GREATER LONDON REGIONAL COUNCILOF THE LABOUR PARTY

A SOCIALIST POLICY FOR THE GLC

DISCUSSION PAPERSON

LABOUR'S G.L.C. ELECTIONPOLICY

The Regional Executive Committeeset up Working Partíes to give con-sideration to the major policy issuescoming before the etectorate at theG.L.C. elections in May, 198l. AffilÍ-ated organisations are invited tosubmit amendments according tothe timetable. The Policy will bedecided at a Special Meeting of theG.L.R.C. to be held lTth and lSthOctober, 1980 at Camden Town Hall.

George Page General Secretary,Herbert Morrison House 195 Walworth Road S.E.l7

INDEX

INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT1. Introduction2. London's Economic Problems3. Policy Principles4. The London Industrial Strategy5. Build for People, not for Profit6. The GLC as customer and economic institution'7. New Municipal Enterprise8. Grant Aid9. Docklands

10. The GLC as employer11. The London Manpower Plan12. Paying for the Programme13. Summary of recommendationsAnnexes: (1) Factory Leasing Conditions

(2) GLC Labour Clauses(3) Homeworking Code of Conduct(4) Structure Diagram

FNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION1. Introduction2. The Strategic Role of the GLC3. Accountability+. Joint Policies and Programmes5. Labour's Financial Policy6" Reorganising the GLC

HOUSING1" London's Housing Crisisl. Labour and Tory in Control of the GLC3 Labour's Housing Priorities4 Labour's Programme for the GLCj \íore New Homes:i \íore Improved Homes- Flousing for People in Need! -{ Better Deal for Tenants; ttaff Trainig

- - O*-ner Occupation- - Other Forms of Tenant-l Into the Eighties

page 3

5

611132226283032344I475465666970

t-)

747678798084

8788899Í9292949598

1011011011,02

PLANNING1. Introduction2. Labour's Approach to Planning3. Promoting and Controlling Urban Development4. Protecting the Environment5. Providing Open Space adn recreation/leisure facilities6. Tourism7. Summary of recommendations

TRANSPORT1,. Transport - London's Last Chance2. The Tory Legacy3. The Role and Powers of the GLC4. Responsibility for roads5. Pedestrians6. Cyclists7. Congestion8. British Rail9. London Transport

10. Fares1.1. Control of London Transport1,2. Freight13. Riverborne Freight1,4. Taxis and hire cars15. Appendix

EDUCATION

1031,04

r04106r1.4II6IT91,20

1251,26

I26I271,28

1301301,31,

1331.34

r371,401,42

142143r44

1,49

INDUSTRY ANDEMPLOYMENT

\[embership

Stephen BubbMartin ColemanBryn DaviesPat FarrellMichael FreemanMick GilbeyJohn Grant MPTony HartStuart Holland MPNorman HowardErnie Largepanny McCarthyJohn O'Malley\ick Sharman\igel Spearing MPJohn Spellar-{Jan Taylor\lichael WardHarold Wild

appointed by S.E.

coopted

cooptedcoopted

cooptedRegion TUC

coopted

Chairperson

Acknowledgement

During the course of our work we held eleven meetings',Members of the

Workiíg Party prepared papers for uS, and so did the following organisa-

tions and individuals:

South Yorkshire County Council Labour GroupRichard MinnsSocialist Environmental and Resources AssociationFire Brigade UnionJohn TilleY, MPNUPEGreater London Association of Trades CouncilsSouthwark Trades CouncilThe Low PaY UnitCentre for Álternative Industrial Technological Systems

and several others

To all our thanks are due'

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 A London to work in

Our vision of the future is a city in which the elected representatives of thepeople take the lead in economic planning - with maximum communityinr-olvement - for a prosperous London. Our report therefore containsthe following elements:

til Analysis - based on the many detailed studies of the Londoneconomy in recent years, and dispelling some of the myths about thereasons for de-industrialization;

I ii I Democracy - a commitment to the extension of democratic control,over decisions about new investment, and within the workplace;

lli I Public Sector Intervention - the development of powerful newaqencies, accountable to a Labour GLC, to stimulate industrialactivity and to plan manpower requirements;

r1-r i Public Sector Development - the creation of new opportunities inthe public sector, including a revised Direct Labour Organisationand a restored London Fire Brigade;

-' Public Sector Purchasing - the use of the GLC's economic power toassist industrial recovery.

X;3 ltrtat do the Tories think?

Tr -\ strategy for industrial recovery appears to be an alarming - andunbur{r - mixture of blind prejudice and far-fetched gimmickry.

mrjrudice - because over everything else hangs an unquestioning faith in""nr '-forces of the market". They think private greed will restore thel-:a'4,:. economy - their euphemism for greed being 'incentives'. But wefirr:"w ilrat market forces bear much of the responsibility for the destruc-:rr:,r r.nC erosion of London's employment base.

ffiilhmmfuks - because it's hard to know what they will think of next.llnp;ou*1 \Íotorways? Leisure Centres? Heliports? Air terminals? Onemme4nL",ornaniac irrelevance after another has first been hailed as thelmlw€r - then consigned to the dustheap.

l\clr G{-C budget for industrial policy is tiny in comparison to theLr,rurcil's pro,tential. They work with the London Enterprise Agency -Ü'lfilu;n $ llmtre more than a propaganda front for large firms. Their grandlymn][B; [-emdon Industrial Centre is just a jumped-up estate agency. And6;lm re Ton Government - with its Urban Development Corporation -6s 11r*nnrr,rrg to suppress much of the work of elected local government inffirr Ensr End.

a-

The Government even seem to believe that "Enterprise Zones" - inwhich there could be no Town Planning law, no Health and Safety atWork Act, no Employment Protection Act - will lead to the creation ofnew jobs - though they do not say at what cost to the environment, or toworkers' rights or living standards.

Prejudice is heaped on prejudice, irrelevant extravagance upon irrelev-ant extravagance -but precious little ever seems to happen. The only jobsthe Tories create are the staff on the Board of the UDC.

1.3 Our alteinative

The programme we propose rests on democratic planning in conjunctionwith London's working people. We do not claim to have easy, instantsolutions: our plans to create a new prosperity will take time.

But our proposals have these characteristics:

- they are practicable

- they can be done - initially - from within the powers of localgovernment

- they have all been tried, to a greater or lesser extent, by innovativelocal authorities

- and they have been costed

We intend to put the resources of the GLC at the disposal of thosefighting to save - or fighting to create - jobs in London. We applaud whathas been done by workers in some large concerns in planning for thedevelopment of new forms of production, new forms of social ownership.We intend to work to create opportunities for women, for minoritycommunities, and for disadvantaged groups - because we think that thefuture of the London economy lies with London's working people.

2. LONDON'S ECONOI\/IIC PROBLEMS

2.1 Unemployment and declíne

London plays a key role in the British economy. It is the country's largestcentre both of industry (with 1.3 million manufacturing, transport andwholesale distribution jobs) and of service employment (with a fifth ofthe nation's jobs in government, public services, finance and so on).

Yet London's economy is in serious difficulty. Over the past 20 years thecapital has lost some 500,000 jobs, a pace of decline that outstrips anyother region in the country. Worst affected has been London's industry: ithas lost a third of its jobs since the early 1960s. As a result, there is aserious unemployment problem and in some of London's industrial areas,

6

unemployment rates have persistently been double the national average.The actual numbers of people out of work are larger than in some areasthat have in the past benefitted from regional assistance. Among somegroups of workers, unemployment has risen particularly sharply.Between 1974 and 1979 women's unemployment for example went upfour times in London, compared to a doubling of male unemployment inthe same period. Another symptom of decline is physical dereliction.Rows of empty buildings and stretches of vacant land, abandoned byindustry, are scattered throughout London. No less than 35 square milesof land is now classified as unused.

There are other less obvious problems. Industry that remains in Londontends by national standards to be old, small, inefficient. Much of it isdesperately in need of modern equipment and buildings if it is to survive.

Many of London's workers too, face increasing difficulties. The rapiddecline of manufacturing industry and the growing importance of parts ofthe service industry, have led to a polarisation in the types of jobopportunities.

There has been a rapid expansion of professional and managerial staff(especially in the offices, schools and hospitals of the capital). But at theother end of the spectrum there has been a growing number of low paid,low skill workers, whose jobs are unstable or often casual. They havebeen getting steadily poorer over the last 10 years.

In the coming decade, London will face new problems. The capital will be

especially traiO trlt by the increasing use of microprocessor technology in

ofiices, while Government spending cuts will hit the 1 million publicsector workers in London. These then are London's immediateproblems: industrial decline, worsening living standards and conditionsóf work for many Londoners' and the threats of technologicalunemployment and cuts in the public sector.

It is clear these challenges cannot be met by the private sector alone.Indeed its relatively uncontrolled activities over the past two decadeshave been largely responsible for London' problem. We believe thepublic sector must take a major role in solving London's economicproblems.

Notwithstanding the level of unemployment, there are problems in thematch between the skills of the unemployed and the vacancies whicharise. A mixture of imaginative, positive training and retraining policies,and planned investment, must ensure that new jobs are created to bringwork and prosperity to London.

2.2 The role of national and multi-national capital

We must first look at why London is in such difficulties. It needs to be

a=

emphasised that London's economy is not isolated from the rest of thecountry - despite its size and special features. That means that we have tolook outside London to understand what's happened to the capital'seconomy. We cannot, as the Tories have done, pick on simple localscapegoats (Borough Council bureaucracy, the decline of small firms andso on) to explain London's problems.

In fact many of the changes in London's economy are due to national andeven international factors.

For example the increasing international competition for markets overthe past 20 years has cut profit levels, especially in industry. Companies inBritain and elsewhere, have reacted to this pressure by merging or takingover other companies in an effort to dominate markets and squeeze outrivals. They have also re-organised their production methods to cut costs,usually by installing new, often automated, capital machinery to savelabour.

These changes have had their sharpest impact on manufacturing industry.However in other areas of the economy - warehousing, docks, offices,banking, hotels - there has been the same trend to labour savingmachinery and an increasing dominance by large, often transnationalcorporations.

Britain of course has fared worse than most of its industrial rivals in theseprocesses. Profit levels have fallen so low that much of British industryhas failed to re-equip adequately and many firms have closed down underpressure from foreign rivals.

2.3 The costs of industrial change: the London job crisisAll these changes have had their sharpest impact on the old industrialareas - and London has been hit particularly hard.

The result of this massive industrial re-organisation is that three quartersof the 500,000 jobs lost in London since the early 1960s have notre-appeared elsewhere. They have been lost forever.

For the large industrial firms have usually re-organised their productionprocesses by closing down their London factories and opening new planton greenfields sites, either in the Assisted areas, new towns and suburbsor abroad. This is because London factories usually have the wrongcharacteristics for modern large scale production. They tend to bemulti-storied, small, old, badly served by transport with high rents andrates. Their workers tend to be skilled, high waged and well organised.

Modern production methods in contrast favour large, single storeyfactories near motorways with a labour force willing to accept the lowermanning levels and different working methods associated with new

8

capital intensive plant.

As a result, large firms have pulled out of London. Many medium andsmall firms, especially in the more profitable industries, have followedsuit. But that has not been the end of the story. With the dramatic changesin the economy many other smaller firms in London have been taken overor gone bust. They have either succumbed to the pressure of rising costsand falling markets or been unable to cope with the increasing scale ofinvestment and the fierce competition of larger rivals.

In other words, London, along with the other older citiei has borne thebrunt of the run down of British industry over the past two decades. Thatis why London has been left with areas of high unemployment physicaldereliction and increasing poverty among the less well off. And that iswhy its industry has become increasingly marginal to the nationaleconomy, with a growing proportion of its firms able to survive only byexploiting the low wages and rents of the declining areas.

2.4 Service Employment

Some people argue that the erosion of London's industrial base does notmatter. They argue that service industry employment has been a growingsector in the London economy in the last ten years, and that 'growthservices' will solve London's employment problems.

For two reasons, this argument is unconvincing.

First, the economic base of the rise in service work is precariously narrow:in fact the growth in jobs has been restricted to a very few industries - airtransport, banking and finance, public services, betting shops, hotels andpubs. And of those only finance and banking (25,000 jobs) and publicservices (100,000 jobs) made any substantial contribution to job creationduring the 1970s.

What about the other job creating sectors, notably air transport and someleisure based industries? London for example has been the centre ofBritain's growing tourist industry - in 1977 London had 19 millionvisitors (7.8 million of them from abroad) who spent at least one night inthe capital. They were big spenders - some Í1,500 million in I977 and it isestimated that tourists support some 250,000 jobs in London. Howeverduring the 1970s its growth has had only a modest job creation effect.

Between I971, and1,976,for example, London hotels created only 8,000new iobs and even that growth has now levelled off. Catering jobsactually fell by over 3,000 in the same period. Moreover the quality ofthese jobs is frequently appalling - working conditions are generallypoor, wages are low and job security minimal. Indeed these tourist basedgrowth industries have depended for their profits on exploiting

particularly vulnerable sectors of labour - notably immigrants andwomen. The expansion of these service industries is in fact a major reasonfor the growing low pay sector in London.

Second, many of these new jobs are office based - and changes in officetechnology make the future of this sector the subject of doubt. Someforecasts of the future of clerical work suggests that, within a few years,there may be 30olo unemployment among clerical workers.

There has been a big expansion in office-based activities in industry aswell as in services. London, as the headquarters ofgovernment, the banksand many industries, has taken a big share of this national growth inoffices. Office development in London has attracted vast amounts offinance over the past 30 years - though it has been erratic and largelyunplanned. This has meant that the type, location and number of Londonoffice jobs has often been decided by financial and propertyconsiderations, rather than by the needs of London's economy or itsworkers.

The future for office jobs however is now much more uncertain. Alreadythere have been big changes: since the late 1960s, for example, clericaljobs have been declining as computer based machinery has taken overmany tasks and companies have moved many routine operations tocheaper offices outside London. So far, the growth in administrative andprofessional staff has compensated for this decline. However, the newcheap microprocessor technology will have a dramatic effect over thenext 10-15 years - indeed, some estimate that a third of London's l"*

million office jobs could be threatened.

2.5 Public Services

But if private service employment growth has not been an undilutedbenefit to the development of London economy' iÍis the public services -especially health and education - which have been the big job generatorsof the last 20 years. They have been an especially important source of jobsfor the rapidly rising number of women wanting work. Between 197I and1976 for example 80,000 new health and education jobs were createdand 59,000 were taken by women. The public sector spending cuts of themid 1970s halted this growth; the Tories' attack on local services will nowactually reduce these jobs, despite the clear evidence of a desperateshortage of public services in London.

2.6 Conclusion

London's economy, then, is deeply vulnerable to changes in the nationaleconomy. Like other old urban areas it has been a victim of the rundownof British industry over the past two decades. Its industrial structure

10

therefore urgently needs modernisation. The growth of London's servicesector has been very narrowly based and has relied to a large extent on theexploitation of particular sectors of the workforce. It is vitally importantthat measures are taken to protect them.

The prospects for the next decade are grim. London's enormous officesector is vulnerable to the new, microprocessor technology while itspublic sector employment will fall dramatically if the Government's planto cut local services are carried through.

Unless, therefore, there is a comprehensive response dealing withindustrial regeneration, low pay and public services, unemployment anddecline will spread throughout London.

3. POLICY PRINCIPLES

We have shown that London's economic problems are the direct result ofthe largely uncontrolled operations of the free market.

In particular London's shattering industrial decline is the result of theprivate sector's failure to invest in new plant and buildings in London. In adesperate effort to encourage firms to invest in their area, localauthorities have taken an increasing role in providing infrastructure,land, drainage, access roads, even the factories themselves. Over the lastfew years Central Government has provided some backing to thisapproach with their inner city policy. This public investment in basicservices has been coupled with very expensive advertising campaigns andhas had some success in some areas. It is however plainly not enough tocope with the scale of London's industrial decline.

That decline is now so serious that only a large scale investmentprogramme aimed at key sectors of London's industry will rescue thecapital's manufacturÍng economy from almost total annihilation. Thepublic sector will have to take an active role in such a strategy.

Although national measures will also be necessary, there is much that aregional authority like the GLC could do. Below we outline in detail theways a public industrial development authority could mobilise bothpublic and private investment capital. This would give the GLC a muchgreater and more direct involvement in the provision of jobs.

Such a strategy will have to be linked to an industrial development plan.As well as co-ordinating investment projects more closely that plan willhave to take in the provision of trained manpower. We look in Section 1.0,

at the needs and resources London has to improve the skills of itsworkforce.

Post war economic trends, the movement of industry out of London and

11

its concentration into large corporations, have meant that London'sworkers and residents have a decreasing influence over economicdecisions affecting their future.

Those trends underline the need to increase democratic control overeconomic decisions. Londoners, as residents and workers, must havemore, not less, influence over the location of investment and conditions ofwork. That is an important justification for a greater, direct public role inthe provision of jöbs.

It is important to enlarge the control of workers over their work and theresponsiveness of firms to consumers. That is why we should encouragethe development of more democratic forms of production, such asco-operatives and municipal enterprise.

Public authorities can also do much to encourage private enterprise toimprove its working conditions. As we have seen, conditions are oftenappalling, and there is evidence that they are worsening. The publicsector has considerable influence over the private sector, through boththe enormous public contracts that go to the capital's industry andthrough the provision of factory buildings. This leverage can be used toensure firms adhere to certain basic requirements in terms of pay andconditions.

A further role for public bodies is to help the trade unions' efforts toimprove working conditions. Local government readily accepts a role insupporting business with advice and financial help, with the argumentthat the welfare of residents is thereby improved. A precisely similarargument applies to the trade unions' efforts to improve their members'conditions - especially in relatively unorganised sectors of the economy,such as hotels, homeworking and so on. And where groups of workersface redundancy, then a Labour authority should be ready to put itsresouÍces behind their struggle.

The contribution of public services to job creation, as well as to meetingsocial needs, should be underlined. An enlarged public sector could domuch to cope with the problems of unemployment, especially with theadöption of new technology. The GLC has a crucial role in this field andas an employer itself, the GLC will extend to its own workforce thebenefit of the principles we outline here.

Where new jobs are created, and in relation to the GLC's own role as anemployer, there must be positive steps to counteract the discriminationwhich exists in the employment of women, and of people from ethnicminority communities.

Finally it should be emphasised that an economic developmentprogramme for London, based on the public sector, dóes not mean we arecompeting with other areas of industrial decline in the assisted areas. Our

12

strategy is aimed at the region's particular problems and would take itsplace in a national strategy for Britain's economic revival. A Labour GLCcould only play a part in such a strategy - its powers and resources arelimited - but it has a key role in defining the way forward.

4. THE LONDON INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

4.1 The role of the public sectorIn earlier sections we have given our analysis of the problems of theLondon economy, and have stated the principles we intend to follow inovercoming these problems.

London Industry and Employment policy is not a matter for elected localauthorities alone: the response of the political labour movement, and ofthe unions, is also important. But since market forces will not bythemselves regenerate the London economy, then there is a role for anexpansionist, democratic public sector.

It would be easier to create this public sector impetus for economicrecovery if we had a government that believed in economic planning,investment by the public sector, and institutions like a strong NationalEnterprise Board. But in the absence of such a government, the case is noless important. And considerable progress can be made by an imaginativeand determined use of the GLC's existing powers and resources.

And we cannot wait for the return of a Labour Government. Theresponsibility of a Labour GLC, as the elected representative ofLondon's working people, will be to counteract the market forces whichhave led inexorably to decline.

4.2 The GLC and the Boroughs

Many London Boroughs have developed their own industrial policies,and have a good record in assisting the creation of new jobs, and retainingexisting ones. It would be folly for any GLC to attempt to take over thisactivity. We seek an employment strategy in which the work of boroughcouncils and the GLC is coordinated, so that the powers and resources ofGLC and boroughs are used to best advantage.

Recommendation One: The local government role in employment policyshould continue to be shared between the GLC and the boroughs, withgreater coordination to meet the aims of an agreed strategy.

4.3 How to interveneWe propose that a Labour GLC should take the lead in coordinatingemployment policy in London by drawing up the London IndustriitStrategy.

13

The aim of the Strategy will be to strengthen the economic base ofGreater London, increasing the range of choice of occupation open toworking Londoners, by the stimulation - and direct provision - ofinvestment in both manufacturing and services. In pursuit of this aim weshall set out to increase the element of democratic control over industrialdecisions: control by elected authorities so that investment decisions aretaken with regard to the wider interests of the community, and control bywork people in the workplace.

We shall encourage new forms of social ownership: independent publicownership, and municipal enterprise, as well as employment by the GLCitself. We shall use the position of the GLC to attempt to influence themanner in which technological change is implemented, so that theconsequences ofchange are not increased lay-offs and redundancies, buta shorter working week and more fulfilling working opportunities.

Particular attention will be paid to the development of producercooperatives: not because we expect the principles of cooperation totransform the London economy overnight, but because we regard thecreation of new jobs under the control of working people as a distinctadvance.

Recommendation Two: A Labour GLC will, in conjunction with theLondon Boroughs be responsible for drawing up, and coordinating theimplementation of the London Industrial Strategy.

4.4 The Industry and Employment Committee

The function of promoting and assisting the restructuring of the LondonEconomy is quite different from town planning or land use planning.Planning Committees and Planning Departments do not take decisionson the development or management of public sector housing - theyshould not be responsible for the parallel decisions in the industrial field.

Recommendation Three:

(i) The Industry and Employment Committee (IEC) should be one ofthe main Standing Committees of the GLC;

(ii) The IEC's terms of reference should be as follows:

(u) To advise the Council on all matters of economic policy, and inparticular the economic regeneration of Greater London;

(b) To draw up the London Industrial Strategy, and to work withthe London Boroughs for its implementation;

(") To supervise the activities of the Greater London EnterpriseBoard (see para 4.6 below);

14

t

r)

t

(d) To supervise the creation of a unified Direct Labour BuildingOrganisation (London Community Builders) to serve theCouncil and other public bodies and subsequently to beresponsible for overseeing the work of London CommunityBuilders (see section 5 below);

(") To control the activities of existing municipal enterprise - suchas the Supplies Department - and to stimulate thedevelopment of new municipal enterprise; (see sections 6 and7 below).

(f) To supervise the activities of the Greater London ManpowerBoard (GLMB); (see section 11 below);

(g) To provide grant aid to bodies concerned with employmentpolicy in Greater London; (see section 8 below);

(iii)In addition to elected GLC members, the IEC should includeamong its membership co-opted trade unionists and representativesof London MPs

4.5 The Economic Policy Group

The IEC will need expert official advice in drawing up the LondonIndustrial Strategy. We should like to see the creation of a small unit ofofficers to draw up the London Industrial Strategy and the LondonManpower Plan, and to liaise with the London Boroughs, CentralGovernment and the other bodies involved. The Unit would be primarilycomposed of economists. We see their task and function as distinct fromthose of a traditional local government department in that their concernwould be with overall planning, not with detailed implementation.

Recommendation Four:

(i) Rather than establishing another County Hall Directorate, thereshould be anEconomic Policy Group (E.P.G.) to advise the IEC, tobe responsible for drawing up the overall strategy and to ensure itscoordination with Borough proposals;

(ii) The Principal Officer of the EPG (the Chief Economic Adviser tothe Council) should be a full member of the Chief Officers' Board.

4.6 The Greater London Enterprise Board

Various bodies have called for a new public sector IndustrialDevelopment agency. The brief of the present London Industrial Centreseems to be too limited to undertake this role; it is little more than aproperty development agency for the private sector. The GLC minority

ny)'IS

v

rf

;h

15

Labour Group in 1971 called for the establishment of a LondonIndustrial Development Board. In the papers for their recent 'RadicalAgenda for Londón' conference, the Fabian Society called for a LondonEnterprise Board.

We have said that it would be easier to create the public sector impetus foreconomic recovery in the context of a government committed to the

national planning of economic resources. Such is doubly true of, a new

regional -..ono.ni.

development agency. No doubt when we have a

Líbour Government we sháll be able to make faster progress -but withinour existing powers and resources we can make a considerable impact.And we -,itf ao so. if a Labour Government is not to inherit an industrialwasteland. when Labour returns to power nationally, we hope that new

legislation will consolidate our work in London.

We therefore propose the creation of the Greater London EnterpriseBoard (GLEB).

The administrative costs of GLEB should be clearly identified as a direct

charge on the GLC, and not on the investment funds available to the

Board.

GLEB should have three matn investment íunctionsi

"Investment to promote strategic or structural change";

"general investment";

"development".

1. .ÍInvestment to promote strategic or structural change'' covers the

categories of investment that are most remote from the projectsassiJted by existing private sources of funds: industrialcooperativei, ne* públic enterprise, and municipal enterprise.These initiatives will be central to the London Industrial strategy.

2. ,,General Investment" covers the provision of capital for any publicor private sector enterprise operating or wishing to operate inGréater London. Priority would, however, be accorded to

enterprises:

(i) newly starting uP;

(ii) at risk of closure;

(iii) operating in geographical areas of high employment;

(iv) providing work in trades with high unemployment.

3. ,,Development" in this connection means site acquisition, factorybuilding or refurbishment, and related activities.

1,6

r

Il

.t

Any intervention by GLEB in respect of any of its three investmentfunctions would be conditional upon three-way talks, leading toagreement, between GLEB, the enterprise and the Unions concerned,covering in particular future patterns of employment and investment inthe enterprise. Such local Planning Agreements would form part of theLondon Industrial Strategy.

In addition, when enterprises occupy premises as a result of Developmentinvestment by GLEB, ownership of the premises shall continue to bevested in GLEB, and the lease agreement between the Board and theenterprise shall include clauses covering minimum wages and workingconditions within the enterprise, or for home_workers linked with théenterprise. (Draft clauses at Annexe One to this paper).

The identification of three distinct investment functions for the Boardshould not, ofcourse, be taken as implying that these three aspects shouldproceed in isolation. Projects like the proposed industry or science park(see section 4.7 below) would probably include a substantial element ofdevelopment: land assembly, construction of buildings, and associatedenvironment works; assistance to private-sector firms; and support forcooperatives or new public enterprise.

The creation of a powerful agency seeking to restructure the Londoneconomy could have disruptive effects on national priorities. Thereforethe standing instructions to GLEB will preclude the possibility of anyinducement or assistance being offered to a firm seeking to re-locate inLondon from one of the regions of high structural unemployment.

Three potential sources of finance for investment are available to GLEB :

- GLC funds;- a proportion of the cash flow to the GLC superannuation fund;- money from other superannuation funds and from the market.

1. GLC Funds include the rate precept, both under specific powers,such as the Inner Urban Areas Act, and under section 137 of the1972Local Government Act. Section 137 empowers the Council toincur expenditure up to the produ ct of a 2p rate (which in the GLC'scase is about f40 million a year) on projects in the interests ofGreater London or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants. In1,978179 spending under section 137 was f979,000.

There are also capital receipts and reserves. As well as being theobvious source, under a separate budget head, for theadministrative costs of GLEB, GLC funds would be used to finance"investment to promote strategic or structural change".

2. The Cash Flow to the GLC Superannuation Fund. In our proposalson Industrial Democracy (Para. 10.7 below) we commitá Labour

letSale.

v.

icinto

)ry

t7

GLC to giving the members of the fund - the GLC's employees - a

t.rtt ,uy in its'administration and investment' We shall implement

irr"r" p.opo'ut, in it'" "á.ly

months of a I 'abour GLC' We shallthen

discuss with the .""*U"t tiuttees (and with the trustees as a whole)

the allocation ot á_'uútantial and increasing Pr9po:|ql"of the

cash-flow of the funá to GLEB' Capital value of the GLC fund in

1978 was f221m: net cash-flow is ábout f30m per annum'.If the

GLEB were to aim ior f40m from this source (the size of Equity

ö"p't"r for tnausi,yj i}r"n this c-ould he obtained from GLCsuő.'unnuution Fuíd cash flow in 2-3 years' The aim of long-term

capital inuestmeniin firms, from the pénsion fund point of view' is

to benefit t.o- tft" gio*th of the firms by being able.either to sell

the investment at a"capital gain or to benefit from the long-term

increased income.

A thriving, prosperous London economy can only be in the interests

of future GLC pensioners' But statutory provisions also ensure that

their Position is Protected'

3. Other Sources The range includes London Borough

sup".un.'uution punás; othei public .sector pension funds; and

-őn"v raised tr''o"Ár' ri"uncial institutions' Investment funds from

these sourcer "ouiJ'o."iully

be channelled through-GLEB, possibly

with the Board underwriting a guaranteed rate of return'

We envisage money from the three- sources being !i"-d to specific

investment Íuncti_oís - as outlined above _ and possibly accounted

for separatety. rt witl be for the IEC to set for GLEB taÍg:'t^11tes of

return; ttrese musi have regard to the long-term-project of

."rlr.,ótrrri.rg the London economy, and may well be different for

the different investment functions'

In addition to its investment functions, GLEB,will also-have a

iiritii"g functiin --

providing: |ot.. firms within the London

Industrial Strategy, specialiseá facilities for help with sales'

packaging, advertlsing and design; and an export agency'

GLEB will be required to make regular financial and poljcy reports

to the IEC. ttre Ii,C wi' have the iigtrt to issue specific directives to

GLEB.We envisage a Board of about eight members' half of them

full-time.

