets out the specific numbered pledges which the next Labour Government will seek with all its strength to carry out in a single Parliament.

    The task will not be easy. But we repudiate the despairing gospel preached In some quarters that the British people cannot govern themselves and that they have lost the art to act cohesively, through their various democratic institutions, as a civilised community.

    That charge comes most insultingly from a Conservative Government which has adopted so many devices to corrode or destroy the power of those democratic institutions – local authorities, the trade unions, the House of Commons itself. These are the very instruments which Labour will use to restore and enhance the power of British democracy.