The members will be appointed for fixed period-s by the IEC' There

will be consultation wiiir ttre Trustees of the GLC superannuation

fund over the appointment of GLEB members: the form of such

consultation muit'depend on the nature of the arrangements agreed

18

with the Trustees for the investment of the Fund's cash flow.Appropriate backgrounds for board members may includeindustrial management, economic research, investment fundmanagement, trade union work or public service work. The mainwork of the Board will be organised internally according to sectors- electronics' light engíneering, service industry' and so on -although some sections of staff will have responsibility for forms ofindustrial organisation, such as co-operatives. And there will be adivision with responsibility for work in the Docklands Area. (seeSection 9 below).

Recommendation 5

ti) The main vehicle for the implementation of the London IndustrialStrategy will be the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB);

{ii) The administrative costs of GLEB will be clearly identified as adirect charge on the GLC, and not on any investment fundsavailable to the Board from other sources;

liii) GLEB will have three main investment functions "investment topromote strategic or structural change"; .,general investment";and "development";

it') Any intervention by GLEB in pursuit of any of its investmentfunctions will be conditional upon agreement between GLEB, theenterprise, and the Unions concerned, covering in particularfuture patterns of employment and investment in the enterprise;

,r\') Premises acquired, constructed or refurbished by GLEB in pursuitof its development investment function shall remain in theownership of GLEB and be leased to the enterprises concerned;

Lr-i) Such leases will include clauses covering minimum wages andworking conditions within the enterprise; or for homeworkerslinked with the enterprise;

{vii) Qlgajor projects, such as the proposed industry or science park,GLEB will co-ordinate the three investment functions to one énd;

'viii) The standing instructions to GLEB will preclude the possibility ofinducements or assistance being offered to a firm seeking to movefrom one of the regions of high structural unemployment toGreater London;

iix) The GLC will fund GLEB from its own resources, including therate precept - and the Inner Urban Areas Act and section 137 ofthe 1972 Local Government Act in particular; reserves, andcapital receipts;

19

(*) Second, once the Labour GLC has extended to the members of the

GLCSuperannuationFundasayindecisionsabouttheirpensions, (Recommendation 18(vi) below) we will negotiate withihe Trustees so that GLEB will be able to attract a substantial andrising proportion of the cash-flow to the fund;

(*i) Third, having backed GLEB with the GLC's own money, andhaving soughl the consent of our employees to do likewjse withtheirslwe Jhail seek funds through Borough pension funds; otherpublic ánd private Sector pension funds, and from other financialinstitutions;

(xii) In addition (item (ii) above) to covering GLEB's administrativecosts, the GLC's b*n t"to.t.ces will be used in particular forfundíng .,investment to promote strategic or Structural change''.

Specifi-c Sources of funds can be tied to speÓific investment

functions;

(xiii) The IEC will lay down for GLEB investment objectives and targetrates of return; those targets may vary as between the differentinvestment functions;

(xiv) GLEB will also have a serviging function - providln^g, Jor firmswithin the London Industrial Strategy, specialised facilities forhelp with sales, packaging, advertising, design and exports;

(*u) GLEB will be required to rnake regular financíal and policyreports to the IEC;

(xvi) The IEC will have the right to issue specific directives to GLEB'

(xvii) GLEB will be a board with about eight members, half of them fulltime; they will be appointed for fixed-term periods;

(xviii) Depending on the precise agreement reachedwith the Trustees of'

the GLC Superannuation Fund for the investment of a proportionof the cash-flow of the fund, arrangements will be made forconsultation with the Trustees on the appointment of Boardmembers.

(xix) The internal organisation of GLEB will be formed primarily ofdivisions responsible for work with particular industrial sectors.But there will also be divisions responsible for forms of industrialorganisation, and for Docklands (see Section 9 below);

(*") Specifically, one section of GLEB will be responsible for theencouragement of, and for assistance to, new producerco-operatives;

2A

teirrhrd

4.7 London and the new technology: science parks

Technological change is central to the success of the London IndustrialStrategy. And technological change can be to the benefit of London'sworking people. It may be that large-scale production plants will notcome to London, but there has been altogether too much defeatism aboutthe development of new manufacturing capacity. For some of the mostadvanced industry, London is an ideal location. It has the requiredlransport facilities, in its airports and docks. It is convenient for access tonnancial institutions. And - crucially - it is a world centre for scientificresearch.

London's industrial future must be linked to London as a city ofpolytechnics and universities. In advanced technology industries the maingrowth area in London would be in small plants enabling scientists toproduce innovative technology, and hopefully expand, and also in plantsutilising electronics in their products. Therefore, in conjunction withestablishments of higher education in London, we shall seek to establishat least one 'science park', the first probably in the docklands area. Thisconcept has become established in the United States, and one has morerecently been set up in this country, at Cambridge. Imperial College, CityUniversity, Queen Mary College, and North-East London Polytechnicaould be possible partners.

The park should contain a mix of "starter units" for individual scientistsio start up production and also to encourage existing companies to;onstruct their own plants in the area. A number of small companiesr*'ould also need to expand to larger plants over time and there should beadequate space for expansion. There would also need to be someattention paid to the surrounding environment and also the security of thesite for premises, cars and workers. There should then be considerableinteraction between component producers and users on the site.

There should also be facilities for product-development, either byscientists, or by groups of workers: "seed-bed factories", in which simplepremises could be rented at low cost while initial difficulties were beingsolved.

The GLC, would in addition, provide central services for the sciencepark: canteen, day care for children, maybe recreation.

Recommendation six

(i) A Labour GLC, in conjunction with London's major scientificinstitutions, will establish, as a part of the London IndustrialStrategy, at least one science park, the first probably in theDocklands area.

Ld

:h)ral

i/e

or

nt

,etnt

NSor

cy

he)er

B.

ull

ofonbrrd

ofr.rs,

ial

21

A:-----

(ii) The aim of the Science Park will be to create an environmentwhich the productive application of scientific researchhigh-technology industry can be made easier.

(iii) The Park will include: 'starter units'for individual scientists to startup production; larger premises to which small enterprises couldexpand in due course; and 'seed-bed' factories, in which individualscientísts, or groups of workers, could test and develop newproducts.

(iu) The GLC would improve the environment of the Park; and wouldalso provide such central services as day care for children, a canteenand some recreational facilities.

5. BUILD FOR PBOPLB, NOT FOR PROFIT

5.1 Direct Labour

The first local authority direct labour organisation in the world was set upby the GLC's predecesior, the London Öounty Council, at the instigationof its Labour members, in 1892. The LCC took this step because it wasclear that private contractors would not observe trade union conditions orthe Fair Wages Clause. Ever since then, good DLO's have meant

- better value for ratepayers

- better service for tenants and council departments needingbuilding repair work

- better working conditions for building workers

Private capital has never been able to undertake the task of providinghouses for rent at prices people can afford - but through the contractsystem, private builders have made money out of local authority housingprogrammes.

Ever since 1892 direct labour has been in the forefront of politicalcontroversy in London. The LCC Works Department was smashed by alater Tory Council working in the interest of the contractors. Now thelatest Tory GLC has tried to do the same thing to the present direct labournew-building organisation the GLC Housing Department'sConstruction Branch.

The issue for the London Labour movement is not whether we CreaÍe anew Direct Labour Organisation: it is how we go about it.

22

lnin

tII

)1

S

r

5": London Community Builders

. - ::e past, building workers within the GLC have been employed by the:::-lrtments which require their skills - principally, the Housing- =:artment, with its'C'and'M'(Maintenance) Branches, but also in -' : -rample - ILEA. It is now widely held among those concerned with* -O's that this is not a satisfactory way of working - better to have a. - : . J building organisation. setting its own priorities. managing its own-::",':rces. and estimating for the work it undertakes to the Departments' - '-,. hich the work is done. We should therefore like to see the new DLO-

' ,.':r,don Community Builders - constitufed with its own Chief Officer,

:.- r riS owD Sub Committee of elected members of the Council, reporting.:- IEC. The new body will be formed from the remains of 'C' branch

_.': \Í' branch, and other building workers employed by the Council. Al|': ,-: posts in its management structure will be subject to open: - " -:ilse ment. London Community Builders will aim to carry out 100o/o' .:r; maintenance conversion and small works programme of the

- . *:;rl *'ithin 2 years of the election. It should also by then be ready tor,;. n ior ali capital work and to aim tocarry out 50o/o of all capital work.

, -:::: legislation permits DLO's to carry out repair work for other:- :: todies.

-:-.;ral democracy arrangements as proposed for the GLC as ail : .. see section 10 below) will apply at the level of LCB - i.e. there will: t : J -'rnt Works Committee. But in addition, the Council sub committee- : -;:. ,,:ng LCB will include among its membership two stewards elected" ::,. ii'orkforce through trade union machinery. Present legislation*r::,! ihat they can only be non-voting members. In addition, two fullLi::= -:icials from trade unions with membership in the constructionr,1 : -.!::-, ,* ill be co-opted to the Sub Committee. It is envisaged that these::.-s,'rould not have negotiating responsibility on behalf of their

-.', . :lr LCB employees.

: "3 Dtrect Labour and Manpower PolicyI :,c - -, -': 10 below we outline the way in which we believe the GLC as a,.,'i: : .:,:,uld fulfil its responsibilities as an employer. And at Section 11,-: . -..r:: our ideas on manpower policy for Greater London.

S.r ,:e-:al responsibilities fall to the Direct Labour Organisation..:r., :: ;:e public sector, the construction industry is notorious as a

'f i{;: :.: -- ;asual labour. Its training record is appalling, and the onlyr'1'f,]1.;---, -;l::r a \\orse record on health and safety at work is mining and; Lrr:-' :-: \\'e believe that two duties are paramount in this area: London

l]iÍ -1_i1 Bui]ders should employ its full quota of disabled people, and

23

should play a full part in training the next generation of skilled workers.

5.4 Direct Labour - a service to tenants

The establishment of London Community Builders provides anopportunity to improve the service offered to tenants on retained GLCestates. We shall aim to provide an estate - based service, so thatmaintenance workers with the necessary skills will be attached toparticular estates. For smaller estates we will seek, in conjunction withthe unions, to introduce multi-skilled handymen to provide the requiredrange of trades. The link between tenant and building worker - andtherefore between the initial complaint, and the undertaking of the work,must be made as close as possible.

In the Housing Policy Paper, a scheme of estate and borough jointmanagement committees, giving tenants greater democratic control overtheir homes, is proposed. LCB workers will, through their trade unions,be involved in this structure, as will LCB management, to ensure fulldiscussion of ideas on the future development of the service.

5.5 Statutory Controls

The legislation introduced by the present Government is designed tomake it harder for Direct Labour Organisations to operate. While weregard the controls as insulting and undesirable, however, we believe thata strong DLO can still be built up.

There are two approaches to running a DLO. One is to treat it as a serviceto the Council pure and simple. The other is to treat it as a public sectorcontractor, competing alongside other private contractors. Whichever ofthese approaches we would ideally prefer, the choice has been made forus: the DoE's own reports, and now the legislation, say clearly that wemust follow the second way.

Of course, in the light of experience, we will propose changes to thelegislation. But for the time being we will have to live with it.

Recommendation Seven

(D All building workers presently employed by the Council should bebrought within a unified Direct Labour Organisation - LondonCommunity Builders;

(ii) LCB will be independent of the Housing and any otherdepartments, with its own Chief Officer and sub com:nittee,reporting to the IEC;

24

iiii) All senior posts in LCB will be recruited by open advertisement;

{ iv) Within two years of the election, LCB will aim to carry out 100% ofthe maintenance conversion and small works programme of theCouncil. By then, it will be ready to tender for all capital work; andwill aim to undertake - initially - 50o/o of capital work. LCB will alsoundertake repair work for other publiq bodies. This does not meanundertaking work done by other public bodies' own employees.

t) There will be a Joint Works Committee for LCB, along the linesproposed for the GLC as a whole (see section 10 andrecommendation 18 below)

vi) In addition, two stewards elected by the LCB workforce throughnormal trade union machinery will sit as non voting members of theSub Committee. And two full time officials of trade unions withmembership in the construction industry (though not as individualsinvolved in negotiations within LCB) will serve as co-optedmembers;

r ii) By the time it is fully operational, LCB will employ its full quota ofdisabled workers;

'"rii) Apprenticeships will be expanded; LCB will aim for a ratio of oneapprentice to every 5 skilled workers;

-{l LCB will also recruit suitable retrained workers from GovernmentSkill Centres;

1: i The administration of housing repairs will be decentralized, so thatas far as possible groups of workers will be attached to particularestates; to facilitate this, there will be a review of depot facilities;

Í1l To assist in meeting the needs of smaller estates, there will bediscussions with the trade unions in order to introduce multi-skilledhandyman posts;

'r,': r There will be a review of the system of ordering repair work, so as toensure the shortest possible lines of communication between acomplaint being received, and the job being done;

rur i LCB will be represented by management and workplacerepresentatives at the proposed estate and borough jointmanagement committees.

Ü i LCB should meet all the financial accounting and cost controlsvstems laid down by CIPFA or by legislation.

25

6. THE GLC AS CUSTOMER AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTION

6.1 The powers of the GLC - and the power of the GLC

There are two ways of looking at a local authority like the GLC. On one

hand, it is a creature of statute: it has no powers except those_that comefromiegislation, it is hidebound by the doctrine of 'ultra vires'. It can onlydo what government permits it to do.

But the GLC is there: it exists - it is a large employer, a large-scale placer

of contracts, a customer for a large range of goods. The ways in which itchooses to use this econ omic powér, or chooses nol to use it, can affect the

extent to which the objects of the London Industrial Strategy are

achieved.

of course, the GLC is bound to obtain value for money in its contracts.But we think that a Labour GLC should use all the leverage it has in the

márket place to further the aims of the London Industrial Strategy, withinthe scope that legislation permits.

6.2 The GLC SuPPlies DePartment

Partly because of the enormous power it represents, we think that the

GLiSupplies Department shouid be manag_ed by.a sub-committee orBoard, cbmprised bf elected members of the Council, and answerable to

the Industry and Employment committee. At the same time, the

Supplies Dápartment ii a hignty successful.municipal e1terprise' whose

*"ini""r are used by many other public bodies. With the IEC''responsibility for municipal enterprise, it makes good sense for it tooversee the work of the Supplies Department.

within the GLC's present standing orders for contracts and suppliesthere are Labour Ölu,''"s (copy at Annexe 2) which make detailedprovisions for working conditions in enterprises which supply the

Council.

We shall develop this role by drawing up a 'code of practice' for suppliesto the Councii, covering -.with variations appropriate to the

circumstances of particulai industries, - wages and conditions not less

favourable than those negotiable for that industry; observation of goodpractice on health and saÍety; negotiation of trade union rights; and the

óbservation of similar conditions in respect of any homeworkingassociated with the enterprise. In Annexe 3 to this report we reproducethe homeworking code

-of conduct produced by the Low Pay Unit'

Suppliers will be expected to observe the requirements of this code.

Once the GLC code of practice for supplies has been introduced, we will,in conjunction with the relevant trade unions, draw up 'fair lists' of

26

LE

re

ty

)Íitre'e

te)rloleteI's

lo

3S

:dle

ES

leSS

rd1e

1g

ceit.

S.

rein

ll,of

crganisations which observe the provisions of the code, for all categoriescf supplies. We shall then encourage other pubiic bodies, who di notthemselves use the services of the Supplies Départment, to confine their:urchases to firms on the relevant 'fair list'.

\Íid Glamorgan County Council has drawn up a computer-basedlndustrial directory and product register, so that local firms can know"rhat goods and services are available within the County. We consider-hat, combined with the 'fair lists', a similar system should be establishedrr the GLC. The scope for import-substitution should be considered.{nd we shall ensure that, without compromising the council's statutory.rbligation to obtain value for money, the new co-operative and public:nterprises stimulated by the London Industrial strategy have the Chance:.'r supply goods to the Council.

Recommendation Eight

: ) Responsibility for the GLC Supplies Department will lie with aBoard or Sub-Committee of GLC members, reporting to the IEC;or

ri) A Labour GLC will use the economic power of the GLC'spurchasing operation to further the ends of the London IndustrialStrategy;

:ii) Building on the Labour Clauses in the GLC's existing StandingOrders, a code of practice, to be observed by all suppliers to theGLC, will be drawn up, incorporating requirements on wages andconditions, health and safety, and trade union rights, and includingcompliance with a Code of Conduct on homeworking, similar tothat drafted by the Low Pay Unit;

rr) In conjunction with the relevant trades unions, ,fair lists' ofsuppliers complying with the GLC Supplies Code of Practice will bedrawn up. Other public bodies will be encouraged to confine theirpurchasing to 'fair list' suppliers;

-! I A computer-based directory and product register, coveringenterprises within Greater London, will be introduced inconjunction with the London Industrial Strategy;

-': ) Provision will be made to ensure that new co-operative and publicenterprises can act as suppliers to the Council.

íí'3 Contractors and Consultants

,i.t section 5 above we have outlined our plan for the creation of a newlirect Labour Organisation, and made proposals as to the proportion of:re Council's building work that should be undertaken internally.

2',7

Similar considerations apply with regard to professional employees. Insome circumstances the use of consultants is justified. The Tories havegone far beyond this, reducing job opportunites and job satisfaction forGLC staff, by widespread use of consultants on a wide range of issues'There should be a rule that all jobs must be offered internally first, andshown to be beyond the technical expertise of GLC staff, beforeconsultants can be brought in.

As far as building and civil engineering contractors are concerned, a

further code of piactice, akin to that proposed (Recommendation 8)above for suppliérs, will be required - providing in particular for the

elimination of casual or 'lump' labour.

Recommendation Nine

(i) It will become GLC practice that all jobs must be offered internallyfirst, and shown to bé beyond the technical expertise of GLC staff,before consultants can be brought in;

(ii) A code of practice for contractors will be drawn up, in conjunctionwith the rélevant unions; no firm not in compliance with the codewill be permitted to tender for any Council work, or admitted to anyCouncil list of contractors;

(iii) The code will include requirements on wages and conditions, healthand safety, and trade union rights, and will specifically prohibit the

employment of lumP labour;

(iu) As far as electrical contracting is concerned, the GLC will revert toprevious Labour practice, and restrict contracts to firms inmembership of the Joint Industry Board.

NEW MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISE

7.1 Introduction

Existing legislation does not permit local authorities to manufacturegoods Jrcelt for their own use, or under specific powers. In section 4 ofihis report we describe our general proposals for new investment; in thissection, we outline what the GLC itself can do.

7.2 Supplies

Section 6 above considers the scope of the GLC Supplies Department as

an economic institution. But among those goods bought on a large scale

by the council, for its own use and for other authorities, possibilities fordirect manufacture might include street furniture, or office equipment;construction materialJ- including joinery - and road materials. The

28

scope for both services and supplies being provided by new municipalenterprise will need to be reviewed at an early stage of the LondonIndustrial Strategy.

7,3 Services

In many areas the GLC relies upon outside contractors to supply servicesrvhich could, we believe, be provided from within the public sector.Examples include window cleaning (the GLC presently pays nearlyf 200,000 a year for window cleaning on public areas of housing estatesalone); the tree bank - where the Tories have squandered an asset builtup over many years, and are now dependent on the private sector;catering; and maintenance of metropolitan roads.

7,4 Consortium Working

But the work the GLC can do for itself is limited by the market for whichsuch enterprises would cater: one customer - the GLC itself. Therefore,for some goods and services, the best way of working will be by forming aconsortium with other local authorities. In the supplies field, the GLC hastraditionally worked with the London Boroughs and some neighbouringauthorities. But there is no reason why consortia should be limited: after\Íay 1981 the combined purchasing power of say _ a Labour GLC and aLabour Greater Manchester Council - could represent massive economicpower - certainly, such as to constitute a market for certain categories ofgoods.

7.5 London Buses

Until the latest phase of 'rationalization' at British Leyland, London'sbuses were made in London. This situation must be restored. Building oneristing London Transport maintenance and depot facilities, a LabourGLC will establish a bus manufacturing plant. Under the 1969 TransportÁct we have the power to do this: it is a power we intend to use.

.{ppropriate measures of industrial democracy will be introduced, andihe bus factory will be managed by a Board answerable to the IEC.

Recommendation Ten

r t In the preparation of the London Industrial Strategy, the EconomicPolicy Group will be asked to identify services or products suitablefor new municipal enterprises,

x i In the development of new municipal enterprise the GLC will seekto promote consortium working with other local authorities -including the other metropolitan authorities,

: i A Labour GLC will restore the capacity to build London's buses in

29

London by establishing a bus plant, managed by a Boardanswerable to the IEC, with appropriate measures of industrialdemocracy.

8. GRANT AID

8.1 Introduction

In this Report we have deliberately avoided proposing the creation ofnew GLC departments. Economic policy is a matter for the LondonBoroughs, for the IEC and for the specialist bodies we proposeestablishing * notably GLEB and GLMB. But, in employment policy asin other areas, we envisage achieving some of our objectives bygrant-aiding outside organisations.

8.2 Federation of Co-operatÍve Development Agencies

In the development of the London Industrial Strategy (Section 4 above)we lay stress on the growth and promotion of industrial co-operatives; at

Recommendation 5(xx) above we state that we see one section of GLEBas having responsibility for encouraging and assisting new producerco-operatives. We believe that a proportion of the funds available for"investment to provide strategic or structural change" should be reservedfor co-operatives. One way in which this could be done is through thelocal Co-operative Development agencies which are now being formed.In several cases these have been funded by London Borough Councils,but where the appropriaÍe area for local CDA operations cross on aborough boundary, for instance in inner west London, the GLC shouldfund or part-fund a local CDA itself. The appropriate level of funding isof five year grants for full time staff and office expenses. A Labour GLCcould also assist this process by providing a five year grant to enable aLondon federation of local CDA's to employ full time workers. Theseworkers would help local CDA's become established, work to ensure thatfinance and assistance become available for co-ops, develop themarketing of the goods and services of co-ops, and maintain linksbetween the numerous people and organisations concerned withco-operative development in London.

8.3 The London Trade Union Resource Centre

In a paper submitted to us, the Greater London Association of TradesCouncils stressed the lack of policy, research and co-ordinating resourcesavailable to the trade union movement in London.

They said:"Let's look at the Tories' recent booklet on Small Businesses in

30

London. If it was rewritten replacing 'small business' with 'TradesUnion Branch'we would be seeing circulated at ratepayers expenseround London the following - "The GLC's concern is to explain theimportance of the Trade Union branch to London", and "The GLChas every sympathy for Trades Union Branches and can appreciatethat at times they must feel that they can please no one", and also"Full participation by Trades Union Branches in the economiclife of London is essential if t-ondon and its inhabitants are toprosper." "

- he functions of such a centre should include the promotion of Trade'. nion Education, information and research workshops, consultancy:ecilities allowing Trades Unionists to present their case at Planning and:her similar hearings, reprographic facilities, conference facilities, the

::ovision of a library and so on.

{ Trade Union Research Centre for London could help that positive:articipation that London needs from all its citizens not least from those.;' ho feel that they are seldom consulted and left with no option except to.rply a veto when they finally find out what's happening.

1"4 Alternative Production

L: Paragraph 4.7 above, in developing our ideas on science parks, we,1a\e suggested the idea (Recommendation 6(iiD ) of "Seed Bed,-.ctories" in which groups of workers, or scientists, could test and:evelop new products. However, the scope for such ideas is far greater.

iiroups of workers such as the Lucas Aerospace Shop Stewardsr: -.mmittee have, with the support of the Labour Party, begun to develop.::as on alternative production - using technologies which interact with.l;nan skills; making goods which are conducive to human health and;r;lfare; working in ways which conserve, rather than waste resources.

"\ e believe that these initiatives - which constitute a fundamental

:;lection of the values inherent in capitalist production - must beir-rpported by a Labour GLC. We shall therefore be prepared to assisti:Lrups of workers seeking to develop alternative forms of production,;'.rth finance, with premises, or in other ways.

8"5 Action Research

There are many areas of the London economy in which our information isi:tll limited. We have begun, for example, to say what we intend to do for:rLlmeworkers:

- conditions will be imposed in leases of factory premises(Recommendation 5(vi) ):

31

- 'fair lists' including provisions about homeworking will beintroduced for supplies (Recommendation 8(iv) ):

- and the restrictions currently in housing tenancy agreements willbe replaced by a registration scheme (Housing Working PartyReport para. 8.2):

but we still need more information about the scale and nature ofhomeworking in order to draw up more comprehensive policies. Otherareas for action-research include low pay in London, and the employmentof women.

We beiieve that useful work in these areas may be undertaken bycommunity based projects in the voluntary sector, although we fullyrecognise ihat this would not in itself be an adequate response to theissues raised.

Recommendation Eleven

(i) A Labour GLC wilt use grant-aid to outside bodies as a means offurthering its employment objectives;

(i0 The GLC will contribute to the funding of local CDA's inappropriate circumstances ;

(iiD The GLC will make a grant to the projected London Federation ofCDA's.

(iu) The GLC will give financial support to the proposal from theGreater London Association of Trades Councils for a Trade UnionResource Centre, so as to enable the Centre to be established and tofunction;

9, DOCKLANDS

9.1 Introduction

Labour's strategy for the dockland area is considered in detail in thePolicy Statement on Planning. This section simply considers - briefly -how developments in dockland should be linked with our general strategyand the institutions we propose creating. (For detailed proposals onDocklands see section 3.18 of Planning Report.)

9.2 Democratic Control

In Section 4 we restate our determination that the local government rolein industrial and employment policy should continue to be a sharedresponsibility of the Boroughs and the GLC. In Docklands, thiscooperation has been reflected in the establishment of the Docklands

3Z

Joint Committee, on which the five borough councils and the GLC arerepresented. The TUC is also directly represented on the DJC, and in ourriew this representation should be expanded. The Docklands JointCommittee has been responsible for preparing and updating theDocklands Strategy, which should continue to form the basis ofredevelopment; the idea of an Urban Development Corporation isrejected.

9.3 The Docks

The Upper docks are an important part of London's transport network;and, in addition to direct dock work, many other jobs in East Londonjepend on the Port. The Port of London Authority has continually failed:o recognise the potential of the Upper Docks, and has not seen its:esponsibility as being towards East London's communities and workingpeople. The retention and development of the Upper Dock is asrmportant to our industrial strategy as it is for the transport of goods.

9.4 Institutions

-{t Section 4 above we outlined our proposals for a Greater LondonEnterprise Board. This will be the main instrument of our policies for theiegeneration of the London economy. As proposed in Recommendation:txix), one division of the Board will have special responsibility for work:n Docklands. The trades unions representing dock workers have a:articular interest in future economic development in the area; we havelroposed increased trade union involvement in the DJC (para 9.2); tradeunion representation on the Industry and Employment CommitteeRecommendation 3(iii) ); we envisage trade union representation onGLEB (para 4.6); and GLEB will involve trade union interests through:he Local Planning Agreement System (Recommendation 5(iv) ). In:rder to ensure adequate liaison, however, we will discuss the detailedrrsanisation of the Docklands Division of GLEB with the trades unionsTlost involved.

Recommendation Twelve

il The basis ofthe approach to the regeneration ofthe docklands areawill be the implementation of the Docklands Strategy and theretention and modernisation of the Upper Docks;

i) A Labour GLC will work closely with the Docklands JointCommittee to implement the strategy;

rii) The main instrument for industrial regeneration in dockland will bethe Docklands Division of GLEB;

ro ) The detailed organisation of the Docklands Division of the GLEB

-t -1

will be discussed - in particular - with the main trades unionsinvolved in the area.

10. THE GLC AS EMPLOYER

10.1 Introduction

As employers the GLC and the ILEA are responsible for about 70,000full time staff. (Further references, in this section, to the GLC include,also, ILEA as employers). The GLC is also indirectly responsible, in itsrole as pay-master and policy-maker, for the 60,000 staff who work forLondon Transport.

Three questions arising from this position are important for an incomingLabour administration:

(i) How do we use the economic power implied in being a largeemployer to further the objectives of our economic policy?

(iD How do we act as a good employer? - or, how should the LabourParty put its political principles into practice when it finds itself inthe position of being an employer?

(iii) How do we use the staff resources in order to provide the bestpossible service to Londoners?

10.2 The Quality of Service Audit

Central Government pressure on local authorities is for cost-cuttingthrough reducing staff numbers: there is too little concern with the qualityof service to the public.

In many departments staff vacancies are rising, with resultant reductionsin standards. It will be a high priority for a Labour Council to identify -and remedy - such shortages at an early stage.

This would be in the context of a commitment to establish standards forwork in - for example - the Parks, and to provide sufficient staff toachieve those standards. This would avoid the current practice ofestablishing standards and then following a manpower policy whichensures that those standards cannot be met.

Recommendation Thirteen:

Each 'service' committee of the Labour GLC at its first meeting, andthereafter at six-monthly intervals, will consider a "Quality of ServiceAudit" report, covering the level of public service the Council aims toprovide; the extent to which current provision matches that level; theextent to which any shortfall is attributable to staffing problems; and

34

proposals for recruitment of new staff directly involved in the delivery of:e rvice.

f0.3 The GLC and Women's Work

\lthough at national level the Labour Party has a good record in passinglegislation on discrimination against women, there are few women inChief Officers' posts in local government, and relatively few women at:enior levels. The employment structure of the public services still doesnot adequately reflect the needs of women workers, and therefore doesnot provide equal access to the various grades of job.

Our first commitment is to the provision of day-care facilities for thechildren of people working within the GLC. We are determined toincrease the range of opportunities open to women workers within theGLC; we shall consult with the trades unions on how to implement suchpositive discrimination.

Recommendation Fourteen:

li) Day-care facilities will be provided for the children of GLCemployees, at County Hall and at other workplaces;

tii) In consultation with the trades unions a Labour GLC willimplement measures of positive discrimination in favour of womenworkers so as to increase the range of opportunities open to womenwithin the GLC;

liii) Leave arrangements and hours of work will be revised so as toensure that these assist women workers, through the developmentof part-time work and job-sharing;

t ir') The GLC will adopt as a matter of policy an Equal OpportunitiesClause, along the lines advocated by the TUC General Council,committing the GLC to positive policies to promote equal- opportunity in employment.

r0.4 EthnÍc minorities

.Tust as women are under-represented in senior posts in local government,so are people from minority communities. Thus our equal opportunitiesrolicy must extend also to people from minority groups.

B e shall also ensure that, in the recruitment of school leavers by theCouncil, particular efforts are made to provide opportunities for young3ople from minority communities.

Recommendation Fifteen :

il The equal opportunities employment clause shall apply in respect

35

of minority groups;

(ii) The Council's recruitment of workers will be closely monitored in

order to ensure that people from minority communities have access

to GLC training and employment, in at least proportion to their

numbers.

10.5 Recruitment and training

In addition to the more blatant areas of discrimination' some groups of

workers face particular difficulty in obtaining suitable employment. Even

in the public iector, it is sometimes recruitment and training procedure:

that are at fault. With disabled people, for example, it is not enough to sar

that they may be free to appiy för posts public1y advertised: years oídiscourágemént may mean ihat they will not apply' Again, trainins

opportuíities need tó be revised to ensure they make adequate provision

for school leavers.

Recommendation Sixteen:

Recruitment and training procedures will be reviewed in order to ensure

that the Council employi ^at

least its statutory quota of disabled people.

and that it provides the right opportunities for school leavers'

10.ó The London Fire Brigade

Few public services can ever have been eroded as quickly or_as seriouslr

as thó London Fire Brigade has since the I97'7 GLC election. In place of a

high standard of fire Joue., and good industrial relations, the situation

.tJ* ir that protection against the hazards of fire has been serioushreduced, and industrial relations left in an embittered state'

The GLC have deliberately set a rigid future cash limit on the LondonFire Brigade which makes it impossible for the I97 4 Level of fire cover to

be maintained.

Manning in the Fire Service in London is now below the establishedconfideice levels; many fire stations stand in urgent need of major

improvement; and the river fire service, sub-contracted out to a private

enterprise tug boat, is woefully inadequate.

In January 1978 as part of the agreement which ended the firemen'sstrike, it w-as agreed that firemen's hours would be reduced from 48 hours

a week to 42 [ours a week. It was agreed in October 1,978 that the finan

date for Brigades to go over to the 42-hour week was 1 April, 1979. ManrFire Brigadés in Grelt Britain have already gone over the 42 ho.ur week.

This hal meant recruiting extra firemen. The Tories have deiberatelrrefused to recruit extra fiiemen, on the grounds that they were going to

36

TI

drastically revise the level of fire cover in London when the reduction inhours came. consequently to meet the deadline of the 42-hour weekbeing introduced on 1 April, 1979 the GLC have produced an interimplan which reduces the number of fire engines auailable in London.we do not believe that this state of affairs can be allowed to continue.Accordingly, an incoming Labour administration at county Hall will firstrestore, and then improve upon, the I974level of fire cover.

Recommendation Seventeen:

The new GLC will not regard itself as bound by any arrangementsregarding the operation of the London Fire Brigade entered into bythe Tories before the election, unless these are wholly and withoutreservation agreed between the GLC and the FBU;Essential fire cover levels will be agreed, with the FBU and HomeOffice with a full commitment to provide the necessary capitalequipment, manpower, training etc., to reach those levels;

íiii) The programme for major improvements to fire stations will beaccelerated;

fiv) A Labour GLC will provide the resources to maintain the agreedfire cover levels, despite the growth in incidents and growingproblems in dealing with them (traffic congestion etc.). We shall erionly on the side of caution; we cannot afford not to provide theresources;

{v) A proper reserve fleet should be provided, together with effectivefacilities for proper maintenance;

{vi) The GLC will enable the Brigade to establish a fully manned fireprevention branch, staffed by operational Fire Officers within afully manned operational Fire Brigade to enable the backlog of FirePrevention work to be cleared and the present workload to beefficiently dealt with;

lvii) The London Brigade's river fire service will be restored.

10.7 IndustrialDemocracy

The last Labour GLC had completed its plans for a measure of industrialdemocracy by the time of the 1977 Election. unfortunately the incomingadministration chose to scrap what had been agreed.

R"e believe that the previous GLC was right to move in this direction. It isnur view - and it is central to our London Industrial Strategy - thatm-orkpeopleshould have a greater degree of control over their lous. ttrisapplies as much to the public services as to other forms of economic

37

T

activity. In addition, advice from representatives of council employeeswill be extremely valuable in the formation of policy.

We do not, however, believe that the machinery of industrial democracyshould be divorced from trade union structures. We therefore propose asystem based on the nationally agreed arrangements for Joint WorksCommittees, so that trade union workplace representatives have directaccess to elected members. The Joint Works Committees will operate atdepartmental level, with two workplace representatives from each JWCsitting as non-voting members of the relevant main Council Committee.

We believe, therefore, that industrial democracy must start at the bottom'by giving the Union Workplace representative an active role, a) at his/herworkplace, b) in his/her Department, c) at policy making level, excludingfull Council/Authority, for his/her Department, and on service widepolicy matters.

The way in which the suggested arrangements should apply to LondonCommunity Builders, the new direct Labour organisation, is described atSection 5 (Recommendations 6(v) and 6(vi) above).

There is one further area of considerable importance to which industrialdemocracy needs to be extended. At the moment there is no participationby GLC employees in the decisions concerning the GLC SuperannuationFund. This is unacceptable. The management of the fund implies anenormous responsibility for the savings of GLC workers. They should notbe excluded from a say in those decisions.

Recommendation Eighteen:

(i) There should be Joint Works Committees at the level of each GLCdepartment, modelled as closely as possible on the provisions in therelevant national agreements;

(ii) The employees' side of each Joint Works Committee will beworkplace representatives elected by trades unionists within theDepartment concerned;

(iiD The employers' side will be elected members of the GLC committeeconcerned;

(iu) In order that these arrangements should work effectively' theirintroduction will be accompanied by an agreement recognisingparticipation in these bodies as qualifying for time-off, andproviding office, secretarial, and resources assistance;

(") Two workplace representatives from among the employees' side oreach JWC will serve as non-voting members of the relevant GLCcommittee;

38

(ui) Arrangements will be made to extend industrial democracy to themanagement of the GLC Superannuation Fund by the election ofmember trustees through arrangements to be negotiated with theunions;

(vii) The introduction of measures of industrial deocracy will beundertaken in consultation with the unions with membership of theGLC.

10.8 Flexibility

We have proposed the introduction of a career structure more open towomen and people from minority communities. But enabling people torecognise their full potential should concern socialists as publicemployers in relation to all employees. Local government has manyartificial barriers: between departments, between professions, andbetween grades

We think that it would be in the interests of the workforce and the Councilalike - naturally, proceeding in close consultation with the trade unions -to maximise flexibility by establishing an integrated service-wide salaryrange, open to all applicants with skills sufficient to meet the needs of thepost.

By 1981 the Tories will have established a number ofdepartments/branches working on policies to which we are opposed.Thetwo most obvious examples are the Directorate of Home Ownership, andthe road development sections of Planning and Transportation Dept.Many of these staff will have to be redeployed. The specific measures thatcan be taken will vary according to the skills of the people involved.Junior clerical and administrative staff should present no problem as wewill be expanding elsewhere.

To ease these transfers, there may be a case for giving them priority inapplying for these vacancies. For senior, and for highly specialised staffthere will be more difficulties. However, these will be much fewer innumber.

There will also be a need for retraining facilities.

Recommendation Nineteen:

(r) GLC grading structures should be reorganised so as to create anintegrated service-wide salary and career structure, with noartificial department, professional, or blue collar/white colourbarriers;

(ii) The Council's commitment to retraining for staff whose presentfunction is eliminated should be increased;

39

(iii) These proposals should be the subject of full consultation with theunions with membership among GLC staff.

10.9 Wages and Conditions

Traditionally, the GLC has been outside the national wages andconditions negotiations for local government. However, for the most partthis position has not been used to better the offers made through nationalmachinery.

While many GLC staff are relatively well paid, there are pockets of lowpay among manual staff in some departments. It is suggested that there isa case for: reversing the traditional position, and deliberately setting outto pay higher wages; establishing a GLC minimum wage to eliminate lowpay in GLC employment; and moving towards a shorter working week.

A Labour GLC will reintroduce a Union Membership Agreement formanual employees and will commence negotiations for a UnionMembership Agreement covering other grades.

Recommendation Twenty:

(i) A Labour GLC will seek to better the rates for local governmentemployment negotiated under national agreements;

(iD A minimum wage - based on data about the cost of living in London

- will be introduced, to eliminate low pay from within the GLC;

(iii) There will be negotiatíons to reduce the working week;

(in) The Union Membership Agreement for manual staff will bereinstated, and negotiations commenced to introduce similaragreements for all grades.

10.10 Technological Change

Much of the London Industrial Strategy will be concerned with theadaptation of the London economy to technological change. We haveagreed that, in so far as the Labour GLC will have any control we aredetermined to see that change takes place in the interests of workingpeople, not in the interests of employers. Similarly when new technology- word processors, visual display units, and more recent developments - isintroduced within the GLC, we will negotiate with staff about the way inwhich this is done. We are interested in new technology in order toimprove our service to the people of London - not in order to cut jobs.

Recommendation Twenty One:

No technological innovation will be introduced into the GLC or its use

40

extended without negotiations with the trade unions concerned, coveringmanning levels, health and safety, and other aspects.

11 THE LONDON MANPOWER PLAN

11.1 Why a Manpower Policy?

The London economy has been undergoing some complex changes,analysed in Section 2 of this report. At the same time as some parts ofLondon, and some groups of workers, endure high levels ofunemployment, there are problems of skill shortage and lack of training.

Those who believe that market forces can solve all problems do not se.e

low wages as a problem: their solution to unemployment is for workers toaccept jobs that pay less. To avoid this trap, we again see a need forplanned, democratically controlled public intervention.

Manpower problems require action by the GLC (and the ILEA) on twolevels:-

(i) By influencing the number and size of employment enterprises inLondon. The proposals under Section 4 "The Role of the PublicSector" will, we believe, create employment in London. Howeverlabour market problems remain and so the need for:-

(ii) Influencing the size and structure of the labour market itself. Thisincludes providing opportunity for workers in the Capital to trainand retrain in necessary skills and making job mobility easier.

ll.2 The London Manpower Plan

Many firms and industries in London have found problems in recruitingand retraining the right labour. Thus London needs a manpower policy,that complements our industrial strategy. Such a manpower policy wouldrnclude training workers for the right employment, re-training workersfor new jobs (an increasingly important task with growing technologicalchange), and helping the unemployed in London by job creationschemes, training courses to enable them to seek employment and activehelp in getting jobs.

Already in Britain and in London we have the elements of a rudimentarymanpower policy. At a national level, the MSC is responsible for nationalmanpower planning and has played an important role in London with itsschemes for the unemployed and for training and re-training.

The MSC Strategy for London provides some useful steps towards a planfor London manpower problems. At a Borough level many Boroughs,particularly under Labour control, have played an important role. We do

41

not seek to interfere at either level; we envisage a continuing andexpanding role for the Boroughs and the MSC. However, because of thescale of the problem, and because we feel there is a need for a greaterpublic sectoi role, we want to evolve a London Manpower Plan, whichwill build upon some of the work contained in the MSC Strategy forLondon.

11.3 The Anarchy of training

Many different agencies are involved in training - among them the MSC,the Industrial Training Boards, schools and colleges of further educationand many voluntary agencies in the private sector. In some areas of workthe training courses provided are adequate, even more than adequate -but in man-v areas they are not. A London Manpower Plan would not'however, sét out to plug gaps: our training Strategy would provide specificcourses where necessary, but above all would try and get someco-ordination between all the agencies operating in London. And thelevel of publicity for many courses that are provided is very low and aLondon Manpo*er Plan would seek to gather information above exactlywhat is provided by all the various agencies and publicise this throughoutLondon.

The scope of the London Manpower Plan should not be limited: we donot see it as just co-ordinating existing provision, or just improvingtraining faciliiies in London, or merely providing token help to theunemployed. The London Manpower Plan will be our attempt to evolve alongei term London response to a changing industrial situation.

And there should be no doubt as to the urgency of this task: the ToryGovernment has perversely chosen the present recession as the occasionÍo close Skill Centres: in Enfield, in Kidbrooke, and in Poplar. The ToryGLC has cut back on apprenticeships in all trades.

11.4 Linking Training with Education

Close co-ordination is needed between schools and colleges, the youthservice and the various industrial agencies and the MSC. At the momenteach 'sector' seems to regard its problems in its own context - so

'education' may ignore employment and training needs of youngsters.

Education and training is not just an area for young people. We should beexpanding educational facilities to cater more for those who are not atprésent the main users - in particular working adults and theünemployed. Technological change' attitudes to work' the growth ofshorter working time, more job changes and rising unemployment allmake this area more important.

There must be closer liaison between the "world of work" and schools

42

and colleges. Most young people leaving school are just not prepared forwork - they know little of unemployment conditions or employment'rights', trade unions and the whole nature of collective bargaining. Thelevel of careers advice in schools is still very low. We need to encouragegreater links between schools and industry - making use of industrialtutors and others involved in trade union or management training to giveguidance and advice in schools (and not just for the non-academic!). Weought to encourage work experience schemes for staff and pupils, againnot just for the non-academic, or just limited to factory experience; butour approach to work experience schemes must not be an uncritical one.Work experience must be monitored in conjunction with the tradeunions.

Links need to be seriously developed between local industries and tradeunions and schools. And in particular, the careers service needsconsiderably more resources, wíth a review of courses for senior pupils inschools and the provision of careers resource centres for school staff.

11.5 Young Workers and Youth Unemployment

The Labour movement's goal is nothing less than the provision of a job ortraining place for every young person. We shall use our position inLondon to move towards that end. This aim can only be realised byexamining the different situations in which young people find themselves.

Some school-leavers at 16 or 17-plus will have obtained employment; ofthese, some will have jobs requiring skills and will be given day-release orallowed to attend Training Centres. Others will be in unskilled orsemi-skilled work and are unlikely to receive any structurededucation/training; those people who take on this latter type of job arelikely to require support and guidance which can be provided throughschemes such as the unified vocational preparation programme (UVP)which was sponsored by the previous government. The ILEA andemployers should take a much more positive attitude to such schemes andtraining even if not directly related to the job concerned. Encouragementshould be given to young people to attend courses on basic education, lifeand social skills; craft training will help young people who may wisheventually to commence on skill training or who are required to changetheir job in later life.

Of particular concern are the young unemployed. lncluded within thisgroup are a proportionately large group of young people from minoritycommunities. The MSC has launched the Youth OpportunitiesProgramme (YOP) for 16 to L8 year olds. A particular problem in thisarea is the lack of co-ordination between the MSC and the educationauthority. Whilst there is obviously contact between individual officers ofthe two organisations it is felt that a more formal body is required to

43

'oversee' training programmes in London.

Further, there is scope for the youth service, in its provision of facilitiesfor young people and encouragement and help to youth clubs. One areaof need is for the education service to provide more help to workingpeople, e.g. by provision of nursery facilities. Also, there neecÍs to be a bigexpansion of the "holiday projects" schemes, run by the youth service, sothat in families where the parent(s) are at work, facilities can be providedfor children and young people during the school holidays.

11.ó Re-TraÍning

The MSC provides opportunities for adult retraining through the trainingopportunities programme. This scheme runs side-by-side with similarschemes run by colleges and by companies wishing to re-train existingemployees. Once again, there are a number of bodies with little formallinks, e.g., the Training Services Agency; industrial training boards;education authorities and technical educational councils. There is verylittle co-ordination between these bodies.

Ll.7 The Long Term Unemployed

An incresingly large part of the labour force is having to resign itself tolong periodsof unemployment. For many older workers, the possibility offinding a new job is remote and they may well have to face fifteen totwenty years without work.

Facilities for the long-term unemployed should include the expansion ofday-time adult education classes where apart from being given theopportunity of learning new skills unemployed workers would have anopportunity to meet together and discuss their common problems.

11.8 The Greater London Manpower Board

There is a need for a body, on the lines of the MSC, which would fulfill theroles of the present national MSC and TSA but in the London Area.There would be considerable advantage in setting up such a board on atripartite basis with GLC representatives and representatives fromLondon employers and unions. A solely GLC board or Councilsub-committee would not be as useful in bringing in the experience ofthose involved in industry in quite the same way as a semi-autonomousbody could.

This tripartite arrangement would also encourage an "all party", "allindustry" support which is important in the manpower field as the MSCshows. We would also need to encourage active help and support from theLondon Boroughs and the MSC and ihere may bé a case-for asking foradvisory members from these two groups to sit on the Board. This would

44

help to improve communications between the agencies involved inmanpower planning in London.

Such a Board's first task would be to draw up the London Manpower Planto improve and expand the training and re-training schemes for'Londoners, generallyto promote the needs of Londoners in employmentand the "-!loy-"nt

ne-eds of London industry and commerce and toprovide .p"liuí help for the unemployed and for particu1ar groups ofLo.tdoneis like the school leavers and ethnic groups, and to plan in a

longer term the manpower needs of the capital in conjunction with the

Enterprise Board and the GLC.

Recommendation TwentY Two

(D There will be a Greater London Manpower Bogrd^ (GLMB)established by the GLC with the following terms of reference,

(u)TodrawuptheLondonManpowerPlan'buildingontheworkalready undertaken for the MSC's Strategy for, London; to

advisethelEConmanpowerplanningandlabourmarketproblems, and to seek to co-ordinate the work of statutory'voluntary and commercial agencies in this field;

(b) To provide co-ordination for training activities in I'ondon' top'ouid"helpforindustrialtrainingboards(particularlyináreas like hótels and catering or construction) and to Set up

new schemes for training and re-training for Londoners;

(.) To provide job and training schemes and day educationcentres for the unemPloYed;

(d) To provide particular help to the 16-19 year.old.group' to

ethnic minority groups aná other groups experiencing specialproblems;

(e) To develop forms of work. experience, -monitored in

conjunction with the trades unions concerned;

(oToprovideadvicetoenterprisesonlabourneedsandlaboursuPPlY;

(g) To provide advice to workers on training schemes-in general;

in particular for redundant and unemployed workers;

(h)Toprovidehelpfortheexpansionoftrainingandeducationfor á// workers in the London area and to work closely with the

MSC and the London Boroughs in this regard;

(iD GLMB will be established on a tripartite basis with representativesfromtheGLCandtheILEA,andtradesunionsandLondon

45

employers;

(iii) The GLMB will report regularly to the IEC of the GLC and abudget will be provided annually to the GLMB; day to dayoperations will be under the control of the Board;

(iu) The GLMB will employ its own staff;

(u) The GLC will provide sufficient finance to provide the staff and toprovide money for the provision of training schemes, help foreducational and careers schemes and for schemes to provide shortterm employment and training for unemployed Londoners;

(ui) The IEC will press the MSC to improve the quality of its basicservice of matching people to jobs;

(vii) Greater resources will be devoted to the ILEA Careers Service.

11.9 Manpower Policy and Housing Policy

Local authority housing is hard for the working person moving to Londonto obtain; houses today in London can cost three of four times more thanproperty in other parts of the country. A skilled worker intending to leavea part of the country where there may be limited job opportunities andcome to London where there is a skill shortage may be unable to purchasea property or to obtain a mortgage. Similarly, skilled workers sometimesmove away from London in order to be able to buy their own homes.There may, therefore, be a need to put forward various schemes toprovide "key" workers with housing.

We say deliberately that there 'may' be a need: for it is hypocritical ofthose employers who pay low wages to say that their workers cannotafford housing.

However, while Labour's housing policy remains committed to theprinciple of allocating housing resources according to housing need, therewill be ways in which measures of housing policy can contribute to theachievement of the aims of the London Manpower Plan and the LondonIndustrial Strategy. Those who want to continue to live and work inLondon should be encouraged - and enabled - to stay.

Recommendation Twenty Three

(D The provision of 100% mortgages by the GLC;(ii) An agreement with Building Societies, and in the Council's own

mortgage lending policy, whereby key workers in firms involved inthe London Industrial Strategy (see Recommendation 5(iv) above)may be given priority consideration for mortgages;

46

'-l

(iiD Encouraging Housing Associations to bear in mind the importanceof key workers when allocating property;

(iu) A flat sharing scheme. This could be particularly useful inrespect ofyoung appréntices who may well be the key employees oftomorrow;

(u) Short-term lettings for key workers as defined above to use as atemporary base whilst more permanent arrangements are made,

e.g. house purchase.

11.10 Manpower Policy and Public Transport Policy

The highest level of unemployment is in Inner London. It is wrong to

assume"that unemploymeni in, say, Hammersmith must be relieved bythe establishment of new employment enterprises in that Borough.Another location such as Brenf or Ealing may provide a better locationfor industry, e.g. because of cheaper and better equipped.units.and easier

access .ouá li''É' with the rest of the country. If workers living in one partof London are to work in another part, the transport system must be

improved. Measures required inclúde more all-night 'buses to take

*oik".. to and from paiticular industrial locations and areas of high

unemployment should be considered.

Improvements to the public transport service will be of particularimportance if fares are abolished or reduced. If however the fares system

is ietained, then there will be a case for considering differential publictransport subsidies on employment grounds. Close liaison is requiredbetween GLEB and London Transport.

12 PAYING FOR THE PROGRAMME

12.1 Introduction

We have shown that a programme of planned industrial reconstruction is

necessary; we have shówn how it can be achieved; and we have shownthat it can be done using existing powers.

In this section, we show how the programme can be funded. The charge

upon London ratepayers will be modest: the benefits, overwhelming.

12.2 The Budget of the Present GLC

The Tories say that employment is a major priority. But their budgetarypolicy speaksiouder thán iheir words. In 1980/81, total capital spending'on

".ttptoy-ent (most of which is loans anyhow)

-is p]1nled..!o be f7

million - óut of a total GLC capital programme of. t375.3 million.

47

Revenue spending is to be less than f3 million - when the GLC revenuebudget is ["374.I million.

So much for economic regeneration under Cutler.

12.3 Labour's Economic Policy Budget

Our spending on the aggressive programme we have outlined will beconditioned by the following factors:

(i) The extent to which in 798712 funds cap be switched within theexisting budget to enable new activities to be started;

(ii) The speed with which new staff can be recruited and new initiativescommenced;

(iii) Our specific precept - raising powers.

The tables which follow show how we propose to fund the programme;the scale on which expenditure is planned; and the way in which thatspending will occur during the lifetime of a 1981-5 Council. Theestimated costs are at Novembe r 1919 price levels - the same basis as themost recent GLC budget.

Table One lists the recommendations of the report, showing

(a) The year in which it is proposed to implement a proposal;

(b) The proposed level of spending on a proposal in each of the firstthree years of the Council;

The Notes to Table One give the source from which any project is to befunded.

(u) the scale and source of existing budget transfers in 198112

(b) the amount to be precepted in subsequent years, and the power withwhich that precept will be levied;

(") iextra costs which will be imposed on other Council services.

Table,Two then draws together those items from the programme which -trom 198213 - it is proposed to finance by levying a precept in accordancewith the Council's powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act.Table Three groups those headings, expenditure on which is to be fundedunder 5137 of the 1972 Local Government Act (the power to levy a 2prate).

Table Four lists the amounts which it is proposed to transfer out ofexisting GLC budgets for Industry and Employment, and for StrategicPolicy Formulation. Present budgetary provision is as follows:

48

lndustry and Employment:

Strategic PolicyFormulation:

1981.12 - f.Capital 7,000,000Net Revenue 2,865,000

Net Revenue 2,500,000

12,365,000

Table Five shows those items by which it is proposed to increase the

GLC's overall establishment costs.

Table Six illustrates the cash-flow of investment funds to GLEB on the

assumptions outlined so far;

Table Seven shows the implications for the precept.

NOTES TO TABLE ONE

1. To be implemented as part of reorganisation of committeestructure, MaY 1981.

2. To be implemented in 1981,12 by transferring funds from ToryStrategic Éo[cy Formulation and Employment Budget - thereafter

by prJcept un-der 5137, "J'972 Local Government Act, or under

existing GLC Powers.3. To be implemented immediately after election by transfer of funds

from Tory Employment Budgét; thereafter á from 5137, á fromInner Urban Areaó Act. Specifying that these costs are to be met inthis way deliberately overitates the need to rely on S.137- and on the

Inner Úrban Areas Act; in practice, similar activities have in the

past been funded under other powers.

4. GLEB will be enabled to start its investment programme int98L12by switching the f5 million loans provision in the forecast 198112

Iádustry aná Employment Capital budget. Thereafter the position

will be as in tables Two, Three and Six below'5. Science Park spending to come from GLEB budget'

6. LCB start-up costs: a loan of f0.5m to be made to enable LCB to

start operati,on immediately after the election; to be at normal rates

of interest and repaid by ónd of financial year 1983-4, or at such

terms as the L980 Local Government Act may dictate'

49

Table I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1,2

13

l4

15

76

50

May 1981

1.98112

from 1981

1,98u2

1,981,12

May 1981

1981

from L981

from 1981

from 1981

May 1981

198712

1,98213

May 1981

from 1981

198213

Industry and Employment Recommendations:Target Implementation Dates

Incidence of Expenditure 1981-4

Cost Cost CostRecommendation ImplementationI9Sl.12 L98213 1,98314 Notes

No: Date €000 f000 f000

3. InstitutionofI&ECommittee

4(i) EconomicPolicy Group

5(ii) GLEB - admincosts

5(ix) GLEB -

investment

6(i) ScienceParks

7. London Comm.Builders -

starlt up costs8(iv) Institution

of Fair Lists8(v) Product

Register9(ii) Code of

Practice forContÍactoÍs

L0. MunicipalEnterprise

11. Grant-aid1,4. Day care

17. Restorationof fire service

18. IndustrialDemocracy

22(i) GLMB -

admin costs

22(v) GLMB -

programmes

L979 Survey Prices

500250

1

250 500 500 2

500 750 750 3

5,000 70,000 100,000 4

5

500 - -500 6

roo100

1,000

25

250

10

250 500 11

1,000 1,000 1,2

5,000 5,000 13

100 100 1.4

500 500 ls

10,000 15,000 76

500 7

200 8

509

50 200

50 50

'7. Cost of administering fair list system. f O.25mto be transferred fromexisting employmenibudget in I98I lz.Thereafterí100,000 to be a

charge on Supplies Board turnover; rest to be on 5137 precept'

Computer based product register. f50,000 to be transferred fromthis existing employment budget in 1'98L12 for start-up costs'

Thereafter f200,000 to be on 5137 precept.

Administrative costs of contractors code of practice. Transfer ofÍ50,000 from existing employment budget in 1981'12' Thereaftercharge on 5137 precept.Cost of starting new municipal enterprise, including loan of startingcapital for bus plant, to be charge on GLEB Budget. Bus plant may

also rank for assistance from LT budget.

Trade Union Resource Centre and Federation of CDA's to be

functioning by August 1981, with f100'000 transferred from

existing eriploymeni budget. Grant aid thereafter to be charged on

S137 precept.Day care tobe charge on GLC establishment expenses; balance ofspending in early years will be capital, then revenue'

f5 million per annum increase in London Fire Brigade budset inreal terms (."u"..r" budget f 84m p.a. at 1979 prices) to be funded

on Fire Service Budget, riith a transfer of f 1 million from reserves in

198112.Implementation of administrative arrangements to supportindustrial democracy to be charge on GLC establishment expenses.

Initial admin costs of GLMB to be met by transfer from existing

employment budget; thereafter á on Inner Urban Areas Act

8.

9,

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

precept,ton S137.16. GLMB programmes to be

precept;$from 5137; it isother sources, such as the

fundedSfrom Inner Urban Areas Actthe intention also to attract funds fromMSC.

Table TwoExpenditure to be financed under Inner Urban Areas Act

Line Programme

1 GLEB - admin

2 GLEB - investment

3 GLMB - admin

4 GLMB - Programmes

5 Total

1979 SurveY Prices

(Table One - Line 3)

(Table One - Line 4)

(Table One - Line 15)

(Table one - Line 1ó)

t98213 t98314f,m fm0.375 0.37s

30.00 s0.00

0.330 0.330

7.000 10.000

37.70s 60.705

51

Table ThreeExpenditure to be Financed under 5137, 1972lacal Government Act

Line Programme

EPC;GLUB admin

GL[]B investment

Fair ListAdministrationProduct register

ContÍactors Code ofConductGrant AidGLMB - admin

GLMB.programmes

Total

1979 Survey Prices

(Table One - Line 2)

(Table One - Line 3)

(Table One ' Line 4)

(Table One - Line 7)

(Table One - Line 8)

(Table One - Line 9)

(Table One - Line 1l)(Table One - Line 15)

(Table One - Line 16)

198213 198314f,m Sm

0.5 0.s

0.375 0.37s30.000 30.000

lzJ

40.4

0.2

0.4

0.25

6

7

8

9

Line ProgrammeI Establishment of EPG2 Admin costs of GLEB3 GLEB investment funds

4 LCB start-up costsTo be repaid at normal rates byend of 1983/4

5 Fair Lists6 Product register

7 Code of Practice for Contractors8 Grant Aid9 Admin costs of GLMB

10 Total

1979 Survey Prices

52

0.05 0.05

0.25 0.5

0.170 0.170

3.000 3.000

t98t 12

fm(Table One - Line 2) 0.25

(Table One - Line 3) 0.5

(Table One - Line 4) 5

(Table One - Line 6)

0.5

(Table One - Line 7) 0.25

(Table One - Line 8) 0.05

(Table One - Line 9) 0.05

(Table One - Line 11) 0.1

(Table One - Line 15) 0.25

;

l0 34.945 35.195

Table FourTransfers ouÚ of Existing Industry & Employment' & Strategic

Policy Formulation Budgets in financial year l98ll2

Table Five

Additional Items on GLC Establishment Costs

Line1

2

3

Programme

Day care

Admin forIndustrialdemocracY

Total

1979 SurveY Prices

Line

1 Transfer

2 Inner UrbanAreas PrecePt

3 5137 Precept

4 SuPerannuationCash Flow

5 Loan rePayments

6 Total

(Table One - Line 12)

(Table One - Line 14)

0.125

Table SixGLEB: Investment Income: Cash Flow

198U2 t98213 198314

im f,m fm

0.1 1.0 1.0

0.025 0.1 0.1

Sm f,m fm lmts8jrt2 1982t3 te83l4 lgmls

5

Source

(Table 4 -Line 3)

(Table 2 -Line 2)

(Table 3 -

Line 3)

(See note 1

below)

(See note 2

below)

30 50 50

30 30 30

10 20 30

115r0270

1979 SurveY Prices

Notes to Table Six

1. Figures for Superannuation Fund income are illustrative and notional'

Availability ot.up".uonu"tl* fund cash-flow subiect to agreement of member

trustees.2. Á delib"r"tely low estimate of the rate of return has been used'

53

Reference

Inner UrbanAreas Acts131 19'72 LGA

IncreasedEstablishmentCosts

Improvementsto FireService

(Table 2 -

Line 5)

(Table 3 -Line 10)

(Table 5 -Line 3)

(Table 1 -

Line 13)

1.1 0.06 1.1

5 0.26 s

198U2 t98213 198314

fm Íage Ím Íage Ím fageamount amount amount

- 37.705 1.98 60.',10s 3.2

34.94s 1.84 35.195 1 .8s

o.125

I

0.06

0.26

5 Total1979 Survey Prices

Note: Table seven assumes that the

4.14

yield of a precept of lp is Í19 million

5.3'l

Recommendation Twenty Four

We therefore call on the movement to endorse the following proposals:(i) A switch of f6.95 million in the existing Employment and Strategic

Policy Formatlon budget in 1981'12.(ii) An increase in the precepÍ of 4.2p in I982l3.(iiD An increase in the precept of a further 1.2p in 1.98314.

13. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation One: The local government role in employment policyshould continue to he shared between the GLC and the boroughs, withgreater coordinatioÍl to meet the aims of an agreed Strategy' (Para 4.2).

Recommendation Ttvo: A Labour GLC will, in conjunction with theLondon Boroughs, be responsible for drawing up, and co-ordinating theimplementation of the London Industrial Strategy. (Para 4.3).

54

Recommendation Three:(D The Industry and Employment Committee (IEC should be one

of the main Standing Committees of the GLC;(ii) The IEC's terms of reference should be as follows:

a) To advise the Council on all matters of economic policy' and in

particular the economic regeneration of Greater London;

b) To draw up the London Industrial Strategy' and to work with

the London Boroughs for its implementation;

c) To supervise the aciivities of the Greater London Enterprise

Board (see Para 4'6 below);

d) To supervise the creation of a unified Direct Labour Building' orgu.ti.ution - London Community Builders to serve the

Council anJ othet public bodies and subseque:rtly to be

responsible ioi ou"'i"eing the work of London Community

S,rita".. (see section'5 below);

e) To control the activities of existing municipale nterprise - such

as the s,rppti"t Department (sei section 6 below) and to

stimulate itl" á"u"rJp*ent of new municipal enterprise; (see

section 7 below);f) To supervise the activities of the Greater London Manpower-'

sou.á (GLMB); (see section 11 below);

g) To provide grant aid to bodies concerned with employmentO' polüy in Gr"eater London; (see section 8 below);

íiii) In addition to elected GLC members, the IEC should include\'r'

il;;;j;;;.;b;hit*-opted trade unionists and representatives

of London MPs. (Para 4'4)'

Recommendation Four:

(i) Rather than establishing an-other Countv Hall Directorate' there

should v" u" iiiiiÁ;í roti'y Group (bpc) to advise the IEC'i".p""'iur" foi-ára*ing up the oveiall'strategy and ensuring its

coórdinatio with Borough proposals;

(ii) The Principal Officer oithe EPG (the Chief Economic Adviser to

the council) ,no.,iJu"u full memb'er of the chief officers' Board.

Recommendation Five:

(D The main vehicle for the implementation of the London Industrial

Strategy *iff U"1tre Ct"atei Londo' Enterprise Board (GLEB);

(ii) The aáministrative costs of GLEB will be clearly identified as a

direct charg" on -tn"

GLC, and not on any investment funds

55

available to the Board from other sources;(iii) GLEB will have three main investment functions "investment to

promote strategic or structural change"; "general investment"; and"development";

(iv) Any intervention by GLEB in pursuit of any of its investmentfunctions will be conrJitional upon agreement between GLEB, theenterprise, and the Unions concerned, covering in particular futurepatterns of employment and investment in the enterprise;

(u) Premises acquired, c<tnstructed or refurbished by GLEB in pursuitof its development investment function shall remain in theownership of GLEB and be leased to the enterprise concerned;

(ui) Such leases will include clauses covering minimum wages, andworking conditions within the enterprise; or for homeworkerslinked with the Enterprise;

(vii) On major projects, such as the proposed industry or science park,GLEB will co-ordinate the three investment functions to one end;

(viii) The standing instructions to GLEB will preclude the possibility ofinducements or assistance being offered to a firm seeking to movefrom one of the regions of high structural unemployment to GreaterLondon;

(i*) The GLC will fund GLEB from its own resources, including the rateprecept - and the Inner lJrban Areas Act and section 137 of theI972 Local Governrnent Act in particular; reserves, and capitalreceipts;

(*) Second, once the Latrour GLC has extended to the members of theGLC Supperannuation Fund a say in decisions about their pensions,we will negotiate with the Trustees so that GLEB will be able toattract a substantial and rising proportion of the cash-flow to thefund;

(*i) Third, having backed GLEB with the GLC's own money, andhaving sought the consent of our employees to do likewise withtheirs, we shall seek funds through Borogh pension funds; otherpublic and private soctor pension funds, and from other financialinstitutions;

(xii) In addition (item (ii) above) ro covering GLEB's adminisrrativecosts, the GLC's own resources will be used in particular for fund"investment to promote strategic or structural change". Specificsources of funds can be tied to specific investment functions;

(xiii) The IEC will lay down for GLEB investment objectives and targetrates of return; those targets may vary as between the differentinvestment functions;

(xiv) GLEB will also have a servicing function - providing, for firmswithin the London Industrial Strategy, specialised facilities for help

56

with sales, packaging, advertising, design and exports;

(xv) GLEB will be required to make regular financial and policy reports

to the IEC;(xvi)ThelECwillhavetherighttoissuespecificdirectivestoGLEB;(*uii;Clnn will be a Board with about eightmembers'.half of them

full-time. They will be appointed for fixed-term periods;

(xviiipepending on the precise agreement reached with the Trustees of

GLC Superannuution tund íor the investent of a proportion'of the

cash-flow of the fund, arrangements will be made for consultation

with the Trustees on the ap*pointment of Board members;

(xix) The internal organisation oj Qf,nn will be formed primarily of

divisions."rponJibl" for work with par.ticular industrial sectors. But

there will also be divisions responsible for forms of industrial

organisation, and for Docklands;(xx) Specifically, one section of GLEB will be responsible for the

encouragement of, for assistance to' new producer co-operatives'

(Para 4.6).

Recommendation Six

(i) A Labour GLC, in conjunction with London's major scientific\ /

institutions, will establish, as a part of the London Industrial

sliut"gy, x r"u.i on" ,'í"n'" park, the first probably in the

Docklands area.

(ii) The aim of the Science Park project will be to-"tlt^lt" un

environment in which the prodúctive application of scientific

i"."ut"tt in high-technology industry can be rnade easier'

(iii) The Park will include 'starter units' for individual scientists to start\ -/

up proOuction; iuig". premises,.to .which small enterprises could

e*pana in due "oui'";

ánd ,seed bed' factories, in which individual

scientists, or groups'of workers, could test and develop new

products.(iu) fn" CIC would improve the. environment of the Park; and would

also provide such central services as day cq.e for children' a canteen

and iome recreational facilities' (para 4'7)'

Recommendation Seven:

(i) All building workers presently emloyed by

brought within a unified Direct LabourCommunitY Builders;

(ii) LCB will be independent ^9{ jh:" Housing

departments, with iis own Chief Officer and

the Council should beOrganisation London

and any othersub Committee,

57

reporting to the IEC;(iii) All senior posts in LCB will be recruited by open advertisement;(iu) Within two years of the election, LCB will aim to carry ot 100o/o of

the maintenance conversion and small works programme of theCouncil. By then, it will be ready to tender for all capital work; andwill aim to undertake - initially - 50% of capital work. LCB will alsoundertake repalr work for other public bodies;This does not meanundertaking wo'rk done by other public bodies' own employees;

(u) There will be a Joint Works Committee for LCB, along the linesproposed for the GLC as a whole (see section 10 andrecommendation 18 below);

(vi) In addition, two stewards elected by the LCB workforce throughnormal trade union machinery will sit as non-voting members of theSub-Committee. And two full time officials of trade unions withmembership in the constuction industry (though not as individualsinvolved in ne,gotiations within LCB) will serve as co-optedmembers;

(vii) By the time it is fully operational, LCB will employ its full quota ofdisabled workers;

(viii) Apprenticeships will be expanded; LCB will aim for a ratio of oneapprentice to every five skilled workers;

(i*) LCB will also receive suitable retrained workers from GovernmentSkill Centres;

(*) The administration of housing repairs will be decentralised, so thatas far as possible groups of workers will be attached to particularestates; to facilitate this, there will be a review of depot facilities;

(^i) To assist in meeting the needs of smaller estates, there will bediscussions with the trades unions in order to introducemulti-skilled herndyman posts;

(xii) There will be a review of the system of ordering repair work, so as toensure the shortest possible lines of communication between a

complaint being received, and the job being done;(xiii) LCB will be represented by management and workplace

representatives at the proposed estate and borough jointmanagement committees ;

(xiv) LCB should meet all the financial accounting and cost controlsystems laid down by CIPFA or by legislation. (Section 5)

Recommendation Eight:

(i) Responsibility for the GLC Supplies Department will lie with aBoard or Sub-Committee of GLC members, reporting to the IEC;

(ii) A Labour GLC will use the economic power of the GLC's

58

purchasing operation to further the ends of the London IndustrialStrategy;

(iii) Building on the Labour Clauses in the GLC's existing StandingOrders, a code of practice, to be observed by all suppliers to theGLC, will be drawn up, incorporating requirements on wages andconditions, health and safety, and trade union rights, and includingcompliance with the Low Pay lJnit's Code of Conduct onhomeworking;

(iu) In conjunction with the relevant trades unions, 'fair lists' ofsuppliers complying with the GLC Supplies Code of Practice will bedrawn up. Other public bodies will be encouraged to confine theirpurchasing to 'fair list' suppliers;

(u) A computer-based directory and product register, coveringenterprises within Greater London, will be introduced inconjunction with the London Industrial Strategy;

(ui) Provision will be made to ensure that new co-operative and publicenterprises can act as suppliers to the Council. (Para 6.2).

Recommendation Nine:

(i) It will become GLC practice that all jobs must be offered internallyfirst, and shown to be beyond the technical expertise of GLC staff,before consultants can be brought in;

(ii) A code of practice for contractors will be drawn up, in conjunctionwith the relevant unions; no firm not in compliance with the codewill be permitted to tender for any council work, or admitted to anyCouncil list of contractors;

(iii) The code will include requirements on wages and conditions, healthand safety, and trade union rights, and will specifially prohibit theemployment of lump labour;

(iu) As far as electrical contracting is concerned, the GLC will revert toprevious Labour practice, and restrict contracts to firms inmembership of Joint Industry Board. (Para 6.3).

Recommendation Ten:

In the preparation of the London Industrial Strategy, the EconomicPolicy Group will be asked to identify services or products suitablefor new municipal enterprises;

(ii) In the development of new municipal enterpriseto promote consortium working with otherincluding the other metropolitan counties;

(iii) A Labour GLC will restore the capacity to build

(i)

the GLC will seeklocal authorities

London's buses in

59

London by establishing a bus plant, managed by a board answerableto IEC, with appropriate measures of industrial democracy;

Recommendation Eleven:

(i) A Labour GLC will use grant-aid to outside bodies as a means offurthering its employment objectives;

(ii) The GLC willl contribute to the funding of local CDA's inappropriate ciícumstances;

(iii) The GLC will rnake a grant to the projected London federation ofCDA's;

(iu) The GLC will give financial support to the proposal from theGreater London Association of Trades Councils for a Trade UnionResource Centre, so as to enable the Centre to be established and tofunction;

(u) The GLC will grant-aid, and assist in such other ways as may beappropriate, groups of workers seeking to develop alternativeproducts, or the resources for alternative production;

(ui) The GLC will be prepared to assist with grant-aid action researchprojects in such fields as home-working, low pay, and womens'work. (Section 8).

Recommendation Twelve:

(i) The basis of the approach to the regeneration of the docklands areawill be the implementation of the Docklands Strategy and theretention and rnodernisation of the upper Docks;

(ii) A Labour GLCwill work closely with the Docklands Joint Commit-tee to implement the strategy;

(iii) The main instrument for industrial regneration in dockland will bethe Docklands Division of GLEB;

(in) The detailed organisation of the Docklands Division of the GLEBwill be discussed - in particular - with the main trades unionsinvolved in the area. (Secion 9).

Recommendation Thirteen: Each 'seryice' committee of the LabourGLC at its first meeting, and thereafter at six-monthly intervals, willconsider a 'Quality of Service Audit' report, covering the level of publicservice the Council aims to provide; the extent to which current provisionmatches that level; the extent to which any shortfall is attributable tostaffing problems; and proposals for recruitment of new staff directlyinvolved in the delivery of service. (Para 10.2).

60

t_

Recommendation Fourteen :

(i) Daycare facilities will be provided for the children of GLC emp-loyees, at County Hall and at other workplaces;

(ii) In consultation with the trades unions a Labour GLC will imple-ment measures of positive discrimination in favour of women work-ers so as to increase the range of opportunities open to womenwithin the GLC;

(iii) Leave arrangements and hours of work will be revised so as toensure that these assist women workers, through the developmentof part-time work and job-sharing;

(iu) The GLC will adopt as a matter of policy an Equal'opportunitiesClause, along the lines advocated by the TUC General Council,committing the GLC to positive policies to promote equalopportunity in employment. (Para 10.3).

Recommendation Fifteen :

(i) The Equal Opportunities Employment Clause shall apply in respectof minority groups;

(ii) The Council's recruitment of workers will be closely monitored inorder to ensure that people from minority communities have accessto GLC training and employment, in at least proportion to theirnumbers. (Para 10.4).

Recommendation Sixteen:

Recruitment and training procedures will be reviewd in order to ensurethat the Council employs at least its statutory quota of disabled people,and that it provides the right opportunities for school leavers. (Para 10.5).

Recommendation Seventeen:

(i) The new GLC will not regard itself as bound by any arrangementsregarding the operation of the London Fire Brigade entered into bythe Tories before the election, unless these are wholly and withoutreservation agreed between the GLC and the FBU;

(ii) Essential fire cover levels will be agreed, with the FBU and HomeOffice with a full commitment to provide the necessary capitalequipment, manpower, training etc, to reach those levels;

(iii) The programme for major improvements to fire stations will beaccelerated;

(in) A Labour GLC will provide the resources to maintain the agreedfire cover levels, despite the growth in incidents and growing prob-

61,

lems in dealing with them (traffic congestion etc.) We shall err onlyon the side of caution; we cannot afford not to provide theresou rces;

(u) A proper reserve fleet should be provided, together with effectivefacilities for proper maintenance:

(ui) The GLC will enable the Brigade to establish a fully manned fireprevention branch, staffed by operational Fire Officers within afully manned operational Fire Brigade to enable the backlog of FirePrevention work to be cleared and the present workload to beefficiently dealt with.

(vii) The London Fire Brigade's river fire service will be restored. (Para10.6).

Recommendation Eighteen:

(i) There should be Works Committees at the level of each GLCdepartment, modelled as closely as possible on the provisions in therelevant national agreements;

(ii) The employee's side of each Joint Works Committee will be work-place representatives elected by trades unionists within theDepartment concerned;

(iii) The employers'side will be elected members of the GLC committeeconcerned;

(iu) In order that these arrangements should work effectively, theirintroduction will be accompanied by an agreement recognizingparticipation in these bodies as qualifying for time-off and providingoffice, secretarial, and resource assistance;

(u) Two workplace representatives from among the employee's side ofeach JWC will serve as non-voting members of the relevant GLCcommittee.

(ui) Arrangements will be made to extend industrial democracy to themanagement of the GLC Superannuation Fund by the election ofmember trustees through arrangements to be negotiated with theunions;

(vii) The introduction of measures of industrial democracy will be under-taken in consultation with the unions with membership in the GLC.(Para 10.7).

Recommendation Nineteen:

GLC grading structures should be reorganised so as to create anintegrated service-wide salary and career structure, withe no artifi-cial department, professional, or blue/white collar barriers;

(i)

62

(ii) The Council's commitment to retraining for staff whose presentfunction is eliminated should be increased;

(iii) These proposals should be the subject of full consultation with the

unions-wiih membership among GLC staff. (Para 10.8)

Recommendation Twenty:

(i) A Labour GLC will seek to better the rates for local Governmentemployment negotiated under national agreements;

(ii) A minimum wage - based on data about the cost of living in London- will be introdúced, to eliminate low pay from within the GLC;

(iii) There will be negotiations to reduce the working week:

(in) The union Membership Agreement for manual staff will be reins-tated, and negotiations commenced to introduce similar agree-

ments for all grades. (Para 10.9).

Recommendation Twenty one: No technological innovation will be

introduced into the GLC without negotiations with the trades unions

concerned, covering -Áning levels' hJalth and safety, and other aspects. "

(Para 10.10).

Recommendation TwentY Two:

(i) There will be a Greater Londori-Mánpower Board (GLMB) estab-

lished by the GLC with the folliíwing terms of reference, '

(a) To draw up the London Manpower Plan, building,on the workalready being undertaken for the MSC's StrategY{or London;to advise thJIEC on manpower planning and Labour marketproblems, and to seek to co-ordinate the work of statutory,voluntary and commercial agencies in this field;

(b) To provide co-ordination for training, activities in I'ondon,ptouid" help for industrial training boards (particularly in^areas like hótels and catering or construction) and to Set upnew schemes for training and re-training for Londeners; , '

(c) To provide job and training schemes and day educationcentres for the unemPloYed;

(d) To provide particular help to the 16-19 year old group' toethnic minority groups and other groups experiencing socialproblems;

(e) To develop forms of work experience, monitored in conjunc-tion with the trades unions concerned;

(f) To provide advice to enterprises on labour needs and laboursupply;

63

(g) To provide advice to workers on training schemes in general,in particular for redundant and employed workers;

(h) To provide help for the expansion of training and educationforal/ workers in the London area and to work closely with theMSCI and the London Borough in this regard;

(ii) The GLMB will be established on a tripartite basis with representa-tives from the GLC and the ILEA, and trades unions and LondonEmployers;

(iii) The GLMB will report regularly to the IEC of the GLC and abudget will be provided annually to the GLMB. Day to dayoperations would be under the control of the Board;

(iu) The GLMB will employ its own staff;(u) The GLC will provide sufficient finance to provide the staff and to

provide rnoney for the provision of training schemes, help foreducational and careers schemes and for schemes to provide shortterm employment and training for umployed Londers;

(ni) The IEC will press the MSC to improve the quality of its basicservice of matching people to jobs;

(vii) Greater resources will be devoted to the ILEA Careers Service.(Para 11.8).

Recommendation Twenty Three:

The provision of 100o/o mortgages by the GLC.An arrangement with Building Societies, and in the Council's ownmortgage lending policy, whereby key workers in firms involved inthe London Industrial Strategy (see recommendation 5 (iv) above)may be given priority consideration for mortgages;

(iii) Encouraging Housing Associations to bear in mind the importanceof key workers when allocating property;

(iu) A flat sharing scheme. This could be particularly useful in respect ofyoung apprentices who may well be the key employees of tomor-row;

(u) Short-term lettings for key workers as defined above to use as atemporary base whilst more permanent arrangements are made,e.g. house purchase. (Para 11.9).

Recommendation Twenty Four:

therefore call upon the movement to endorse the following propos-

A switch of f5 million capital, and f 1.95 million revenue, in theexisting employment budget in l98ll2

(i)(ii)

Weals:(i)

64

(ii) An increase in the precept of 4'2p in 1'98213

iiii; A further increase in the precept of 1'2p in 1983/4' (Section L2)'

Annexe One

Leasing ClausestpűiZ.e and Recommendation 5(vi) refer)

Draft clauses for the leasing of industrial premises' These. clauses

a." áe.ig.rea to be added"to the normaÍ leasing provisions for

industrial Premises'

The Lessee covenants:

(i) to pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions of labour

and standards of liealth and safety no less favourable than those

established for trre,liaJe or industry in the district where the work is

carried out by -u-"il^i*y áinegotiation or arbitration to which the

parties u." orgJni*iióí' or émployers and independent trade'u.rior', ,""ogniíJ to any extent fór tire purp9'':' of ::l'.::']:"

b*-gaining repr"*tt";i"" ;spectively of substantial proportions of the

workers engaged in the tiade orlndustry in the.district',^ -(ii) in"tt

" uu*n'."

"r ""v iái". or *'g"s hours of conditions or standards

of health uno 'urcií_.o-establiíhed

the Lessee shall pay rates of

*"g". ""0

ou."*" rloois and conditions of labour and standards of

healthandsafety-whi"t'u'"notlessfavourablethanthegenerali"*i ot*ug"., ná"i', .o"ditions'and standards of health and safety

oí."*"o u"v ótt'"' "i'ptoy"" whose general circu_mstances jn the

trade or inóustry in whictr the Irssee is engaged are slmllar'

(iii) to permit witho,r, t", o, hindrance each and every person.employed

by the Lessee to;tin *y i"dependent trade union recognised to any

"*t"r't for any p.'.po."i of cóllective bargaining'

(in) in the event of any question arisin-g as to whether any or all of the

requirement. .f^iíi: ó;venant oithi. Lease are being observed

whether i" *ftof" ot in part the question shall if not otherwise

settled or oisposeá ót u"t*"".' the parties to this Lease be referred

io u" i"a"p"tia*it m"nal for deciiion which may b9 nominated by

the Secretary of stut" for Employment or in default thereof to an

i"á"p*a""ít iron"iug.""d between the parties to this Lease and

in default of such nomiiation or agreemeni to independent tribunal

nominated for this purpose by the lrssor'(u) to observe ttre provisions of the Homeworking Code of Conduct as

aPProPriate.65

(ui) to display at all times during the continuance of this Lease for theinformation of all employees in every factory, workshop or placeoccupied or used by the Lessee for the execution of this Lease and tosupply a copy to all homeworkers a copy of this Covenant.

Annexe Two

Labour Clauses(para 6.2 and Fdecommendation 8(iii) refer)

Clauses presently included in GLC and ILEA standing orders on tendersand contracts.

Compliance with standing orders and code of practice

H1(76) - All contracts made by the Council or by a committee thereofshall comply with:-

(1[hese standing orders; and(2[he code of practice approved from time to time by the Legal

and Paliamentary Committee

H2(77)- Subject as provided in the code of practice referred to in item (2)of standing order H1(76), all contracts entered into by the Council shallcontain fair-wages clauses as follows:-

(1) The contractor shall at all times during the continuance of thiscontract abide by, perform, observe, fulfil and keep all and singularthe provisions following that is to say:

(1) The contÍactor shall in respect of all persons employed byhim whether in and about the execution of this contract ofotherwise (except legally-bound apprentices for whom no ratesof wages and hours and conditions of labour have been estab-lished) pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions oflabour not less favourable to such persons than the rates, hoursand conditions established for the trade or industry in the districtwhere the work is carried out, by machinery of negotion orarbitration the parties to which are associations of employers andtrade unions representative respectively of substantial propor-tions of the employers and workers engaged in the trade orindustry in the district;(ii) In the absence of any rates of wages, hours or conditions oflabour so established the contractor shall in respect of all personsemployed by him as aforesaid pay rates of wages and observehours and conditions of labour that are not less favourable to

66

such persons than those in practice paid and observed by goodemployers in the district where the work is carried out whosegeneral circumstances in the trade or industry in which the con-tractor is engaged are similar;(iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained'the contractor shall in respect of all persons employed by him as

aforesaid pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions oflabour prescribed by any wages regulation order for the timebeing in force pursuant to the Wages Councils Act 1959 or anystatulory modification thereof for the time being in force, if andso far as those rates, hours and conditions are more favourable tosuch persons than the rates, hours and conditions prescribed bythe foregoing paragraphs of this caluse;(iv) The contractor shall also perform and observe all and singu-lar the terms, stipulations and provisions of agreements betweenassociations of employers and trade unions or awards affectingany trade or trades employed by him and on the part of emp-loyers to be performed and observed. Provided that nothinghérein contained shall be construed as preventing the operationof any recognised or prevailing rules as to overtime;(v) The contractor shall not do or knowingly suffer to be doneany act or thing intended or calculated to discourage any personor persons employed or about to be employed by him, whether inconnection with this contract or otherwise, from becoming orcontinuing as a member or members of a trade union or tradeunions, aÁd *ill not in any way penalize any such person byreason of his membership of a trade union;(vi) The contractor shall at all times during the continuance ofthis contract display and keep displayed' (on the site of the worksand) in every faótory,, workshop or place occupied or used by theconíractor in and about the execution of this contract in a posi-tion in which the same may easily be read by all persons in hisemploy a clearly printed or written copy of the foregoing para-grapns of this clause, with the addition of a heading or title as

follows:

'Greater London Council - Contract for....... - Copy of LabourClauses'and a footnote as follows:Complaints made by, or on behalf of,

employees aS to non-compliance on the part of öontractorswit^h oi infrigement of the terms of the labour clauses imposedby the Couniil will not be recognized if made more than threecálendar months from the date when the alleged breach occur-red:

67

(vii) The contractor shall, whenever called on so to do by thedirector-general and clerk for the time being to the council,produce to such officer or officers of the Council as the said clerkrrnay direct the time wages books and paysheets of the contractor,whether relating to the work under this contract or otherwise,which shall show as regards each person employed the number ofhours worked by him (distinguishing between normal time andovertime), his trade, and the rates of wages and the amount ofwages actually paid to him; and(viii) In the event of any question arising whether the require-rnents of this clause have been or are being observed, suchcluestion shall, if not otherwise disposed of, be referred forthwithfbr decision to an independent tribunal to be agreed between theparties or, failing agreement, to be appointed by the Secretary ofState for Employment, and the decision of such tribunal shall befinal.

(2) Should the contractor at any time during the continuance ofthis contract fail to pay to any person employed by him in and aboutthe execution of this contract wages in conformity with the provisions of the foregoing item (1) the Council may, without in any waypre judicing or affecting any other of its rights, powers and remediesunder this contract in respect of the breach of contract involved, payto such person the amount of the difference between the sum (ifany) actually paid to him by the contractor as wages and the sumthat he would have received had the contractor performed andobserved the terms and provisions of such sub-clauses, and theCouncil may recover from the contractor, as a debt due to theCouncil, the amount so paid by the Council as aforesaid.

(3) No underletting or sub-contracting on the part of the contrac-tor shall operate to relieve the contractor in any respect from hisliability to the Council for the due execution of this contract, and thecontractoÍ shall be and be held responsible to the Council for thedue performance and observance by all sub-contractors in theexecution of their sub-contracts of all and singular the terms, provi-sions and conditions contained in the foregoing item (1) (so far asapplicable to persons employed in and about the execution of thiscontract), and on the part of the contractor to be performed andobserved. Failure or neglect on the part of a sub-contractor toperform and observe such terms, provisions and conditions or anyone or more of them shall be deemed to be failure or neglect of thecontractor to perform and observe the said terms, provisions andconditions to the intent that all the right, powers and remediesreserved to the Council by this contract in such event shall applyaccordingly.

68

H3(78) - No tender shall be accepted from, or contract entered into with,any person or firm if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Council that thatperson or firm does not pay such rates of wages and observe such hoursánd conditions of labour as are not less favourable than the rates, hoursand conditions established by machinery of negotiation or arbitration ftlrthe trade or industry in the district where the work is carried out or (in the

absence of such established rates, hours and conditions) the rates tlfwages and hours and conditions of labour that in practice. obtain amonggoöd employers in the district where the work is carried out whose

leneral circumstances in the trade or industry in which the person or firmis engaged are similar.

Annexe Three

A Homeworking Code of Conduct(para 6.2 and Recommendation S(iii) and Para 8.5 refer)

(i) Piece work prices should be the same for all homeworkers and thcprice list should be made available all homeworkers. They should bcás far as practicable identical with piece work prices paid for 'likc'work in the factorY.

(ii) Any expenses incurred by the homeworker e.g. travelling. postage,

eleótricity' rent of machine should be reimbursed'

(iiD Any safety and health guidance should be given.in writing to the

homeworker as well as a personal explanation given'

(iu) Holiday pay should be provided as a percentage of earnings, as is

now provided for in most Wages Council Orders'(u) Notice should be given of fluctuation with regard to availability of

work.(ui) Homeworkers should be encouraged to join the appropriate trade

unions - then the normal procedure for employees pursuing prob-

lems and queries can apply to homeworkers'(vii) The employer should deduct tax and National Insurance from thc

homewórkér, and provide the necessary information to the

homeworker.(viii) The employers should register all homeworkers with the local

authority, as they are required to do by Section 133 of the FactoriesAct.

(ir) Homeworkers should be given a copy of this code of conduct by

their employer.

69

Annexe Four Structure Diagrams

l. Overall Structure

COUNCIL

STANDING COMMITTEESincluding INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT Committee

INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENTCOMMITTEE

ECONOMICPOLICY GROUP

LONDONCOMMUNITYBUILDERS

SUPPLIESBOARD

OTHERMUNICIPALENTERPRISE,

T.U. RESOURCECENTRE

2. The Industry and Employment Committee

Council Members& T.U. nominee,& MPs

OFFICER ADVICE

SUBCOMMITTEES(Council Members)

+----I

I

luaroRlsoaRos

lr,rnr.rro,-IENTERPRISE

! o*o*tlanI

I

70

3. GLEB

INDUSTRY ANDEMPLOYMENTCOMMITTEE

REGULARREPORTS

SPECIFICDIRECTIVES

GLC FUNDSPRECEPT etc.

INVESTMENTTO PROMOTE

STRUCTURAL &STRATEGICCHANGE

GLCSUPERANN.

FUND

GREATERLONDON

ENTERPRISEBOARD

DEVELOPMENT

OTHERFUNDS

GENERALINVESTMENT

SERVICINGDIVISIONS

7I

FINANCE ANDADMINISTRATION

Membership

R. BalfeE. CarrSir Reg GoodwinI. HarringtonA. HarrisK. HillH. HindsR. IrwinC. JohnsonE. MastersR. Shaw

co-optedco-optedco-opted

co-opted

Chairman

73

1.1

1 INTRODUCTION

(a) London - the problems we face

Greater London covers an area of 610 square miles, and with apopulation of just under seven million, contains about one-eighth ofBritain's population. It is the largest and most complex urban areain the country with the centres of Government, finance, the arts,press and broadcasting; with the largest concentration ofmanufacturing industry; with the most popular tourist centres;withthe widest range of shopping facilities; with an environment rangingform inner area clecay through to affluent suburbs and the ruralareas of the Green Belt.The problems faced by London are similarly large and complex.With high congestion, bad and expensive housing, poorenvironment, and job loss, people have been moving from London,usually to settle in the comfortable and affluent areas of theSouth-East. In 1961 London's population was 8 million, it is now6.9 million. Manufacturing industry has lost 500 thousand jobssince 1961. Traffic congestion is now at is highest ever, and Londonhas the densest road network in Britain. Despite the decline inpopulation London's housing is the most expensive in the country,for home-owners, council tenants and for private tenants. Londonstill has the greatest concentration of bad housing, despite themassive improvements brought about by the public housingprogrammes since the war. In many parts of London there aremajor deficiencies of open space and recreational facilities.

(b) The Tory failure

Londoners cannot look to the private sector to solve thesedifficulties. A free for all will not lead to better housing; no privatefirm will provide open space; it is the decline of the private sectorwhich has caused the loss of so many jobs; it is the speculators whothreaten many areas of London with ugly, unwanted office blocks.The Tory GLC has actively conspired to promote these divisivetrends. They have sold public land, needed for housing andindustry, to office developers. They have stood back, and grantedplanning permission for schemes which drive out communities andblight the environment. Under their stewardship London Transporthas stumbled to ever lower performance, burdened by contradictorydemands, vacillating leadership and a financial stranglehold imposedby the Tories. Housing need has mounted every year, with 15,000families homeless each year and last year for the first time ever, over100,000 families were forced to apply to their local authority for

r.2

1.3

74

r.4

housing. The Tory response to this was callous in the extreme. Theyceased building; from Labour's six to seven thousand new homes ayear, to virtually nothing. Hundreds of sites have been sold off, at aloss in many cases, to their friends in the business world. Homesbuilt for Londoners in housing need have been sold off on theprivate market, again at staggering losses in many cases. Familieswith small children have been trapped in tower blocks, old peoplerestricted to antiquated walk-up estate flats. The suburbs with theirdecent environment and good housing have been closed off to innerLondoners, by the pernicious transfer of GLC estates on termswhich reduce mobility to pathetically low levels.

The Tory Government is imposing further burdens on the people ofLondon. Huge cuts in public spending, and switches in spendingtoward their cronies in the Shires, have hit London hard. Higherprices have been a direct result of Tory policy. High fares and rents,high fuel prices, high food prices. Prescription charges up, schoolmeal charges up. Everywhere, living costs for ordinary people arebeing increased. The benefits for all this go to the rich in the form oftax handouts. The poor pay the bill in the form of higher prices, andreduced child benefits and other welfare payments.

Local authorities are a frontJine target for this reactionarydogmatic regime. Not only do they bear the brunt financially, butthey are also having their independence stripped away. Heseltinewill not rest until he has reduced local authorities to powerless,voiceless, agents for his own purposes. They will no longer have thepower to assess local needs as expressed by the local electorate, andto act accordingly.

(c) Labour's approach

A Labour GLC will vigorously oppose the attacks on Londoners'living standards. Equally, it will oppose all moves by Governmentwhich upsurp the rights of democratically elected local councils.Labour believes in a strong, accountable public sector, able toprovide the services that Londoners need. On winning the GLCLabour's objective will be to use the GLC's financial resources toredistribute wealth to the less well-off. Labour will deal withLondon as one city. There will be no artificial boundaries such asthose used by the Tories to trap the elderly and low income familiesin the inner areas. The area approach to policy cannot succeed,except in very limited circumstances. The causes of particularproblems may occu,r well away from the areas where the symptomsappear. opportuníties to deal with those causes and symptomS' mayarise in still other areas. Furthermore, geography may have nothingto do with problems we see, they are far more likely to be related to

1.5

16

75

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.1,

economic and social factors. /

Improving the quality of life for Londoners will require actionacross the board. L<lndon's economy cannot be left to decay further.Londoners must have a wide range of decent jobs available to them;opportunities that match the skills and training of the workforce,and in sufficient number to eliminate the unemployment that afflictsthe poorer areas of London and hits the young, women and ethnicminorities particularly hard. The environment must be protectedand improved. Housing particularly is suffering from majorproblems of decay - over 40o/o of London's housing was built before1.91,9 - and hundreds of thousands of Londoners live inunacceptable conditions. Transport in London is crying out forurgent action, after years of decline under the Tories.

Labour is aware of these needs. On taking control of the GLCLabour will be seeking speedy, effective results, and for this reasonwill not embark on long-term studies searching for ideal solutions,which as well as bemg wasteful of time are often unattainable giventhe legislative and financial constraints. Beneficial legislativechange will not be forthcoming until a Labour Government returnsto power. There is little point then in seeking short-term solutionsthat require Government action. However the need for change inmany aieas is accepted, and a Labour GLC will press the case forthose changes.

In seeking real irnprovements in London a Labour GLC willdevelop a more co-operative approach. Labour will respect theneeds and wishes of individuals and communities and will involvepeople in the decisions that affect their lives. There will have to becloser co-operation between the GLC and other publicorganisations, especially the Borough Councils. Labour will seek toachieve progress through agreement.

2 The Strategic Role of the GLC

(a) The financial role

The GLC spends about f2 bn each year. Currently, some f450m israised in rates. A 1p rate raises f20m, whereas a typical penny-rateproduct for a borough council would be about fám. The GLCtherefore affords the opportunity to raise money across London,with a relatively low burden on individual households. Labourstrongly believes that this broad financial base must be usedpositively, raising money from all London, including from thecommercial sector and the prestige premises of the city centre, (50o/o

of the total rate yield) to finance programmes which will benefit

76

2.2

those in greatest need regardless of where they happen to live.

(b)The need for action

A Labour GLC will not abdicate from its responsiblity to achieveresults. The problems which face London áre too great to behandled by the local boroughs alone. The Tory view on the otherhand is long on hot air, short on action. Labour will refuse toembark on grandiose utopian planning which has characterised theTories. Instead, a Labour GLC will concentrate on assessingLondon's needs and identifying means whereby these needs can bémet. Labour will look for programmes that can be readilyimplemented albeit within a consistent view of London's long-terÁneeds.. In many cases, other agencies will be the appropriateexecutiv_e body, and Labour intends to give what help is nécejsary _advice, finance, staff etc. - and to aid the co-ordination of agenciesacting in related fields. If however the GLC is the only organisationable to carry out the required programmes, Labour will ensure thatthere is no delay in getting the job done. Labour will not seek to gainpowers to over-ride boroughs' spending decisions. Getting thingsdone needs co-operation not confrontation. Ultimately; if theboroughs cannot or will not carry out the necessary programmes,particularly for relieving housing need or encouragingemploymenta Labour GLC will aid other executive agencies, oi do ihe workitself.

(c) The advocacy role

London needs a voice, one that is capable of putting the Londoncase effectively. Labour believes that the GLC should carry outinvestigative work into all matters that affect Greater London,using its information and research capabilities to the full. It will benecessary to build an effective lobby to try to minimise the excessesof the Tory Government. The GLC should campaign to ensure thatall London local authorities get the financial resoúrces they need.Similarly it will be necessary to press for local authorities to be giventhe powers they need to deal with the problems they face, aná theanachronistic anomaly of the City of London endeá.

Several areas of public life such as the NHS and the police areremoved from direct local democratic influence. This isundesirable, as Londoners should have some say in these vitalaspects in their lives. Under the Tories the NHS in London issuffering from major cutbacks. A Labour GLC will monitor theseguts, an-d _will publicise where London's interests are beingdamaged. Where Government and Regional Health Authorit!

z.J

2.4

77

2.5

policy runs contrary to the needs of Londoners a Labour GLC willcampaign for change. In particular, it is imperative to separate thefinancing of national facilities from that of local facilities, to ensurethat national services are not financed out of the diminishingresources being allocated to London.

In dealing with the police London is much worse off than the rest ofBritain. Other cities have police committees, highly limited, butnevertheless a direct local link between the police and thecommunities they serve. In London the Metropolitan Police areanswerable only to the Home Office, despite the fact that the policeraise f240 million from the London ratepayer. The Labour Partyviews, with very great concern, the fact that there is no democraticcontrol of the Police in Greater London, and that there is noadequate method of dealing with complaints against the Police.Accordingly, a Labour controlled GLC will invite boroughs to joinin establishing a Police Committee to monitor the work of the PoliceForce as a prelude to it gaining power to control the Police.

3 ACCOUNTABILITY

(a) Open Government

The GLC has a reputation of being an impenetrable bureaucracy.This is not acceptable to Labour, and changes will be sought. Infuture the intended GLC programme will be presented in as public amanner as possible - prior to decisions being made - and in-dividuals and organisations will be invited to comment. On majorissues, background papers that have contributed to the policymaking process, will be made available. Where possible, files will bemade publicly available, except those which contain commercialplanning, or personal details that could be damaging if publiclyknown. Means will be investigated whereby public involvement canbe increased. For example it may be possible to introduce a publicquestion time to council and committee meetings.

(b) Assisting voluntary and community groups

The community cannot fully participate unless they are fullyinformed. In many areas of London public policy is better, becauseof the active, positive involvement of representative communitygroups. In other areas, like the South Bank and Docklands excellentplans have been drawn up because of public participation, only to bescrapped before they could be implemented, at the doctrinaireinsistence of the Tories in County Hall and Government. Labourbelieves that community interests must be protected andcommunity life enhanced. To achieve this a Labour GLC will

3.1

3.2

78

3.3

extend its funding of community and voluntary groups to ensurethat alternative views can be effectively e*presied. This assistancecould be financial, or in the form of providing premises, reprog-raphic facilities and so on. Labour will undertake to report fuily óthe relevant groups, on the GLC response to the views received, astoken participation is insulting, and wasteful to all concerned.Under Labour the GLC will actively seek outside views, and insome circumstances it may be_appropriate to co-opt community andother representatives to GLC committees. officérs will be given aduty to consult with local groups and to report back to the électedmembers.

(c) Organisation at the local level

Official attitudes will have to change if the GLC is going to becomemore responsive. Labour will seek to decentralise the GLC'smanagement organisation, with decision-making delegated to aslocal a level as possible. officers will be expected1o také decisions,to^take responsibility for them, and to be accessible to the peopleaffected by the decisions.

4. JOINT POLICIES & PROGRAMMES

A new role for the GLCTo many Londoners the GLC is a remote, even irrelevant,organisation. Many voices have called for its abolition, howeverLabour believes that there is a clear need for an elected authorityable to take a London-wide view, antl that the GLC's financiálstrength must be used to benefit the less well off. A new way ofapproaching policy must be found that employs the GLC assetsln amuch more productive way. On regaining control of the GLCLabour will establish a GLC role that is more sensitive and flexibleto Íhe differing circumstances of each borough. A Labour GLC willoffer to assist boroughs and other organisatlons, to maintain theirprogrammes in the face of Tory cuts.

Achieving co-operation

GLC powers generally require some level of executiveinvolvement, that is to say it cannot make straightforward cashgr.?-".ts to the boroughs. To achieve real progress, close co-operationwill be essential and Labour will ensure that this is achieved by

(i) agreement by the GLC to accept the boroughs'proposals forthe schemes in question;(ii) committing the GLC to local joint management of theprojects with full involvement of the borough councillors,

(a)

-1.1

tbl

+:

79

(c)

4.3

officers and the appropriate unions and local communityrepresentatives and(iii) undertaking to transfer ownership/management to theboroughs when they request it.

Which projects?

The easier joint projects to establish will be those where GLC andborough powers overlap. If boroughs need support in, say, socialservices, where the GLC has few powers, it may be necessary for theborough to adjust the distribution of its own resources and allow theGLc tó fill the gap in non-social services areas. The Labour Party inI-ondon will have to support Labour councillors, in the boroughsand on the GLC, to overcome objections from parochialestablishments which prefer to implement their own policies.Identification of specific schemes depends on initiatives from theboroughs, however there are some fruitful areas to explore. Inhouse building the GLC could acquire sites that borough resourcescannot stretch to, or could develop sites already in boroughownership but not programmed for early development because ofthe cuts. Prior to implementation there would need to be fullagreement on density, design, materials, lettings, etc, ideally to thebórough specification. To help modernisation the GLC can commitrevenue resources to HAA's and borough estates and acquiredproperties. Boroughs would state their detailed requirements inierms of money, staff (skills and numbers) and preferred policies.Parks, recreation and arts spending should also be investigated toidentify projects where GLC support is viable. Government cuts arelikely to threaten voluntary organisatiuons, as resources will beconcentrated on mainstream services. A Labour GLC should seekto set up a liaison service with boroughs and with voluntary bodieswhose activities accord with Labour priorities, to ensure thatorganisations that would have been funded by boroughs or whoseactivities are otherwise beneficial to London, are referred to theGLC, releasing funds for use elsewhere.

4.4 Other areas where powers overlap are historic buildings and con-$ervation, the temporary use of sites awaiting development, andperhaps most crucially, in einployment policy.

5. LABOUR'S FINANCIAL POLICY

(a) Financial principles

5. 1 The two over-riding objectives for Labour are first of all to obtain areal redistribution of expenditure to the less well off, and second toobtain full value for money. Well intentioned programmes are

80

5,2

weakened if we fail to use our resources efficiently and to maximumeffect. It is also Labour's intention to achieve a proper balancebetween capital investment and revenue spending. It is clearly ofmajor importance that capital spending on housing, transport andother elements of public infrastructure is enough to achieve andmaintain high and rising standards, on LT, on estates, in parks andso on.

The first objective will be achieved by a rapid redirection of GLCprogrammes, away from Tory asset-stripping, advertisingcampaigns and grandiose irrelevances, toward those areas wherereal need exists. This will be carried out in consultation with theborough councils and other organisations where appropriate. Thechange of direction will be backed up by continuous review andmonitoring activity to identify new opportunities and to ensure thatexisting programmes meet Labour's objectives.

The second objective will require a positive approach towardreviewing the effectiveness of the programmes intended to achieveLabour's manifesto commitments. Elected members of the GI-.Care supposed to control a Í2bn organisation in their spare time,clearly this all too often leaves the power and influence with theofficers. We believe that this is unsatisfactory. For this reason theremust be an effective and independent Performance ReviewCommittee charged with the duty to carry out "quality of serviceaudits". The committee must be given adequate officer support,and these officers should not be subject to departmental pressures.The role of this committee will be wider than that of the currently -existing scrutiny committee. Its terms of reference will require it toreport on staffing levels and skills, on unit costs, on the effectivenessof the programmes, and on the steps that should be taken toovercome problems, achieve the best use of existing staff, and toamend programmes. The committee should report direct toCouncil, being subject neither to other committees nor theDirector-General's Board. Staff serving the committee wouldlargely be obtained from existing functions, from Treasurer'sDepartment for audit skills, from Policy Studies for policy review,from Programme Office and O & M.

ft) The GLC's financial resources

The GLC spends about f2bn a year. Currently some f450m israised on the rates, the rest is provided by charges, grants andrepayments. Alone among local authorities it has a self-financingcapital fund, (except for housing) in excess of f 200m. This gives théGLC relative independence of the money markets, as it reduces theborrowing requirement. The capital fund was established by

ii

_+

81

5.5

Labour, and should now be used to fund capital programmesunhindered by Government interference.

(c) Financing Labour's Programme

On gaining control Labour will end wasteful Tory spending onunnecessary and unwanted projects, and will stop the profligatedisposal of public assets, often below cost and often below the assetvalue. 'lory determination to smash the public sector, and the GLCin particular, has fuelled this asset stripping. So far they have soldshops and commercial properties and many acres of land to theirfriends in the private sector. Labour will use the capital resources ofthe GLC to build up public assets, to be used for the benefit of thewhole community.

Labour will terminate the present wasteful expenditure on so-called"home defence".

The Tory empires that have been set up to sell land and councilhouses, and to build urban motorways will be broken up and thestaff redeployed. The money saved will be used to finance beneficialprograÍnmes. Capital will also be freed, particularly from the roadprograÍnme' for investment in public transport and otherworthwhile projects. Much that Labour wishes to achieve can beimplemented within the current level of real resources, butgovernment policy is crucial. Grants account for a large proportionof GLC income, and loss of grant, as threatened by the Tories, willthrow the burden onto the ratepayer. It is not possible to accuratelyestimate how much Labour's programme will cost because of:-(i) The ruinous level of inflation;(ii) Cuts by the Tory Government;(iii) Powers taken by the Tories to put local authorities in a

straitjacketas well as the difficulties that will exist in rebuilding socialist pro-grammes after four years of Tory destruction. Labour mustapproach its task with realism, and we have attempted to indicatethe scale of expenditure required to finance the options put forwardby the Manifesto Working Parties.

The major call on resources came from housing, transport andemployment. Of these, the new priority being given to London'seconomic needs will require additional spending. This policy area isso important, that finance for employment initiatives must be foundto overcome the traditional low key approach taken by localauthorities. In a full year, possibly two-three years after theelection, the programmes proposed in the Employment Manifestocould require a maximum of f100m. The net contribution by

5.6

5.1

5.8

82

London's ratepayers will depend on the scope to redirect existingreSourceS' the willingness of Government to bacÉemployment-generating projects, and on the availability of financefrom the private sector and investment bodies. If the expenditure istotally rate-borne, it will add less than 5p to the rates, or about f l" 2 ayear for a typical London ratepayer.

5.9 GLC support for LT (capital and revenue) is currently f250m. Thisattracts Government grant - Í)'20m in 1980/81. The proposals putforward in the Transport Manifesto, first and foremost will reqúiremore capital spending to provide a decent and regular bus and tubeservtce.

5.10 Scope for this should be available initially by redeploying existingcapital allocations. Revenue support for London Transporthowever, will require considerable additional expenditure. The freefares option preferred by the Transport Working Party will requirethe replacement of the Í500m now raised on fares. This sum is theequivalent of25p on the rates, or f55 - f60 per year payment by thetypical London domestic ratepayer. The option of returning to thefares subsidy level of 1976 would cost Í100m or 5p on the rates.

5.11. Housing is the other main call on resources. Labour's programmeswill take time to implement because of the destructive behaviour ofthe Tories at the GLC and the certainty of obstructionist tactics bythe Tories in Government and the boroughs. Even the Tory GLC'sprogramme has been slashed by Government - cut by over f 100m.The cost of Labour's programme will depend on whether theGovernment continues housing subsidies to the public sector, andon whether the Government peaalises local authorities whichrefuse to massively increase rents. It seems unikely that annualcapital expenditure will be able to increase rapidly, because of theshortage of sites and the length of time it takes to get newprogrammes going. Even if Government refused to grant aid any ofthe increase, yet permitted it to take place the maximum additionalcost would be unlikely to exceedfL20m or 6p on the rates, by 1985.It is more likely that the major fight against housing cuts will onlylead to a gradual recovery to the levels of expenditure achievedunder a Labour Government. If that were the case the impact on therates would be much less. The proposals for the housing revenueaccount will require additional subsidy, again depending on thelevel of support from Government andalsJ on the after-Jffects oftransfer of estates.

5.12 The other areas of spending are much less expensive. Balancing artsexpenditure, to bring aid to community and local projects up to halfthe total, would cost f5m-f6m, or {p on the rate. Expanding the

83

parks programme enormously would only add f5m or so on capitalaccount. Increased expenditure on the Fire Brigade will depend ona full review taking place in 1981, but extra money will have to befound for the capital programme which has been ignored by theTories, to the detriment of Londoners' safety.

5.13 It will become possible to make a more accurate financialassessment nearer the election. By then the Housing Bill and theLocal Government Land and Planning Bill will be law. the impact oftransfer of estates will be clearer, as will other aspects of GLC Torypolicy. HIP and TSG allocations will also be known. It should bepossible to submit an updated financial assessment to Conferencein October that also included an indication of the potential financialconsequences arising from the amendments tabled by affiliates.This Working Party recommends that after Conference' smallgroups of candidates be set up to develop detailed programmes forimplementing manifesto policy. One of these groups should begiven the responsibility for matters of finance and administration,including the costing of the detailed proposals from the othergroups.

5.14 Accurate and feasible financial assessments will be difficult as theincoming Labour GLC will have to battle with Government toovercome the tight constraints that have been imposed. Increasedspending, and the freedom in using existing resources which are sonicessary for London, will be difficult to achieve, unless the LabourMovement as a whole is successful in toppling monetarist dogmafrom its currently dominant position.

5.15 Labour will campaign to win the GLC election committed toprotecting and expanding public services, obtaining efficient use ofiesources for Londoners. These objectives are not compatible withTory extravaganzas such as the f30,000 Chairman's reception.Labour will therefore introduce good housekeeping principlesthroughout the GLC. Ceremonial functions will be stopped. Rate -

and taxpayers pay for services, not luncheons for civic dignitaries.Globe trotting jaunts for officers and members will cease. The lasttwo years have seen, amongst others, Cutler joy-riding around theUSA, and trips by various other members around the Far East.Labour will also scrutinize, and reduce, the use of chauffeur-driven cars by both officers and members. Our priorities exclude allsuch exercises in privilege and status.

6. REORGANISING TIIE GLC6.I Labour is comrnitted to a radical programme that cannot be

implemented by the current GLC structure. The GLC will have tobe re-organised to become more accountable, more efficient, andquicker to respond. Major management proposals are

84

recommended in transport (section 11) housing (section 8) andemployment (section 10). It is desirable to move away from Iargemonolithic departments toward smaller units. Therecommendations of the other working parties should lead tosmaller and less rigid hierarchies, however, it is important that thereis a committee structure able to impose political will and directionon the bureaucracy. Fewer committees, meeting frequently, shouldassist in this:- accordingly we recommend this structure:-

Special CommitteesPolicy CommitteeStaff Appeals CommitteePerformance Review Committee

Standing Committees (a maximum of 11 recommended)Finance and General Services CommitteeStaff CommitteeHousing CommitteeTransport CommitteeEmployment CommitteePlanning CommitteeRecreation CommitteePublic Services CommitteeFire Brigade CommitteeThe Policy Committee will co-ordinate the work of the othercommittees and settle the order of priority for the variouspolicies.

6.2 As a streamlining of the committee structure will inevitably result ina heavier workload for the committee chairmen, it is suggested thatthis could be alleviated by the use of delegated powers, i.e a

committee member could be authorised to oversee a particularaspect of the work carried out"by the committee.

6.3 GLC members have major responsibilities and Labour believes thatmembers should be paid to enable them to commit the necessaryenergy and enthusiasm to the task. Labour will therefore press forthe necessary changes in the law, to allow payment of a salary toGLC members, based on the average wage at any given time. In themeantime it will be necessary to adjust the timing of the meetings toreduce the daytime commitment to encourage people from a widerrange of backgrounds to become GLC members. Morning meetingsshould be avoided, and meetings beginning earlier than 4 p.m.should be discouraged. A significant proportion of committeebusiness should be taken in the evening, subject to satisfactoryarrangements, for GLC employees affected, being negotiated withtheir Unions.

85

HOUSING

MEMBERSHIP

D. Nicholas (Chairman) Evidence was invited andM. DewarS. DuncanD. GilliesH. KayE. KnightJ. KotzG. MeehanJ. MoseleyB. SawbridgeM. WilliamsG. Dimson(co-opted)J. Mills (co-opted)B. Bush (co-opted)

received from a number oforganisations andindividuals representingthe views of tenantorganisationsr pressuregroups, and other localauthorities.

87

1. LONDON'S HOUSING CRISIS1..1 For those Londoners living in homes they can afford and in whichthey are huppy there is no housing crisis. They do not suffer from aleaking roof, damp, overcrowding, lack of secuiity, poorly arranged orinadequate facilities' Even these Londoners, however, are awáre ofLondon's housing crisis for they have relations, neighbours, or workcolleagues who are among the 300,000 households on London's housingwaiting lists, among the 15,000 households who become homeless eacÉyear or who live in London's many sub-standard properties. The Tories inGovernment and at County Hall blithely brush ihe housing crisis ofLondon to one side and pretend the situation is getting better. It is not.Only the Labour Party in London is determined to face up to the massiveand growing scale of housing need in our capital city.1.2 The severity of the housing crisis in London is self evident to thosewho care to look:-

83,000 households do not have a hot water supply90,000 households only have an outside WC331,000 households lack exclusive use of all basic amenities107,000 households are overcrowded, an incidence (per head of

population) 50olo worse than the average for England as a whole(National Dwelling and Housing Survey 1978)

Í.3 'Ihese figures are just the tip of an iceberg. Hundreds of thousandsmore people live in run-down neighbourhoods, badly maintained estatesT9 i" high density or high rise flats unsuirable for families with youngchildren. London's housing problems are getting worse.7.4 Not only is the housing stock deteriorating, but the costs of living inLondon are high, and rising all the time. The high cost of housing in theprivate sector is forcing more and more people to turn to the public sectorfor help. Since the Tories took control of the GLC, thé number indesperate housing need has grown dramatically. In the 2 years April7978- March 1980 new applications to the housing waiting lists of the 32London Boroughs reached record levels of abo.ti t00,00-0" ach year.TheAssociation of London Borough Housing Officers (the Chief Housingofficials of the London Boroughs) states that:

"new applicants consist of larger families with children, singleparent families, young couples, and particularly single people whotraditionally local authorities have not had the resources to assistbut who are now forced to turn to the public sector for help becauseof their increasing difficulty in gaining access to private sectoraccommodation they can afford."

The Tories will not admit that a housing crisis faces many of these people.only Labour controlled authorities will provide the opportunity óf abetter home.

88

1000

2. LABOUR AND TORY IN CONTROL OF THE GLC:COMPARE THE RECORDS

2-I It really matters which party controls the GLC. The record showsthat Labour built up the GLC's housing role, the Tories are determined todestroy it. Compare the records of the Labour administration in controlof the GLC between Í973 and 1977 and the Tory administration whichtook over early in 1977.

NEW HOMES STARTED.emo

óm0

5Úo0

.0m0

3mo

ilm

tfrx)

74175 75176 76177 77 t78 79t80 80/81

GLC TENANT TRANSFER REQUESTS GRANTED.

nírm

ÍMn

ffinffim

78t79

80 81

89

FAMILIES HOUSED1 1000

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

2.2 Labour seriously tackled London's housing problems. The Tories,on the other hand, are determined to strip the GLC of all its importanthousing functions and to get out of housing. That is why they are trying totransfer all the GLC stock to the Boroughs, that is why they areencouraging vast sales of homes, land and building sites and why theyhave virtually ceased to build.

90

BY THE GLC FORTHE LONDON BOROUGHS.

\\

--t-\

GLC TENANT TRANSFER REQUESTS OUTSTANDING.

3. LABOUR'S HOUSING PRIORITIES

3.1 Labour's belief is straightforward. It is that everyone not only thefortunate and wealthy have the right to a decent home at a price he or shecan afford. The Tories may say this too but their actions do not bear outtheir words. Only a Labour GLC will confront the three great housingchallenges of the 80's. These are:

- meeting the housing needs of all Londoners be they old, young,single or part of a family; not only those who can afford to buy, as isthe Tories'aim.- providing all Londoners with a real choice of tenure,accommodation and area in which they can live.- tackling the gross inequities in housing finance which so favourthose who are wealthy and well housed.

3.2 The justly rising housing aspirations of Londoners must be met in apositive fashion. Our approach is twofold. Labour will actively supportand help those Londoners who wish to own their homes, but this cannotbe at the expense of those with no home or those who wish to rent.Equally Labour also seeks to safeguard a strong and growing publics€ctor. This will provide a varied choice to Londoners through a balancedhousing stock, competing for and satisfying its consumers in all necessaryways.

3.3 Decisions made when Labour come to power will affect the lives ofLondoners in the 21st century. The homes we will provide and theopportunities we will create must and will measure up to the needs of thenext century.

3.4 The GLC's strategic role A Labour GLC intends to use its ability toraise money across all of London to provide positive financialdiscrimination in favour of those areas of London where the worsthousing conditions exist.

3.5 Labour recognises that if this drive to improve housing conditions inLondon is to be successful there must be a strategic housing plan so thatthe activities of the Boroughs and the GLC are co-ordinated. Such a planmust take into account the level of economic activity in London,employment cycles and resources of the building industry, all of which areinextricably linked to housing. The main objectives of the plan will be toassess the need for new and improved homes in Greater London, toensure the allocation of housing according to need on a London-widebasis and to encourage increased mobility within London. A LabourGLC would help those Boroughs unable to meet housing need in theirareas and step in and implement housing programmes in those Boroughsunwilling to meet the necessary targets.

9I

3.ó Constraints It would be wrong to pretend that the task will be easy.A Labour GLC will face many constraints that will limit its action in manyareas. The Tory GLC has crippled the housing department by cutting itsstaff, organisation and resources. The Tory Government, claiming to givegreater freedom from the detailed control of housing projects,will controlthe vital areas of land and dwelling acquisition, and rents, and will putstrict limits on the money we can spend. The Tory controlled LondonBoroughs will do all in their power to stop GLC home building schemes.Despite these problems, a Labour GLC will fight to fulfill its promises.We must approach our task realistically, while campaigning for thepowers and resources to meet London's housing needs, in order to stopthe Tories in their attempt to force working people to continue living inbad housing, and a poor environment.

3.7 Labour's Pledges Labour makes these pledges:-First the full extent of London's housing crisis will be publicly

exposed. An honest public assessment will be made of what mustbe done to ensure that all Londoners are decently housed.

Second a campaign will be waged to ensure that a Labour GLC is giventhe power and money to implement a housing programme whichwill ensure that all Londoners are decently housed. If the Toriesin Government and in the London Boroughs attempt to sabotagethis programme against the wishes of Londoners, their tacticswill be relentlessly opposed.

Third the increased expenditure necessary to provide more homes willbe subject to vigilant control to ensure that money is not wastedbut used carefully and sensibly to the benefit of all Londoners.

4. LABOUR'S PROGRAMME FOR THE GLC4.t Labour will increase the provision and desirability of council homesby:-

- building more new homes- buying and converting houses- modernising and improving run-down estates- opposing the sale of council homes.

4.2 Labour is determined that a new partnership with GLC tenants willbe entered into that will greatly improve tenants' satisfaction withmanagement and maintenance. Council tenants will be given power todecide the crucial issues that affect their lives.

5. MORE I{EW HOMES5.1 Labour rejects the Tory view that there is a "surplus" of decenthomes in London. The so-called "crude surplus" argument used by the

92

Tories to advocate cuts ignores the realities of London's housing as manyhomes are in an appalling condition or totally unsuited to housingrequirements.

5.2 Policies which halt the loss of population, particularly of young andskilled workers, must be vigorously pursued. More homes must be builtand they will be houses with gardens wherever possible. No tower blockswill be built. Labour faces a daunting task in trying to revitalise thehousebuilding programme. The Tories at the GLC have systematicallyand ruthlessly disposed of building land to speculators and broken up theHousing and Architects Departments. The Tories in the outer LondonBoroughs have always hindered new GLC housing schemes in the pastand now the Tories in Government are not giving consent and finance fornew schemes.

5.3 The Home Building Programme We must start building homesquickly. So in the short term Labour will negotiate design and buildarrangements with large private firms to gain access to their landholdings. In the longer term it will be our aim to develop, once again, ourown capacity to design and build new homes. We will set up a new directlabour organisation - London Community Builders - with the target ofbeing able to handle up to 50olo of building contracts within two years. Theuse of directly employed labour which can acquire the necessary buildingskilis and continue to use them on a range of sites will be essential. It is theerperience of Labour administrations that properly run, direct labourproduces a better quality of craftmanship at no greater cost than privatecontractors and leads to reductions in future management andmaintenance costs.

5.4 We will seek to speed the building process by various means,including the maximum use of dependable materials, and the repetitionof proven successful designs, while giving a reasonable allowance forexperiment and pioneering.

5.5 Thamesmead Labour wishes to see the completion of Thamesmeadas quickly as possible. A great effort will be made to ensure that theThamesmead community is socially varied by ensuring homes areavailable for the elderly, the disabled and single people. Priority will besiven to the completion of the central area, the provison of adequate localfacilities and improved transport links through the Thamesmead area.

5.6 A Labour GLC would also offer to develop sites owned byBoroughs where the Boroughs concerned were unable to build on thesites for reasons of cost or availability of manpower with the fullagreement of the borough as to design and use.

s.7 Land AcquisitÍon The development of small sites could make asignificant contribution to the new homes programme and a Labour GLC

93

will establish a special team of officers to seek out and speedily developsmall sites. We would seek to establish good working links with otherpublic organisations to obtain their surplus land. There would be a

vigorous policy of buying sites to build on particularly in the Torycontrolled Outer-London boroughs where there is ample land and amarked shortage of publicly rented housing. The opportunity to purchasekey sites on the riverside and elsewhere will be taken. GLC sites like coinStieet in Waterloo will be retained for housing and community facilitiesto meet local needs and not sold to speculators to add still more to the glutof empty office accommodation in Inner London'

6. MORE IMPROVED HOMES

6'Í Labour recognises that a new build programme must be seen as

complementary to a sustained effort to improve and maintain London'solder private housing stock. Much potentially good quality older housingis falling into a state of serious disrepair and unfitness. Unless swift actionis taken further large scale clearance will become necessary.

6.2 Many of these houses are occupied either by elderly owners whocannot afford to repair them or by private tenants whose landlords willnot repair them. Labour recognises the vast need for improvement andrepair in this part of London's housing stock.

6.3 Government controls are going to make it extremely difficult for aLabour GLC to buy and modernise these houses for letting to people inhousing need. This is essential, however, if London's housing crisis is tobe overcome when London's older houses are falling into disrepair fasterthan they are being improved.

6.4 Area Improvement A Labour GLC would wish to increase the helpgiven to Boroughs in Housing Action Areas but the direct intervention ofitre Cl-C is not necessarily the most effective way of doing this. Labourwould work with Boroughs at their invitation and make availablemanpower and financial resources but would wish to see Housing ActionAreas subject to local control and direction and be locally accountable.

6.5 The GLC would help to finance any unsubsidised work needed inrenovation areas and elsewhere. Environmental works would be strictlymonitored to ensure that they did not just lead to gentrification and thedispossession of local residents.

6.6 An Advice and Agency ServÍce Labour would also ensure that theGLC offered a comprehensive advice and agency service to the tenants,owners and prospective owners of older housing. This would provide helpin obtaining grants and loans, and in assisting with building works. TheGLC would press for grant levels to be regularly reviewed and increasedin line with building costs. A Labour GLC will seek a much needed review

94

of the whole system. The GLC will also press for changes to the law tomake it easier to force landlords to repair and maintain their houses andfor councils to acquire them when they fail to meet their obligations.

7, HOUSING FOR PEOPLE IN NEED7.L We are firmly of the view that homes should go to those most inhousing need. We will therefore try to achieve allocation according to thisprinciple both in our role as a strategic housing authority and as landlord.This is not the principle that has been followed by the Tory GLC. Housesrvith gardens have been allocated almost entirely to those who are able tobuy rather than those who need this type of accommodation most. Wervould implement a number of measures to reverse this trend. We wouldstop the sales of vacant houses by the present GLC which goes far beyondeven the requirements of the Tory legislation on "the right to buy". We*'ould also call a halt to "ready access" schemes which allocate bynewspaper advertisement and overnight queuing as this is unfair to manyand open to abuse.1 .2 A Strategic Role A statutory scheme will exist to allocate aproportion of vacancies in former GLC stock. Labour will fully supportsimilar arrangements for people to move from one borough to another inborough built stock. A Labour GLC will establish a London-widenobility scheme which will comprise:

- new GLC dwellings;- vacancies in the remaining GLC stock;- nomination rights in former GLC stock transferred to theboroughs;- contributions from borough property in respect of new provisionand vacancies in the exisiting stock; and- nomination rights to dwellings provided by housing associations inLondon.

It is our intention to ensure that every borough makes a reasonable

';ontribution, having regard to local needs and to the housing needs ofT-ondon as a whole, and we will use all legal powers to ensure that noborough evades its responsibilities. It is our belief that Boroughs shouldcontribute 40o/o of their vacancies to a common allocations system.-.3 The mobility pool will be usecl to provloe ror those existing publiclector tenants and waiting list applicants who wish or need to move toanother part of London. We will also seek to reach agreements withauthorities outside Greater London to provide for moves to and fromother parts of the country for employment or other reasons. But indistributing resources in this pool we intend to have primary regard tonelative housing needs in different parts of London, including the need toprovide for the homeless, for general borough housing needs, and for keyw orkers.

95

7.4 In line with our belief that public housing should be allocatedaccording to need we are opposed to artificial restrictions on access tocouncil housing. We will seek to have these removed, by agreement withthe London Boroughs or by the promotion of legislation if necessary. Weare particularly opposed to fixed periods of local residence for eligibilityfor rehousing from waiting lists, to compulsory waiting periods forrehousing, to points schemes which give priority to length of localresidence and the rules which restrict rehousing of single people ofworking age.

7 .5 It is important that tenants and those on the waiting list should knowprecisely what their chances of transfer or rehousing are, and the type ofproperty they could be allocated. The next GLC will follow the exampleof the Manchester DC, and will operate a system that shows peopleexactly how their needs are assessed and how they are matched withavailable property. Applicants will be told of their points priority and thepriority required for dwellings of a particular type and location. They willbe able to decide whether they wish to wait the necessary period for thatproperty or to take an earlier offer of something less in demand. We shallintroduce this scheme first in respect of the- retained GLC stock, then inrespect of the mobility pool. We shall also attempt to encourage theLondon Boroughs to introduce the scheme for their own lettings. Such ascheme will be more responsive to tenants expectations and should helpto reduce refusal rates on offers of accommodation. This alone will helpto cut down vacancies in local authority housing but we will also seek tomake other management changes to reduce the numbers of emptyproperties - not least we shall stop the practice of holding property emptyfor sale.

7.6 Priority for remainÍng GLC tenants Nearly half of the GLC's stock,including almost all the homes in outer London, will have beentransferred to the London Boroughs, and the GLC will no longer be in aposition of letting over 20,000 ot its own properties every year. Althoughthe number of properties sold will not be very large in relation to the totalstock they comprise nearly half of the most attractive GLC homes. Thiswill leave the incoming GLC with a residue of high density high rise flatsand old unmodernised homes, predominantly in inner London. Theopportunity to use this stock strategically will be limited. One of ourpriorities in allocating from the mobility pool must therefore be to maketransfers easier to obtain for existing GLC tenants. This can reduceovercrowding and high densities and also enable allocations to bematched with estate modernisation schemes and better managementpolicies.

7 .7 Special needs There are three groups in housing need who in the pasthave had a particularly raw deal - the elderly, young couples and single

96

people of working age. In future, the new construction programme willbear in mind the needs of these groups. Special provision will be made,but the main assistance will come from changes in the general allocationpolicy.

7 .8 In the case of elderly people, preference will be given to allow themto live near to relatives and friends who can support them. The popularseaside/country homes schemes will be extended to provide greateropportunities for the elderly to move away from London and enjoy theirretirement beside the sea. A Labour GLC will continue to offer to buyhomes from elderly owner occupiers which are too large for them orri-hich they are unable to maintain. In return we will offer them the chanceto buy or rent something smaller or more easily managable.

- 9 We will seek changes in allocations policies for single people andr oung couples including amendments in the housing need point systemsso that they are not at a disadvantage compared to other groups. Withinthe general allocations scheme we will ensure that single people have agreater variety of accommodation offered to them, and we will notconfine provision for them to homes that other groups refuse.

-\ccommodation will also be set aside for flat sharing schemes in towerrlocks and on older estates. It should be remembered that by 1981 about1 in 4 of London's households will be people living alone.

-.10 We are convinced that for the vast majority of single people of any.ge group, hostels are not a solution. Nevertheless, there are certainsroups who need or prefer this type of accommodation. As with othernousing, the hostel accommodation available is inadequate bothrumerically and in terms of quality. We see the provision of this type of:ccommodation as a particular job of a strategic housing authority andnill seek to increase the number of hostels in Greater London. In theleme way we wish to increase the provision of refuges for batteredr,lomen and other groups. We will use the GLC's stock and the mobility:ool to provide permanent homes for those in hostels and refuges whenrher,wish to leave.

i,11 Eliminating Discrimination Many investigations, including athorough survey carried out by the Labour GLC in I916,have shown that;thnic minorities do not get a fair deal in the allocation of council housing.I-abour is committed to overcoming racial and social disadvantage, andon regaining the GLC will ensure that our housing policies do notriscriminate. In consultation with representatives from the ethnicminorities our housing allocations will be monitored to ensure that thosesr:ccessfully housed on each GLC estate, are a fair cross-section of thosexho wish to live there.

91

7.12 Council House sales The public housing stock is depleted bothnumerically and in terms of its quálity by the sale of council houses. Sales

favour thoóe that live in the best property situated in the most desirableareas. Under the Tories close to 90% of GLC sales have been in the

suburbs and 95o/, have been houses with gardens - very few flats have

been sold. As a direct consequence of the Tories indiscriminate sales

policy the number of tenants awaiting transfer had increased to over+:,OOO by September 1'979 from levels around 37,000 in 1978 and GLCaid to trrá Lóndon.Boroughs for the housing of homeless families andthose on the waiting list has slumped by 50o/o during the years of Torycontrol.'7.1,3 Labour will immediately halt the doctrinaire and divisive ToryGLC policy of pushing council house sales. It will do all in its power

legalli to iesist- any Government dictates about sales. Council house

te"nanls wishing to buy homes in the private market will be given adviceand mortgage assistance. Labour is happy to encourageo*rr"r-o""rr!at-ion but not at the expense of people ollhe waiting ortransfer listi. For similar reasons the Homesteading and Equity Sharingschemes, both of which have in any case been failures, will be stopped.Families who have entered such schemes and subsequently tindthemselves in difficulties will be helped to withdraw'

8. A BETTER DEAL FOR TENANTS

8.1 Labour recognises that public sector housing must offer greater

advantages for tenants. 'fhe aim will be to make council housing."rpo.rrií" to need, attractive to live in and free from old-fashionedrigidity and rules. This better deal for tenants will include:

- granting greater preference to tenants' transfer requests- éncourág-ing community development and seeking local

rehousin-g sólutions in order to keep families/relatives living close

to each other- modernising estates and improving their environment- giving power to tenants to run their own estates- í*prón_ea management and maintenance standards'

8.2 An Improved Tenants' charter A Labour GLC is in favour ofproviding reiident caretakers where possible and will negotiate, withienant oiganisations, a Tenants' Charter of rightsrvhicLwould improveon the inádequate Charter now becoming law. This Charter will, forexample, give tenants the right to be actively involved in the-decisionsthat aifecitheir estates, and not simply consulted. Tenants will be giventhe right to do their own repairs via independent labour and debit the costfrom-rent if essential day to day repairs are not carried out by the GLC

98

within given specified times after registration with the district housingoffice. We also wish to ease petty restrictions such as those onhomeworking. Homeworking will be allowed so long as it is registeredu'ith the Housing Department and does not contravene health safety ornoise regulations. In addition the Charter will forbid the use of distraint -removal of property by force - as a way of collecting rent arrears.

5.3 No Profiteering from Rents The Tories at the GLC have forced uprents at double the rate of inflation, while at the same time standards ofrepair and maintenance have tumbled. In addition the Tory Governmenthas taken powers to force rents up even more. Labour, on the other hand,relieves in a rents policy based on value for money. Council rents shouldaim to cover no more than the costs of day to day management and;ipkeep of a well maintained housing stock. The Housing Revenue-{ccount will be carefully scrutinised to identify and exclude items whichshould not be paid for solely by tenants. At present GLC rents exceed:nanagement and maintenance costs. For this reason, when Labour wins:he GLC election, we intend to impose a rents freeze for the first year, and:hereafter, until management and maintenance costs exceed rental,].lcome.

l.l The importance of value for money cannot be overstressed. Labour.s determined that a cost-effective repairs service using directly employed.rhour is built up and that a planned maintenance programme is.:troduced that will save money by reducing the incidence of daily minor:ecair jobs. Tenants know when they are getting value for money and the.:rolvement of tenants in the decisions affecting their estates is an:ssential part of the better deal Labour advocates.

r 5 Tenant Involvement in Management Negotiations will be opened'';':th tenants oranisations and the boroughs in which GLC stock remains,:Ll arrive at flexible solutions to devolved management. An appropriateiiructure might be:

Estates Committees with tenants making up at least half themembers, with the balance drawn up from GLC Councillors, localborough councillors and appropriate Trade Union representatives.These committees should have wide powers but they will not be ableto take disciplinary action against fellow tenants or have access toconfidential information about them. Within a budget, they shoulddetermine overall policy for their estates, advise on improvementand modernisation, assess standards of management andmaintenance, and prepare proposals for the needs of theircommunity. Estate officers should be accountable to thesecommittees.Borough Level Ioint Management Committees should beresponsible for the day to day control of the management system,

the allocation of financial and manpower resources and acceptanceof tenders for improvement work. Its other major task would be toprepare annual proposals for the housing under its control andco-ordinate bids from estate committees and evaluate priorities. Arepresentative from each estate committee, Trade Union, boroughrepresentatives and GLC councillors should serve on thiscommittee.A Housing Committee at County Hall, with trade union and tenantrepresentatives would decide overall strategic policies.Sub-committees should be unnecessary.

8.6 Improvements to estates and their environment A future LabourGLC would ensure that estate modernisation schemes consisted of morethan the present ,.package schemes". These do not take enough accountof tenanti' wishes, nor oithe need for major structural and remedial workor environmental improvements. Priority will be given to rehabilitatingexisting and ex-GLC stock particularly in the Inner Areas. A rollingp.og.a*-rne will be agreed with the London Boroughs and local a-s well as

itraiegic objectives witt Ue taken into account. The new emphasis onenvirónmenial improvements will include the upgrading of communalareas and the provision of sufficient revenue funds to ensure that

environmental improvements are maintained.

8.7 Sensitive housing management policies including such things as

lowering the number of children on each estate, selective demolition and

agreeménts with boroughs on short term lettings and treatment of_emptypioperties will ensure that rehabilitation goes more smoothly and at the

énd of the day, that newly modernised estates will be attractive to tenants.Tenants will be fully consulted about all estate modernisation schemes.To enable tenant organisations to play their full part in these new policiesgrant aid will be given to the London Tenants' Organisation.

8.8 Tower Block Improvements Schemes to improve the quality of lifein tower blocks by the installation of entry phone systems, the up-gradingof common areas, better refuse handling arrangements and so on, will beexpanded. Almost every block requires an individual solution and fulltenant consultation will be undertaken. It will not, however, be Labour'spolicy to increase rents to offset the costs of such work which in manyóases create a decent living environment for the first time'

8.9 Major Technical Problems Labour will expand the programme ofworks it itarted in 1,97 6 to put right major technical problems caused byeconomies forced on local authorities by central government. Labour willalso seek to ensure that experience gained in this field by the GLC can beused to help other local authorities rectify their existing problems, andprevent similar ones occuring in the future.

100

9. STAFF TRAINING

The proposed new decentralised housing management structure, theneed to respond and be responsive to tenants' wishes, the more sensitiverehabilitation programme and the wider role envisaged for directlyemployed labour will require dedicated staff with skill and flexibility toimplement our policies. Labour believes that all staff and particularlythose at the "sharp end" who deal with day to day management or effectrepairs, should be given training and provided with adequate back upservices and remuneration to ensure that they can carry out Counciloolicy effectively and efficiently.

10. OWNER OCCUPATION

10.1 Labour is not opposed to owner occupation. During the four yearsn'hen Labour last controlled the GLC (1,973174 to I916177) it helped-13,785 people to buy homes in the private market with its Home Loansscheme. The Tories performance for their four year term (1.977178 to1980/81), based on actual loans and estimates by the Tories themselves,shows that only 13,375 people will have been helped to buy - a cut of50o/o.

10.2 Labour particularly wishes to help first time buyers, key workersrnd tenants to buy on the private market. To this end a Labour GLC will:

- concentrate its lending on those most in need and not on thosebuying expensive houses or trading up for financial gain;

- give preference to those who wish to buy properties in districtswhere building societies are unwilling to lend;

- use GLC mortgage money to top up building society loans;- make extensive use of the mortgage guarantee scheme to support

building society lending on older houses;- provide a comprehensive mortgage, improvement and repair

grant advice service to purchasers of older houses;- offer joint advances to unrelated single people; and- extend GLC lending to cover all Greater London.

11. OTHER FORMS OF TENUREI 1 .1 Co-operatives Housing co-operatives will be supported where theyl,jd to the housing stock and where they have the full support of their:embers.

,1.2 Housing Associations While controls on municipalisation existnousing associations can provide a way of increasing the social ownershipand quality of housing. The GLC would only lend money to registeredT{ousing Associations and would look favourably on associations which:rovide specialist housing to vulnerable groups. A Labour GLC woutd

101

only support other housing associations which have a community baseand a.e fully accountable to their tenants in the areas where they work.

1.3 The Private Rented Sector Government proposals for a newshorthold form of tenure will lead to increased homelessness and lack ofsecurity for many private sector tenants. A Labour GLC will press for fullsecurity of tenure for private sector tenants and a reform of the fair rentsysternwhich is now crippling tenants with large rent increases in manyareas. Labour will partióularly help the tenants of the many mansionblocks which have been hawked around the speculative propertycompanies. We intend to assist them in finding co-operative or-othersociáily acceptable solutions to their housing needs, if necessary by thepromotion of legislation on their behalf . Labour will do all in its power toénco,'.age the swift and final demise of the non resident private landlord,including seeking powers to work with the boroughs to bring intomunicipál ownershíp all private rented accommodation, except in cases

where there is a resident landlord.

12. INTO TITE EIGHTIES

I2.I The proposals in this document represent a radical change ofdirection in housing policies for London. A Labour GLC would establishstrategic housing objectives, seek sites, provide homes, promotemobility, and exténd owneÍ occupation opportunities to people on lowincomes who want to buy in the private sector. It would ensure that theseobjectives are carried out. In housing management, however' there willbe less intervention than now. Tenants will have real power to run theirestates and control day to day management.

1,2.2 Labour believes that these policies will result in an enlarged andinvigorated public sector responsive to the needs of its tenants andproviding thém with real variety and choice. At the same time there willbe an important owner occupied sector open to those who wish to chooseit but not one regarded as the only desirable tenure. This duality willprovide a balance of housing opportunities and choice which is in tunewith the r:ising housing aspirations of Londoners in the 1980's and alessening of the present divisive gulf between the badly housed and thewell housed in our capital city.

Preparing for Power

Following the agreement of a housing policy statement by specialconferenóe a small working party comprised of not more than six GLCprospective candidates should be established to prepare the detailedground work for the implementation of Labour's housing policy from thefirst day that Labour takes control of County Hall. The working partyshould have powers to co-opt.

102

PLANNING

Membership

E.P. Bell - co-optedJ. Corbyn - ChairmanP. DimoldenbergN. GerrardE. GougeM. GrabinerA. Mclntosh - co-oPted

Evidence was invited and received from a number of individuals andorganisations.

103

1.

1.1

TNTRODUCTION

A Labour GLC faces a truly mammoth task:-

- providing a decent home for all

- ensuring job opportunities for all

- creating an attractive public transport system

- encouraging recreation and lesiure facilities to cater for alltastes

- carefully controlling our environment to ensure less waste andless pollution

1..2 The difficulties that wilt be faced are large; the planning powers ofthe GLC are limited, and partly overlap with the Boroughs' TheSecretary of State for the Environment has enormous powers todictate to local authorities over their activities.

1'.3 Labour's basic approach to the planning of London is five fóld:

(a) The needs of people come first. The whims of multi-nationalcorpoÍations and the "laissez faire'' lobby will not be followed'

(b) Elected representatives must have real control over planningpolicies.

Homes must come before roads.

Speculative building has no place in a socialist London.

Pollution and destruction of the environment' suffered by allcaused by the few, cannot be tolerated.

1.4 The policies of the next Labour GLC will be based on theseprinciples. We hold no brief for private enterprise interests, but are

électe^d to serve the interests oÍ the mass of people who live andwork in London.

1.5 Our aim is to create an environment fit for all people - most have noescape route to week-end cottages and south coast yachts - that willmaké London the clean and exciting city it could be.

2. LABOUR'S APPROACH TO PLANNING

2.1, In the past London has suffered from unwieldy planning procedures,often based on unrealistic, utopian plans for the future. Planningprocesses must now be reshaped, retaining all the elements thatbenefit Londoners while streamlining procedures and adding new

elements to deal with those problems the Tories have refused todeal with over the past four years. To meet this requirement Labourwill further devofue the day to day detail of planning to the

104

(c)

(d)

(e)

boroughs, and will not commence any large scale plan makingexercises. The basis of a Labour GLC's strategic role in planningwill be wide ranging, speedy research into specific problems aimedat providing realistic proposals for implementation. Labour willco-operate extensively with the London Boroughs and pay full heedto the views of Londoners expressed through public consultation.Unlike the Tories, Labour at the GLC will not abdicate from itsresponsibility to ensure that action follows speedily after theidentification of problems and possible solutions. Indeed, executiveaction and financial intervention by the GLC must be part of itsstrategic role if no other agency is appropriate, capable or willing totackle the problems of London's poorest communities.

Labour believes that the GLC should take an overall view ofLondon's needs, whether or not there are specific GLC powers. Itwill be part of the GLC's job to assess needs in the areas of health,welfare, policing, etc; to bid for appropriate powers and finance forthe GLC and for other relevant organisations; and to co-ordinatewith Government and other public agencies, and the private sector,to establish programmes to achieve the desired ends. Indeed, aLabour GLC will take the lead in forging an effective partnershipbetween the public and private sector to solve London's problems.

In carrying out its strategic planning role the GLC under Labourwill give top priority to reviving London's economy. This must beaccompanied by major improvements in the run-down, decayingand derelict areas long deserted by the private sector.

Rehabilitation should be preferred to redevelopment. Road trafficgrowth, particularly heavy lorry traffic, must be curbed. Openspaces must be protected, and provision increased in the deprivedareas. Residential areas that have suffered from decline must begiven the impetus of major programmes of environmentalimprovement. Historic buildings must be put in good order and notbe allowed to be bulldozed for the sake of profit. Opportunities forrecreation must be extended to ensure that no areas are underprovided for. Where there are competing demands, priorities willbe established in the best interests of all Londoners. not in favour ofany one sectional interest.

Labour dismisses the reality of the Tories' so called 'commitment'to "the inner city", - a commitment that for the past four years hasnot been reflected in any of their programmes. Each year of theiradminstration has seen cuts in their capital spending. 'Inner city'spending by the GLC was in fact sustained by grants from theLabour Government. On regaining control of the GLC Labour willnot impose artificial geographical barriers on its activities.

-+

105

r

2.5 The strategic role should concern itself with the identification of thelack of amenities and facilities throughout London, and seek toremedy the deficiencies. A Labour GLC will not be solelyconcerned with large scale schemes, when so many areas of Londonare deprived of decent, basic, local services.

2.6 To be effective the GLC must accept that the planning role mustinclude:-

(a) Less interference with day to day planning matters,

(b) Monitoring of trends; research and analysis to highlightproblems and opportunities,

(c) Devising suitable programmes to tackle the problems ofLondon's run-down and under provided areas.

(d) Obtaining the necessary finance and powers on behalf ofLondoners,

(e) Implementing the agreed programmes quickly and efficiently

all within a context of liaison and co-operation with the Boroughsand relevant organisations.

3. PROMOTING AND CONTROLLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The effects of private enterprise in London have been to producegreat contrasts. In the Inner Boroughs in particular large areas havebeen left to decay and become derelict. At the same time some areassuffer from the overdevelopment of hotels and offices. A LabourGLC will not grant permission for further office development in thecentral London area and in other parts of Greater London whichare already overdeveloped such as Croydon' Tory planning policieshave, of course, favoured speculation in grandiose commercialdevelopment. Where this has happened the inevitable results havebeen increases in commuter traffic, the disappearance of traditionalindustry, and the destruction of local communities. The Riverside isa sad example of these problems. Between Battersea and SurreyDocks decaying residential neighbourhoods and industrial sites arebeing overrun with soulless office blocks, tourist traps, and blocks ofluxury flats. This whole area is becoming a speculator's paradise,encouraged by the mercenary attitudes of the Tories both in theGLC and in Government. Yet elsewhere vast areas of the Riversideremain totally derelict. A Labour GLC would seek to develop suchareas to provide housing, open space, and local jobs for the workingpeople of Inner London. Acquisition of sites by the GLC will beessential, and further pressure for office and hotel development willbe resisted.

106

The South Bank/Coin Street Area

3.2 The Coin Street area is the last possible major site for the provisionof local industry and housing for the community in North Lambeth.Labour was putting such plans into action when the Tories gainedcontrol of the GLC in 1977. Now housing, open space, and lightindustry are being axed. Instead there is a scheme for massive officedevelopment, a 45Oft high luxury hotel, restaurants, and luxuryhousing. This is in opposition to the wishes of the Borough Council,the local community, and in direct contradiction of the approveddistrict plan. A Labour GLC will immediately stop the disposal ofremaining publicly-owned land on the South Bank, and if it is stillpossible will return to the previous plans for the area.

Covent Garden

-1 .3 The GLC has been deeply involved with this area of London, whichis subject to major commercial pressures. The previous LabourGLC developed the Covent Garden Plan, with principles andprogrammes agreed with the local community. While payinglip-service to the plan, the Tories have allowed West End-typeoffices, expensive shops and wine bars to take a strong grip on thearea. Housing and the needs of local small scale industry have beenforgotten. Labour will seek to reverse this process. Future GLCpolicies will aim to sustain and develop the principles acceptedlocally, and where possible development responsibility will bedevolved to Westminster and Camden Borough Councils. Theimmediate objective will be for the GLC to bring its own propertiesrapidly into proper use. Our priorities will be the provision ofdecent housing for letting to local people at reasonable rents, and ofsmall modern industrial or commerical units to help localbusinesses. Recreational opportunities in the area will be reviewed,as our objective must be to encourage a thriving, diversecommunity. The closure of existing facilities serving local needs willbe opposed. Labour will also seek the introduction of trafficmanagement schemes, to reduce the problems caused by rapidlyrising traffic levels.

Priorities in Planning

-1 .-t The Riverside, Coin Street and Covent Garden are particularillustrations of the effects of Tory policies and allowing a privatesector free for all. But in their different ways they represent some oÍthe major planning problems faced in many parts of London. Thepolicies of a Labour GLC for these areas are based on priorites andattitudes which apply generally across London. Employment andhousing initiatives will be given highest priority. Inner areas must be

L0'l

protected from excessive hotel and office development. Theencouragement of industrial and commerical development onsuitable sites in Outer London will help to minimise travelling forworkers and contribute towards the reduction in non-essentialtraffic in Inner London.

3.5 Labour will recognise the need to formulate realistic solutions,relevant to the needs of working people and capable of being putinto practice rapidly. The basis of policy formulation must be soundextensive research, carried out quickly, and related directly tospecific problems and programmes. The GLC, because of the area itcovers, can carry a range of skills beyond the scope or requirementsof any one Borough. Labour will ensure that other public bodies,particularly the London Boroughs, have easy access to GLCresearch facilities and activity.

3.6 Labour will aim to bring a sense of realism back into planningproposals. Where the necessary resources are clearly not availableto implement plans, or where review shows that old proposals areno longer valid, the Labour GLC will rescind those plans, lifting theplanning blight which causes stagnation and decay. This especiallyapplies to the safeguarding of lines for possible future road-buildingschemes. There are areas which have been blighted in this way formany years, restricting development, and destroyingneighbourhood morale. The Labour GLC will state clearly itshighway improvement programme and cancel all schemes fallingoutside the agreed programme.

Development Control

3.7 Labour's priority is to preserve existing communities and to protectexisting neighbourhoods. Development Control is however, in thevast majority of cases, a matter for decision by the BoroughCouncils. Very few planning applications really require direct GLCinvolvement. Clearly this is necessary on those major developmentproposals which have an impact over a wide area or deviate widelyfrom the GLDP guidelines. Labour particularly intends to preventthe indiscriminate spread of offices and hotels, to protect historicbuildings and open space. While individual sites must be looked aton their own merits the density of development guidelines willgenerally be retained. Government pressures which seek to imposehigher housing densities and lower standards in the public sectorwill be opposed. A Labour GLC will aim to assist Boroughs whichfind their housing programmes under threat because of thispressure. The assistance could take the form of staff and otherresources, or the GLC could carry out land clearance, and buildingif necessary, and if invited to do so by the borough.

108

,1.8 The GLC does have a primary role in conservation. Labour willensure that the Historic Buildings section is restored to its formerstrength, and will offer these highly specialised skills to individualBoroughs. The powers available to protect historic buildings and todeclare Conservation Areas will be used to the full, to preventneglect or demolition by uncaring owners. Beyond that the LabourGLC will use the information and expertise gained by this section toadvise other agencies and to launch public campaigns wherelegislative powers are otherwise inadequate.

Land Acquisition

-l 9 Many important planning objectives cannot be achieved withoutbringing land into public ownership. The Labour GLC will fight forpowers which allow for easy land acquisition, as Governmentrestrictions hinder many desirable projects. The GLC hasconsiderable capital resoures, and Labour will aim to deploy theseto bring lasting benefit for Londoners, by buying land for housingand commercial development, for recreation and leisure projects,and for environmental improvements. Where appropriate some ofthese land holdings would be transferred to Borough or communityownership. A Labour GLC will do whatever it can to alleviate theeffects of Government cuts on the hard pressed deprived areas.With this in mind, the GLC will offer to help in the acquisition ordevelopment of sites where boroughs lack the necessary resources.This would be at the request of, and in the context of a detailedagreement with, the Borough concerned. Ownership andmanagement of the development would be transferred to theBorough on completion.

,:.10 To facilitate land acquisition, it will be necessary for the LabourGLC to develop close working links with the Boroughs and withother public bodies with large land holdings, such as British Rail andthe Gas and Electricity Boards. The Tory Government has removedstatutory notifications. Labour will seek to establish joint, bilateralagreements, and campaign for reinstatement of the statutoryobligations.

Shopping

:.11 Shopping in London is dominated by the West End with a heavyemphasis on the attraction of tourists. The GLDP identified 28major shopping centres scattered throughout the GLC area, ancl amuch larger number of smaller centre, precincts, and local shops.The growing trend in car use for shopping, and modern retailingpractices could, without control, lead to the burgeoning ofhypermarkets serving car-owning customers. This could have

109

drastic effects on the viability of local centres. The elderly,low-income households, and others with restricted mobility wouldbe confined to the use of declining, expensive shopping centres.

3.72 Labour rejects this pattern of development which fails to protect theinterests of so many Londoners. Our priority will be to supportexisting centres, particularly those primarily accessible by publictransport. Hypermarkets and Superstores will not be allowed. Inthe run-down areas of London the Labour GLC will seek toco-operate with the Boroughs to improve the range and quality ofservices available. Particular use can be made of the Inner UrbanAreas legislation passed by the previous Labour Government.

Community Benefit

3.13 A common feature of planning applications for the speculativedevelopment of offices or hotels is the addition of tokenmodifications, such as a handful of flats, a shop, or a fragment ofopen space, in an attempt to ease the obtaining of planningpermission. Labour will be concerned with the desirability of themain development, and will reject such meaningless gestures.Where a development is proposed which is, in essence, acceptable,it is important that geniune attempts are made to secure real gainsfor the community in general. To help rebuild community life ininner areas Labour will seek commitments from developers toprovide reasonably priced local authority housing, shopping,community facilities, local job opportunities, or open space, as

appropriate to particular sites.

3.14 New developments can lead to enormous financial gains for the landowner or developer. Where the GLC owns land wanted for newdevelopment, Labour will extend the principle of planning toinclude taking equity shares of the revenue generated by newdevelopment, providing new sources of income for benefit to thecommunity.

Tory FantasÍes

3.15 Horace Cutler and his Tory colleagues at County Hall are obsessedwith grand designs, produced with fanfares of publicity. TheOlympic Games, an airport terminal in Docklands, UrbanMotorways, a giant new conference centre have all made theheadlines at one time or other. All of these schemes have certainthings in common. They would be a vast drain on London'sresources, do not benefit ordinary people and they effectivelyprevent sensible discussion of the problems of the areas they affect.Above all nothing has ever happened apart from the issue of press

110

releases and the employment of consultants to produce glossyreports.

3.1ó These fantasies are irrelevant to the real needs of London. Thereare no simple one-off solutions to the problems faced every day bymost working people. Labour believes in bringing forward realisticproposals that will improve the quality of life street by street, areaby area. We recognise the scale of the task.

,1.17 Fantasies will end in 1981. We will lift the blight affecting manyparts of the city, and will be able to redirect staff and money towardworthwhile projects.

Docklands

The regeneration of London's Docklands is one of the major tasks of the:lext ten years. A Labour GLC would use its powers and resources in;o-operation with the Docklands Boroughs to carry out redeveloprnent',r hich involves the modernisation of the area's industrial and commercialbase and meets the neglected housing, environmental and social needs ofF ast London's communities. The development of Docklands is in danger,rf being separated from the problems of the other parts of the DocklandsBoroughs and used primarily to further private and property interests:rom outside the area.

The existing proposals for the redevelopment of London's Docklands:ave set out a programme for the planned provision of industrial estates:nd new housing areas with open space and community facilities. Labourras always believed that the main purpose of this new development is to-r:1p East London rather than to meet demands from London as a whole.The proposals had been generally agreed, after extensive discussion, by::e local authorities and local groups in the area and work on carrying:hem out is now well underway.

The Conservative policies towards docklands now threaten to undermine:he aims of the Docklands Strategic Plan. The cuts in public spending are:he main reason for the slow progress of the Plan; the Docklandrrogramme is only receiving about two-thirds of the resources suggested-r the original Strategy and even this level of spending has often been at;:'ie expense of the other spending programmes of the Boroughs. A policy-.: forcing the rapid disposal of land to the private sector will threaten;.'r-ordinated development. Finally, the creation of an UrbanDevelopment Corporation, unaccountable to local people, makes it-rkely that very different sorts of development will be forced on)ocklands.

Tbe Problems of Docklands

The most basic problems of Docklands stem, not just from the policy of

111

the Port of London Authority to concentrate its investment further downthe river, but also from the decision of private capital to abandonmanufacturing industry in the area. In some cases firms which areprofitable, but not providing a sufficiently high return have been closed toállow investment elsewhere and the speculative holding of sites in thehope of attracting offices or other kinds of new commercial development.Lo-cal people have had to accept lower paid jobs, a longer journeY to workor ,rnempioyment. One third of the industrial jobs in East London havebeen losi since 196ó and, in particular, the Newham part of docklandssaw its industrial jobs decliné from 40,000 in 1'966 to 24,0o0 in I9'76.

The redevelopment areas are surrounded by those parts of East Londonwhich have a ievere shortage of good quality housing and the DocklandsBoroughs expect to be abie to meet an important part o{ their publichousing needi here. In addition, Docklands is an area which has sufferedfor maiy decades from a lack of public investment, and improvement inschools, health facilities, open space and public transport are required forthe existing as well as the future population.

The most important holders of derelict or unused land are publicagencies, notably the nationalised industries. They have been reluctant to

.óleu." land. The repeal of the Community Land Act has taken away

useful, if in practice, iimited powers to acquire land that is needed for the

progress of the Strategic Plan.

Democratíc Control

Labour believes that the local authorities in the area must be allowed to'develop

a joint strategy for Docklands in the context of this part of EastLondon. Local groupi have been involved by means of the DocklandsForum and its represéntation on the Docklands Joint Committee and thisinvolvement needs to be strengthened. It is important as this is the onlylocal organisation on which the T.U.C. is directly represented. Thecreation- of an urban Development corporation will break directdemocratic links between East Londoners and the organisation ofDocklands development. A Labour GLC will give support to theopposition to the Ürban Development Corporation which the LabourPáity and the five Dockland Boroughs have already expressed.

Employment

The Strategic Plan aimed to reverse the decline in employment byimproving the area's infrastructure, especially its public transport andaccess roads, and by constructing four large modern industrial estates.Since L976 there have been successes and over 300,000 square metres ofnew factory space is expected to be completed by 1982. However, thepace of industrial decline has exceeded the most pessimistic predictionsof the strategy, the attraction of new jobs has been made more difficult by

1,1,2

:he national economic situation, and much of the new employment has:een in warehousing and simple, final assembly operations.The field of industrial development, a new field for London local;uthorities, is the one area where there is a substantial case for improved-'.r-ordination. The Greater London Enterprise Board, proposed by the_:'.dustry and Employment Working Paity, will havi á Dockünds:ir.ision, with the funds and resources to create new jobs in Docklands.The detailed organisation of the Docklands division will be discussed withrre major trade unions with membership in the area. Labour would;ommit the GLC's research capabilities and resources in support oftsorough Industrial Development Programmes and local riaining*ichemes.

.{ Continuing Role for the docks

There has been a failure to integrate the Docklands development into theiuture development of the Port of London's upper doóks and wharf:\ stem and, indeed, in the absence of a national ports strategy tounderstand the role that the latter could play. A modernised port could-Lrm-pete zuccessfully in a variety of ways but especially in handling the.rnall, multi-purpose ships (i.e. combining contáiner ánd conventional;argo) which have become increasingly important in the growingEuropean trade.

The future of the docks and of the surrounding industry are closely-rnked. A recent study indicated that some 16,000 jobs in Docklandi-irms depend to some extent on the continued operation of the UpperDocks, in addition to the 5,000 or so jobs which remain in the oóits:hemselves. A Labour GLC will seek the retention of dock facilities inEast London both as an improved transport facility in the heart ofLondon from which rail and water links could distribute goods cheaply:hroughout London and beyond, and as an important corriponent in ihé:er,ival of industry in the area.

Housing and the EnvÍronment

Docklands represents an important opportunity for East Londontsoroughs to build housing at lower densities and with adequate openslace'and community facilities. It is essential that local peopleire ablé toafford this housing and the Strategic PIan envisaged thát söx or the newrousing would involve some form of public provision. A Labour GLC willrL'e committed to the provision of cheap housing for local people inDocklands. House building is proceeding and shóuld have completed:..000 by March 1982.

The determination of the conservativ'e Government and theConservative GLC to sell off both land and housing, is endangering this

113

programme. A Labour GLC would use its own resources and press Í;rrl

more resources from Central Government to help carry out the housrl-'gprogrammes and the provision of community facilities as origina--''conceived.

Transport

There has been a reversal of the high priority given by the Strategic Pnuto public transport. The Conservative GLC has promoted large scale roa;projects, over and above those link roads that are necessary to improt'taccess for commercial traffic, and reduced the budget for bus sen-i*-improvements. The 1,979-83 Operation Programme, for examplo.allocates L327m for road schemes wholly or partly in Docklands whiltsetting aside only f.37m for public transport including improvements r;rail lines. Just f700,000 is allowed for bus service improvements. -{Labour GLC, as the major transport authority for the area, will givsgreater priority to the improvement of local bus services, will comnl:,resources to the improvement of local train services and support the

extension of the Jubilee line through Docklands. Labour is opposed rcthe building of the Southern relief Road which will not help Docklanisbut mainly serve to reduce commuter traffic on the A2.

Labour believes that changes in the proposals for the Docklands shoulconly take place if there is general support from local people and loca*groups. Labour is committed to the principles of public consultation ancinvolvement in the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

4.

4.r

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

The environment must be of concern to everybody. Daily, peoplesee their own environment worsened by the greed of privateenterprise and public authorities either unwilling or unable to doanything about it.

Chemical pollution of the atmosphere is worsening, causedparticularly by exhaust fumes from cars yet little is known about theproblem, their effects, or how to eliminate them. Ground pollutionmars many major sites in London, a legacy of the crude industrialprocesses of the past. London's households and businesses produceever-increasing volumes of waste. The need for building materialsbrings a threat to areas of London where gravel can be extracted.Urban decay is evident in unused sites, derelict buildings andwasteland.

The GLC's powers to remedy these many defects are limited.however Labour will use these powers to the full to impose strictstandards, on those who create pollution of our environment.

4.2

4.3

r1,4

Control of pollutionI '1 The control of Pollution Act gives the primary functions to the

boroughs. The GLC does have the capacity to provide highlytrained technical staff for monitoring. Labolr beiieves that theGLC should establish London-wide standards to protect theenvironment, and should use its resources to offer tire boroughc_ouncils a fully equipped and trainecl technical monitoring service.without a clear understanding of the problems borougticouncilscannot take the necessary remedial action. The GLC óan build alarger pollution-monitoring unit than can any one borough councir.Pollution control will then become easier, and the cost wi"ll be borneLondon-wide. Labour believes that this issue is so vital to all of usthat it will be prepared to divert extra resources to pollution control.

\\'aste disposal and recyclingI -< und_e| the present system the London Boroughs collect the rubbish,

the GLC disposes of it. The recycling of waste is clearly very crucialto our society. The waste of metal and paper by pre'ent -éthocl' i'nothing short of criminal. The Labour party beiieves that the role ofthe GLC must be to move the emphasis away from .disposal' ofwaste to the maximum useful extraction from waste products.

- ! The role of the GLC under Labour will be to provi<le sufÍicient staffand resources to allow for the recycling of paper, metal and glass.

natural resources by excessive packaging and will be doing all in itspower to force national standards which preserve our resources anclnot allow them to be filtered away by private enterprise greed.Where the GLC has licensed private waste disposa| sites, Lábourwill insist on strict observance of the conditions; offending firms willbe prosecuted. In appropriate circumstances the ionditionsimposed on licensed sited will be raised, to achieve good standarcls.

\lineral extraction

- i In London most planning applications for minerar extraction rerateto gravel, to meet the demand from the construction industrv forbuilding aggregates- Although it is important that buiídingmaterials are in good supply, the Labour clc wltt protect areas ofopen space which provide local amenities, especialfu in those partsof London where open Space is scarce. Wheré planning permissionis granted it will only be with the impoSition of détailed Jondition, toreduce disturbance to a minimum. permission will be given only inthe context of an agreed after-use plan for the site", with clearevidence of the availability of finBnce, and with agreed dates for

{115

implementation of that plan. The GLC will ensure close'monitor:mfr.of the subsequent development. Throughout, there will be níllliaison and co-operation with the relevant borough counciis.

Short term use of sites

4.9 Vacant sites awaiting development soon become a VeÍ\ Íi.ütnuisance to nearby residents. They attract fly-tipping, dumpirsvermin, and are a source of constant complaint. Labour rejects i5econcept that these sites should be fenced-off. In all cases tempor&-riluses should be sought. Under Labour, GLC owned sites awaimngdevelopment will be brought into beneficial use. This will obviou-w'depend on the suitability of the site, the length of time that it will mavailable, and the wishes of the local people, but these uses woullinclude at least allotments, urban farms, play areas, and landscapir,-rg

for open space. Local voluntary groups will be encouraged to bringschemes forward and will be given the necessary assistance bv the

GLC to see projects through to fruition. Labour will seek to offe;this service to London Boroughs.

4.10 Labour is appalled by the idea that any land is "waste" it can all beput to a good use by the sort of service that a Labour GLC u'flL

provide to Borough Councils.

5 PROVIDING OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION/LEISLTEFACILITIES

5.1 London is in the fortunate position of having some of the finest artsand cultural facilities in the world, major sporting venues ancpleasant central parks. However it is quite clear that large areas oiLondon suffer from a deficiency of sports facilities, open space-community centres and entertainment and cultural facilities thalcan be used by the local population. These smaller scale centres aniopen spaces are often those that Londoners value the most. Labourbelieves that, in addition to maintaining facilities of metropolitansignificance, a Labour GLC has an equally important role to play inpromoting a proper distribution of recreation and leisureopportunities throughout London.

5.2 A Labour GLC will institute a rapid review and redirect resourcestowards the provision of local facilities in the areas of greatest need-A programme of this type will vary from area to area, depending onthe needs and wishes of the community concerned. There will be fullco-operation and consultation with the Boroughs; indeed, if thereare Borough schemes held in abeyance because of Governmentcuts, the Labour GLC will offer to carry out those schemes to the

11,6

Borough's specification and transfer it to Borough ownership oncompletion.

5.3 Labour will see as important the role of the GLC in carrying outresearch and distributing information throughout London aboutrecreation and entertainment.

Open Space: The Green Belt

-<.'1 The Green Belt, as a means of preventing the physical expansion ofthe urban area, has been more strictly maintained in London than inany other part of the country. The Green Belt has failed however, todeliver the intended benefits. Agriculture has declined because ofthe difficulty of assembling viable farms, partly due to the price ofland. The major recreational role is not that which was originallyanticipated. Most of the facilities have a local rather than ametropolitan significance because of the difficulties of access,particularly from inner London.

5.5 Labour intends to support a vigorous Green Belt policy, especiallyto prevent the development that would otherwise follow thecompletion of the M25. London cannot afford to lose the jobs thatwould go íf firms are relocated in the Green Belt. Under Labour theGLC will continue to expand and develop countryside managementschemes with a particular view to sustaining agriculture andimproving the environment. Major recreational schemes will becontinued, but with a switch in emphasis to concentrate on areasthat are readily accessible from the most heavily built up areas andsubject to the overall recreational principles already outlined.

Open Space: Parks

Many areas of London suffer from a major lack of open space.Islington for example has just over half an acre per 1,000 peoplewhilst Richmond has 30 acres per 1,000. The GLC under Labourwill continue to seek opportunities such as Burgess Park inSouthwark, and Mile End Park in Tower Hamlets. This policy willbe modified to recognise the fact that it is not feasible or desirable tooust housing or industrial uses. Therefore the Labour GLC inco-operation with the boroughs and local people, will develop smallsites for parks and play space, looking to provide as wide a range offacilities as possible on these sites.

The GLC is the major contributor to the funds of the Lee ValleyRegional Park Authority. A Labour GLC would encourage theimprovement of the Park to cater for the whole range ofrecreational interests and the involvement of the relevant Boroughs

5.6

5.7

II7

and the local public in any discussions about the existing future use

of the area. Labour will not continue to support the Lee ValleyRegional Park unless their programmes are responsive to local needand in line with Labour's priorities for London.

Canals and Rivers

5.8 London has within its area 300 miles of river, and 160 miles ofcanals. They represent a potential as yet unrealised for recreationand leisure. ljnder the terms of the 1973 Water Act the GLC willbecome responsible for water recreation and amenity when theSecretary of State so decides. Labour will request a speedydecision on this, and on the question of the financial arrangementsto be made. Once the powers have been obtained Labour willrapidly expand the facilities available. The canals are the generalreiponsibiiity of the British Waterways Board. As they pass through

-u.ty u..ut of London suffering from decline, Labour will expandthe programme of environmental works to make London'scanal-sides attractive again. Particular attention will be paid towharf and warehouse aieas, to open them up and get them backinto use.

Cultural Facilities

5.9 A full cultural life for Londoners depends both on the opportunityof visiting entertainments in Central London and the ability toparticipate in local cultural organisations. The GLC has longsustained the major arts centres in central London and Labour willensure that high standards of theatre and concerts are maintained.But by itself this is not an adequate policy, and Labour will ensurethat the GLC widens its policy of supporting cultural activities togive community based projects and centres a more equal share ofresources. A major priority for this latter category will be thosewhich are a medium for the cultures of the ethnic minorities ofLondon.

5.10 Labour would expect the Arts Councils throughout London to berepresentative of the range of cultural activities in their areas andthe interests of all groups of the local population. A Labour GLCwill therefore only support Arts Councils that reject elitism andgenerally seek to involve all sections of the local community.

Museums and Historic Houses

5.11 The GLC already supports a number of schemes, and a LabourGLC will give strong support to the Museum of London and othermuseums and will ensure that the preservation of historic houses is

118

given a high priority. It is also important that full publicity is given tothese, sadly, little known facilities.

Sports facilities

j.12 Currently the GLC supports the National Sports Centre at Crystal' Palace, and provides a variety of facilities in its own parks. Labour

believes thatthis is insufficient as many areas of London are withoutlocal sports centres. Given current and future restrictions onBorough expenditure this gap is not going to be filled. In fact many

existing facilities may be withdrawn, as public spending cuts p_revent

maintenance, and lead to staff shortages. A Labour GLC will offerto help provide facilities, by itself or in a consortium with one or*o."

_Bó.oughs, the Sports Council and other relevant bodies. the

objective will be to provide important and useful communityseivices, as Labour is not concerned with propping up professionalsport. However, Labour will take any opportunity, such as that

proposed at the Oval Cricket Ground and rejected by the Tories, to-.n.bu.ug.

the development of sports facilities for the general publicwithin the major sporting arenas.

6. TOURISM

!.1 London is well established as a tourist centre and the internationalexpansion of tourism during the 1970s has meant that each yearsome 9m overseas visitors and 3m British visitors spend some timein London. In addition central London is an attraction for day

visitors from the rest of Lonclon and thc South East. The touristindustry can be expected to remain a significant part of .London'seconomy for the forseeable future. There are, however, importantdrawbaóks resu1ting from this increase in tourism, some of whichwould become moie serious if a rapid expansion of the touristindustry continues.

a 2 Labour recognizes that the majority of jobs in the hotel and cateringindustry are poorly paid and involve poor working conditions and,

in addition, may be insecure because of seasonal and other shortterm fluctuations in the tourist trade. A Labour GLC will notconsider that employment created by an expansion of tourism is an

adequate substitüte for the industrial jobs that have been^lost in

."c"nt years. Therefore, it will not use public funds for the

promotion of tourism at the expense of other areas of expenditure.

á.3 A Labour GLC would lay emphasis on providing information forLondoners and visitors about London and on helping both these

groups to discover more about the life and history of the city at

éxisting and potential sites of interest throught London'

I19

t

7

$

ti

Hotels and accommodation

6.4 Although there are still grandiose proposals from developers forluxury hotels, none has been completed since I974 and a majorhotel on the South Bank has remained unfinished. Labour willreject these proposals because they provide little or no benefit forthe local communities. Smaller hotels are controlled by theBoroughs who will continue to take local effects, such as that oftraffic, into account. A Labour GLC will increase the amount ofcheaper accommodation, especially as half of the overseas visitorsare between the ages of 16 and 24. It will review the existingprovision of camping sites and investigate the availability of GLC,ILEA and other educational accommodation for these visitors.

Information about London

6.5 A few famous locations, such as Westminster Abbey and the Towerof London, understandably dominate tourism in London and aMajor decentralization of tourism from Central London cannot beexpected. However Labour believes that more information aboutsites of interest throughout London should be available to touristsand Londoners. A Labour GLC will provide facilities at whichLondoners, especially young Londoners, can find out more abouttheir city. The GLC contributes about one quarter of the cost of theLondon Tourist Board. Although the Board has provided animportant service in locating accommodation for visitors and in itsinformation centres, too much emphasis is still put on thecommercial promotion of tourism. A Labour GLC would expectthe London Tourist Board to concentrate on the improvements ofinformation and facilities.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

(2) LABOUR'S APPROACH TO PLANNTNG

(i) Under Labour the GLC will devolve day to day planningprocedures to the London Boroughs;

(ii) Labour will not commence the preparation of large scaleplan-making exercises. Where the GLDPrequires furtherscrutiny it will be in the form of short, specific research intoparticular problems, aimed at the preparation of realisticproposals for action;

(iii) Labour rejects the concept of a development 'free for all' inLondon, and will oppose any action proposed by theDocklands Development Corporation which acts against theinterests and wishes of the people of Docklands.

1,20

(iu) The strategic role will concern itself with executive action.Where no other agency is appropriate, capable or willing theLabour GLC will seek to use what powers it has to facilitate,finance or ultimately carry out the necessary programmes,speedily and efficiently, and will seek additional powerswhere necessary.

The Labour GLC will co-operate to the fullest extent withLondon Boroughs, while reserving its right to maintain theLondon-wide perspective.

(u)

(ui) The Labour GLC will be an open authority, paying full heedto the public and will give support to the appropriateneighbourhood, community and other interest groups,ensuring thay they have the capacity to respond effectively.This support may take the form of grants, provision ofpremises, typing and other office services, and access toinformation. Regardless of the support given, Labour willfully respect the independence of all these groups.

{3) PROMOTING AND CONTROLLING URBAN DEVBLOPMENT

(i) Labour will halt the disposal of publicly owned land in theSouth Bank/Coin Street area, and return to the previousintentions for this area.

(ii) In Covent Garden, development responsibility will' wherepossible and by agreement, be devolved to Westminster andCamden. Housing and small industrial units should beprovided. Co-operative enterprises will be encouraged.Recreational opportunities in this area will be reviewed andtraffic management schemes introduced.

(iii) Employment and housing are Labour's top priorities.Excessive office and hotel development will be resisted.

(iu) GLC research facilities will be promoted and used to assistother public bodies.

(u) GLDP guidelines will be retained to safeguard the GLCstrategic role and resist Government pressures on higherhousing densities.

(ui) Proposals, particularly road schemes, which have noprospect of being financed from the limited resources will bescrapped, to remove planning blight.

(vii) Labour will revitalise the Historic Buildings section and useits preservation and conservation powers to the full'

121

(viii) Labour will acquire land where necessary to achieveplannning objectives. At the request of Boroughs a LabourGLC will be prepared to assist in the acquisition ordevelopment of sites when the Borough lacks resources.

(i") Labour will not allow the development of hypermarkets, andwill support existing shopping centres, especially those mostaccessible by public transport.

(") Where the GLC owns development land commitments willbe sought from developers to provide community benefitsfrom the developments. Labour will seek to take equityshares of revenue generated by new development.

(xi) Grandiose designs for the Olympics and airport terminals,and urban motorways will be scrapped.

(4) PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

(i) A Labour GLC will establish a wide range of environmentalstandards for London, covering ground, atmosphere, noiseand water.

(ii) A comprehensive pollution monitoring team will beestablished to provide a full service to the boroughs on ano-cost to user basis.

(iii) Conditions on the licences for waste disposal sites will betightened, and rigorouslay enforced.

(iu) Opportunities for recycling of waste will be sought, plansprepared, and appropriate financial and staff resourcesmade available to expand from the current low level of wasterecycling in London.

(u) Mineral extraction planning permissions will only be givenwith the imposition of detailed conditions to minimisenuisance, and with fully agreed plans for after-use. There willbe full co-operation with the relevant.boroughs. Permissionwill not be given for extraction that destroys local amenitiesin areas where open space is scarce.

(ui) GLC owned vacant sites will be brought into beneficialshort-term use. Local groups will be assisted to facilitate this;and Labour will otTer this service to London boroughs whichwish to adopt the policy, but lack the financial or staffresources. When leasing sites an exact period should bestated, with a precise definition of the permitted usage; thesewill both be adhered to.

Í22

(s) PROVIDING OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION/LEISUREFACILITIES(i) A Labour GLC will review the provision of sports - open

spaces, arts and recreation facilities in the various parts ofLondon and in co-operation with the Boroughs, will draw upproposals which can help meet local deficiencies.

(iD Existing support to major facilities of metropolitansignificance will be maintained.

(iii) Labour will support a Green Belt policy which preventsdevelopment from occuring beyond the main built up area ofLondon, especially around the M25, which might otherwisehave taken place within London.

(iu) Greater participation by local people and organisations inthe work of bodies such as the Lee Valley Regional Park andthe Arts Associations will be requested.

(u) The rapid transfer of powers to the GLC over recreation andamenity on London's rivers will be requested and the use ofthe rivers for these purposes will be increased.

(ui) Greater priority will be given to the improvement of openspace and the provision of recreation in areas accessible tothe most densely built up parts of London. Countrysidemanagement schemes will be supported.

TOURISM(D A Labour GLC will oppose the replacement of exisiting

employment with low paid jobs dependent on the expansionof tourism. It would maintain strict control over major newhotel development.

(ii) A Labour GLC will use its influence, for example through itssuppliers, to improve conditions in the hotel and cateringindustry.

(iiD A review of cheaper accommodation for visitors will beinstituted and potential buildings and sites identified for thispurpose.

(iu) A programme of providing information about London andimprovements in information at sites of interest throughLondon will aim to help visitors and Londoners understandmore about the city. A Labour GLC will expect the LondonTourist Board to play a major role in this programme.

ió)

A

1,23

TRANSPOBT

\Íembership

\{r. J. Chamberlain\{r. J. Daly\{r. P. Driscoll\'ír. P. Fordham\'Ír' J. HoepelmanMr. R.S. Kilbey\Ír. K. Livingstone\.ír. A. MclntoshMÍ. C. Miller\{r. B. G. Nicholson\{r. P. Robinson\'tu. G. Saville\{s. Y. Sieve\{r. G. Torr\Ír. A.D. TuffinMr. R.G. West\{r. D. White\{s. D. WoodMr. C. Young

(Chairman)(Co-opted)

(Co-opted)

I25

TRANSPORT - LONDON'S LAST CHANCE

1.1 Transport in London has reached a level of chaos and public

dissatisfaction that t"q;;;;t-; ;mplete change of direction if the

;;;i;*t;. now face lre to be solved' For too long we have movec

back and [orrh betwee" p.iilLr *nich for a while give priority to.the

qrowth of private .u., u'ná road building and then when the public

ilö'"'"i;'irt'" '""l"r ""á "nui'on'"ítal impact o{ 1|":"

por1'^'-'.'

iltiáJ u[- tn"r" is a switch of resources back to public transport

ilf"* ,"il;;_pori"ie, t'áue had the time to produce the reliable

public transport servlce London needs they ar'e invariably reverseo

#;;l;;i ti"un"iuí 'ít' uf ""nt'ut

or lócal government and we

continue in a downward sPiral'

Congestion on our roads is now worse than the previous peak

beforethel.g'T3oif"tl.it.paresarehigherinrealtermsthaneverbefore. The level ";J q;;liiy of s'"ervice provided is rryholh

inadequate to cope *iirl piuri' áemand and it is not unusual to see

over a hundred p.öi;'li;;;;tty figr"ing to s'et on an alreadi

ov e rc row de d u ur. N o ií.'u n j .i * 3'p t'?, i c p"o t t u t ió n ca u se d b y t r a f f i c

have reached levels *rr*'rt -"t" parts oi our city intolerable and

dangerous to live tn'

1.3 It is our view that we must end the indecision and constant 'U' turns

in policy which have led to this state of affairs by committing the

financial"rou.""i o-f i-''á" tÁ a con'tinuing_programme of capita1

and revenue tupi"iirot an expanding public llansp:rl-:Istemgeared to serve ttie needs of the great niaiority of Londoners' It is

our view ,t'u, puüii"'i'-u^p'it -'"'t take priority over the_p_rivate

use of cars u.,o trrli'in" u"ri*"yt" achieveihis is not by compulsion

but by providinj a public i1u1s9o't svstem that is reliable'

comfortable una'!n*p to use' lt is to artain this objective that we

pie."nt the following analysis and programme'

THE TORY LEGACY2.1. The Tories made their priorites clear after the 1977 GLC election

They decidea ," p'i"* ;;t f";;; subsidies to London Transport anc

reversed tr," I'uűoui clC policy by giving unqualified support tc

road widening J;;";;";t u' Á'"t'iuy Róad' They even failed to

rake,up the futi";;;"ni-ot iut", subsidv that the then Labour

Government ;';;'J;;'"J1' '"t".avaiíable to the GLC whils;

switching more and more Íesources into roads'

2.2 Four Tory Transport Chairmen have tinkered with the problems

and simply *"i;"'l;gt;-"tt" whilst cutting'resource's to Londor

Transport. Fi.';úi;;Thetaglt Roberts had-herself photographec

under the ,togu';st'" *irr 'íte the buses run on time" and then se:

L26

1.2

:ml

TRANSPORT - LONDON'S LAST CHANCE1.I Transport in London has reached a level of chaos and pu:.:

dissatisfaction that requires a complete change of direction if r,-:problems we now face are to be solved. For too long we have mo.. e:back and forth between policies which for a while give priority to :.-:growth of private cars and road building and then when the pub,,.:outcry against the social and environmental impact of these polic-;,,builds up there is a switch of resources back to public tránspo:.Before these policies have had the time to produce the relial ,:public transport service London needs they ar'e invariably reverlc:as a result of financial cuts by central or local government and.r:continue in a downward spiral.

1,.2 Congestion on our roads is now worse than the previous pee,before the 1973 oil crisis. Fares are higher in real terms than er e:before. The level and quality of service provided is whoiliinadequate to cope with public demand and it is not unusual to seeover a hundred people literally fighting to get on an alread-,overcrowded bus. Noise and atmospheric pollution caused by tratfichave reached levels which make parts of our city intolerable an:dangerous to live in.

1.3 It is our view that we must end the indecision and constant'IJ' turn:in policy which have led to this state of affairs by committing thefinancial resources of London to a continuing programme of capita,and revenue support for an expanding public transport systengeared to serve the needs of the great majority of Londoners. It iiour view that public transport must take priority over the privateuse of cars and that the best way to achieve this is not by compulsionbut by providing a public transport system that is reliable.comfortable and cheap to use. It is to attain this objective that wepresent the following analysis and programme.

THE TORY LEGACY2.1 The Tories made their priorites clear after the I97'7 GLC election.

They decided to phase out fares subsidies to London Transport andreversed the Labour GLC policy by giving unqualified support roroad widening schemes such as Archway Road. They even failed totake,up the full amount of fares subsidy that the then LabourGovernment was prepared to make available to the GLC whilstswitching more and more resources into roads.

2.2 Four Tory Transport Chairmen have tinkered with the problemsand simply made things worse whilst cutting resources to LondonTrarsport. First Miss Shelagh Roberts had herself photographedunder the slogan'She will make the buses run on time', and then set

126

out to increase fares and cut the number ofbuses before she went offio be a Member of the European Parliament.

Harold Mote proposed that buses should not cover the same routes-rs tubes. He was then replaced by Dr Gordon Taylor who wasreduced to publicly criticising the London Transport Executive:efore he resigned after disagreements with the Tory leadership:bout the inadequate level of financial support given to LondonTransport.

\ow we have a new team of Mr Greengross (who leads the attack on:he London Transport Executive), supported by the now:ehabilitated Mr Mote (who wants to encourage private buses).

\\trilst this circus has continued -a) Fares have rocketed four times by more than 58% in total.

b ) The programme of new bus lanes has practically beenabandoned and the staff reduced by two-thirds.

c ) Passenger numbers have fallen continuously.a) The buses are cursed by the long suffering public, because

they do not run on time and are constantly breaking downthrough mechanical failure and the shortage of spare parts.

l€ ) There has been a continued reduction in the number of busesin service.

lfhe Tories have declared their intention to massively switcherpenditure to road building, flying in the face of world energycrisis. Whilst even the United States is engaged in a massive revival:f all kinds of public transport, the Tory GLC is presiding over the;ollapse of London Transport.

But it is not simply incompetence on the part of the Tories which has

'ed to this dismal state of affairs. The Tory Party's whole philosophyrs one which favours the privileged minority at the expense of thenass of the population. In addition the Tory Party receives millionsli pounds each year in donations from big companies, road;onstruction companies and road haulage concerns. It is therefore:o surprise that the Tories' policies are orientated towards the:.r-ivate car and the run-down of public transport.

TTilE R.OLE AND POWERS OF TTM GLCr - l[he powers of the GLC in transport were laid down principally in

üle London Government Act, t963, and the Transport (London){ct. 1969. Before 1963 the powers to deal with roads had been:hared between all three tiers of Government and trafficrnanagement was the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.

r27

3.2

-J --t

London Government Act, 1963. Under this Act the GLC becameresponsible for 560 miles of Metropolitan road, the Department ofTransport retained responsibility for trunk roads and the LondonBoroughs were given responsibility for the rest of the road network.

In 1975 Borough principal roads were transferred to the GLC,giving a total of 875 miles of Metropolitan road. The Labouradministration took the opportunity to scrap hundreds ofout-of-date or environmentally damaging road schemes inheritedfrom the Boroughs with these roads.

Responsibility for traffic management remained clouded. The GLCwas the traffic authority for London, but had to seek ministerialconsent for all traffic orders affecting trunk roads and consult withthe Boroughs and the Police before making a traffic order. Parkingwas a concurrent responsibility between the GLC and theBoroughs. The overlap and duplication arising from this have givenrise to continuing difficulties.

Transport (London) Act, 1969. This Act made the GLC thetransport planning authority for London responsible for preparingcomprehensive transport plans to develop an integrated andeconomic transportation system in London, including theappointment of the London Transport Executive and control of itsgeneral policies, budgets and fares.

The GLC became the highway authority for all principal roads withstronger traffic management powers, e.g. for parking and settingspeed limits. A Joint Traffic Executive was set up between the GLCand the Metropolitan Police.The Act requires British Rail to consult annually about fares andproposals for significant changes.

3.8 From 1974 the GLC was required to submit each year a

comprehensive statement of its Transport Policies and Programme(TPP) for the next five years. Coinciding with these arrangementsthe GLC formally took control of all Borough principal roads ashad been provided for in the Í969 AcÍ'

RBSPONSIBILITY FOR ROADS

4.1 We firmly believe that those who are closest to local people and theproblems they face are best placed to decide how to resolve thoseproblems. Thus we wish to devolve some of our powers to theBorough Councils and take over from Central Government theirremaining role in road planning in London. We completely rejectthe view that what is needed in London is some new body tocoordinate transport policy. Any non-elected body will be

t28

3.4

3.5

3.6

3- /

1.4

-{.5

1.2

+.J

-1.6

+-t

t.8

undemocratic and the additional tier of Government in Londonwould merely duplicate the work of the GLC and lead to furtherdelays.

The existing split of responsibilities has failed to reconcile London'sorbital and through traffic needs with environmentalconsiderations. The separate arrangements for trunk road provisionby the Department of Transport makes highway planning moredifficult. Within London there is little to distinguish a trunk from amajor Metropolitan road and the GLC should have responsibilityfor all trunk roads within London. This should lead to greateradministrative efficiency and allow Government to carry out itsappellate planning role from a clearly independent stance.

If the GLC were to take responsibility for the trunk road network inLondon this must be accompanied by an increase in the TransportSupplementary Grant by a mutually agreed amount at leastequivalent to that which would have been included in theDepartment of Environment Trunk Road Programme.

As far as investment in trunk roads is concerned, it should be notedthat the Programme is at present restricted to the Docklands area.

We recommend that the GLC should press the Government totransfer responsibility for trunk roads to the GLC. However, wewould not support such a transfer without adequate financialsupport from Government.

Road Building. We remain opposed to the idea that London'stransport problems can be solved by major road building. When lastin control of the GLC we scrapped the motorway box and endedyears of blight on vast areas of London. Unfortunately, the ToryGLC has been quietly shifting resources back in favour of roadbuilding in response to pressure from the powerful roads lobby.

We welcome the stand of the Labour group at County Hall whichhas opposed this policy shift and in particular the opposition to theproposals to circumvent normal planning procedures in the case ofthe Docklands Southern Relief Road. To proceed with schemes ofthis nature in a time of financial restraint and increasing oil costs isbeyond understanding.

We recommend that immediately upon taking office the Labourgroup should critically review the Tory 15 year road programme toensure that London's financial resources for transport cease to bedirected to roads instead of public transport.

TrafÍic Management. Traffic management, unlike highwayconstruction with its long time scales, can have an impact in theshort term. Both the 1963 and 1969 Acts tried to give the GLC the

4.9

129

powers necessary to regulate London Traffic. A number of possibleproposals for improving public transport will in fact depend on theuse of traffic management powers for their implementation. Onecriticism of the present system which has been made is that the GLChas responsibility for making all traffic orders. This appears at timesto cut across the legitimate concern of the London Boroughs for thelocal environment.

4.10 There has been frequent criticism of the fact that control of whatshould be local environmental decisions such as the positioning andprovision of pedestrian crossings is determined at County Hall.

4.11 We recommend that the GLC should devolve traffic managementpowers to the boroughs wherever possible and consistent with ourplans to shift the balance of discrimination in favour of thepedestrian.

PEDESTRIANS5.1 With the upsurge ín car ownership the lot of the

pedestrian and the cyclist in London has steadily deteriorated; allover London we can see the conflict between the needs ofpedestrians and the needs of traffic. Most shopping centres straddlea major road and shoppers find it difficult to cross. As trafficincreases, main roads become congested, traffic takes short cutsdown quiet residential roads. Children, the old and infirm are at riskand families have to live with excessive noise.

5.2 A Labour GLC would have the opportunity to work in conjunctionwith sympathetic borough councils to give a better deal topedestrians. The aim should be to make walking safe andconvenient throughout Greater London, not in pedestrian precinctsonly. Pedestrian movement should normally be at ground level.Where necessary to achieve the desired standards, pedestriannetworks should be extended by pavement widening and theconversion of some streets to pedestrian use.

5.3 We recommend that there should be more pedestrian crossings, andmore generous provision for pedestrians in the phasing of lights atcrossings. Traffic management measures should be used to limittraffic speeds and flows. Vehicle access over pavements to garagesshould be discouraged, and laws against parking on pavementsshould be strictly enforced to give pedestrians the right of way. Thepresent criteria for the siting of crossings should be more favourablyinterpreted.

CYCLISTS

6.1 Although people are again taking to the bicycle, the needs of cyclists

130

are not well catered for. Main roads are neither pleasant nor safe forcyclists.

6.2 Para[el routes on side roads can provide quick and safe travel forcyclists. These are usually borough roads and we will urge theborough councils, and cycling organisations to propose routes sothat the GLC can make the necessary traffic orders.

6.3 The long term aim should be the provision of a comprehensivenetwork safe for cyclists. A start should be made by designatinglinked cycle routes on inner and central area minor roads, andthrough parks and other suitable areas. In contrast to such a positiveapproach the Tory GLC has abolished the cycle route scheme atBalham.

6.4 We Recommend that cycling should be encouraged by theenforcement of speed limits for motor traffic in residential andother selected streets; by traffic management measures, especiallythe control of parking; by the detailed design of streets andinter-sections; and the provision of cycle stands.

CONGBSTION1.1 The GLC's own traffic statistics confirm the experience of every

Londoner that the city's traffic is getting worse. Despite petrolprices the daily average of vehicles entering London during 1979has remained at the record 1978 level of 400,000. Only at weekendshas there been any decline. Congestion is a continuing problem anclrising fuel costs are unlikely to have a significant effect whilst publictransport remains so unreliable. As well as the frustration of trafficjams, London Transport is a major victim of congestion as theTories themselves now admit. Harold Mote, the Chairman of theLondon Transport Committee has said, "The effect of trafficcongestion in London on public transport is becoming worse. From1972 Ío 197 5 it caused a loss of about 2.5 million bus miles a year'but last year (I979) this had risen to 6.1 million". There are ofcourse, also delays and irregular services caused by congestionwhich do not result in lost bus mileage but are a further cause ofpublic anger.

' .1 Congestion feeds on itself by driving frustrated bus passengers touse their cars, a situation which is exacerbated by the appallingsuburban rail service in parts of London. The economic effects ofcongestion are difficult to quantify but continuing difficulties withthe movement of both staff and goods can have serious effects onbusinesses and services. Increased traffic also has environmentaleffects which lower the quality of life in London by increasing airpollution, in particular lead levels, greater noise and damaging the

131

built environment.

7.3 The Tory GLC has tried to deal with congestion by building andwidening roads. While no one would deny the need for certainlimited local roads schemes these cannot be a solution to London'scongestion problem. New roads attract more traffic, leading togreater congestion elsewhere, and tend to be destructive of theenvironment.

7 .4 If private commuter traffic is to be restrained it is essential that a

good public transport service is provided. If congestion can beieduced public transport will improve but before congestion can beeffectively dealt with reliable public transport must be provided.

1 .5 To break out of this vicious circle the GLC must act decisively toreduce the number of vehicles entering Inner London and otherbusy parts of Greater London' For many years councils haveexercised traffic restraint through the control of parking and wherethis has been done consistently some measure of improvementhas been achieved. However it does not prevent vehicles drivingacross an area and one third of all parking spaces in London areoutside the control of local authorities. Therefore, the control ofprivate parking will require certain new powers as well as usingexisting powers under the 1,971 Town and Country Planning Act. ALabour GLC will press for the reintroduction of a permit system tolicense private car parks in the same way as public car parks. Wealso feei that different methods may need to be pursued to suit theneeds of different parts of London.

7.6 We recommend that use should be made of planning powers tocontrol the creation of new parking spaces, e'g., there should notnecessarily be parking space with each new development. Alsowhere reductions can be made in the number of existing spacesavailable this should be done. In Outer London park and ridedevelopments should be encouraged. This would mean aconsidérable speeding up of the station car parks programme. Asenforcement is a major problem with any traffic scheme, and this, atleast in part, arises from the approach of the police, we believe thatthe GLC must be given the control over the police enjoyed by othercounty authorities in the rest of England. In particular the GLCshould have control of traffic wardens and move rapidly to reducethe present shortage which is crippling the effectiveness of parkingcontrols.

7 .7 The idea of cordon restraint is to introduce a series of pinch points,thus reducing the amount of traffic allowed into a given area, andgive priority to public transport via bus lanes. We feel that thissystem could be used in some areas based on the extensive

132

introduction of bus lanes, together with more effectiveenforcement, and that this should be considered by the nextadministration as a matter of urgency.

7.8 We have rejected supplementary licensing which is a system whichrequires a vehicle to have a special licence to permit its use inparticular areas at specific times. After a period of publicconsultation the Labour GLC decide d in 1.97 5 not to proceed withsupplementary licensing because of its inequitability. Low incomecar owners would be hit, whereas the wealthy and those drivingcompany cars would not be deterred from bringing their cars intocentral London.

7.9 We emphasise most strongly that our preference is to reducecongestion by attracting private car users back on to an efficient,reliable and cheap public transport service. This is clearlypreferable to any alternative system based on using pricing as amechanism for keeping cars out of Central London or a largebureaucratic system based on assessing need for the use of privatecars.

BRITISH RAIL8.1 One difficulty the GLC has stems from its lack of control of British

Rail's commuter services; this is justified by reference to thedifficulties involved in separating out London-only services fromthe national network. It is also claimed that to create one Executivefor all public transport services in London would result in anenormous and inefficient organisation. British Rail until recentlyseemed content with the present arrangements and took the viewthat the difficulties facing public transport in London could besolved within the London Rail Advisory Committee, whichcomprised the Department of Transport, GLC, British Rail andLondon Transport.

8.2 However, there are now indications that British Rail is preparedto consider handing over financial responsibility for commuterservices. The issue is whether the cost of taking over the financialburden of replacing obsolete rolling stock is outweighed by theadvantages of a common operating policy.

8.3 We consider it essential that there must be the maximum ofco-operation and co-ordination between British Rail and LondonTransport so that the two services supplement each other. We urgethat a major effort be made to develop existing but under-usedtracks. There is an urgent need to integrate rail and bus services.The GLC must be prepared to subsidise British Rail to enableessential station amenities and improvements to be put in hand as

133

8.4

8.5

8.6

well as to stabilise or reduce fares and improve the quality of theservice.

There must be greater co-ordination with British Rail to regulatetimetables and interchange policy and the GLC must be prepared tosubsidise the fares of British Rail commuter services within theGLC area in the same way it subsidises London Transport.

We recommend that the GLC should begin negotiations with BritishRail and the Government to integrate British Rail commuterservices within the GLC area with the LT services. Whilst the GLCshould extend its subsidies to British Rail, the history of neglect inreplacing outdated rolling stock will require Central Governmentfinancial support to the GLC if we are to assume financialresponsibility.

Ringrail. The Ringrail concept of an orbital rail service wasconsidered by the London Rail Study, who felt that demands forsuch a service would not justify the costs involved. This finding ischallenged by the Ringrail Group who believe that the Rail Studyconsidered a costly option and that other low cost options wouldhave shown up more favourably in cost/benefit analysis. Wesupport the Ringrail idea because we believe -

(u) it could provide a high quality orbital inter-suburban publictransport service;

(b) it could increase accessibility of many Inner London suburbsby providing interchange facilities with radial routes;

(.) private and public investment would be attracted tointerchange sites.

LONDON TRANSPORT9.1. No-one in London needs us to tell them just how poor the level of

service on London Transport has become and we explained at thebeginning the responsibility that the Tories must bear for thepresent problems. London Transport receives a lower level ofsubsidy than any other capital city transport system and we dealwith the question of revenue support in section 10 of this report.

9.2 Whilst the level of fares is a key issue in determining the success orfailure of public transport, capital expenditure and reliability areequally important. It is no good having free public transport if thereis a shortage of buses on the road.

9.3 To lay the basis of an expanding public transport system in Londonrequires a major investment iri new buses and tubes to increase thecapacity of the system as well as investment in new bus and tube

r34

routes to extend the service into those areas which are at presentneglected.

9.4 One of the main causes of frustration to passengers is the whollyunacceptable level of lost mileage on the buses. We have explainedin section 7 how we intend to tackle the problems caused bycongestion but the other key areas are staff shortage and busbreakdowns.

Staff9.5 Working for London Transport is not an attractive proposition.

Staff are in the front line and subject to abuse and criticism for thefailures of a policy for which they are not responsible. Labour faceda similar crisis in 1913 and negotiated the 'Nine point plan'whichdrew staff back to London Transport and dramatically cut the levelof lost milage due to staff shortage. Clearly the importance of publictransport requires that pay and conditions should be attractiveenough to retain staff. Also they will require confidence that theyare part of an expanding service which offers good career prospectsfor the future.

9.6 The decision to move towards one man operated buses has in manyareas caused delays and dissatisfaction to the public and we believethat conductors should be reintroduced where appropriate in orderto cut both waiting time and congestion.

Maintenance

9.'7 Many buses are out of service requiring maintenance work and hereshort-sighted cuts in maintenance staff and reductions in the stockof spare parts have made the system worse. We believe that themaintenance capacity of London Transport must be expanded tothe level required to prevent a backlog of out of commission rollingstock disrupting bus schedules.

9.8 We Recommend(1) that a new deal be negotiated with staff and we emphasize the

importance of London Transport wages and conditions beingthe leader in the field if staff shortages are to be avoided infuture;

(2) there be an immediate review of the maintenance policies ofLondon Transport and the provision for training be increasedand improved.

Capital Investment - Buses

9.9 Our plans to expand public transport will require the maximum

135

level of expenditure on capital investment. Unwise investment andunderinvestment in the past are a contributory factor in many oftoday's problems. We must expand the bus fleet as rapidly aspossible and we note with enthusiasm that London Transport isdesigning a new version of the Routemaster bus which has been sosuccessful in coping with London's traffic conditions in the past. Inview of British Leyland's decision to close their Park Royal works itmust be a priority to advance the design work on the newRoutemaster (XRM) as quickly as possible if London is to have anadequate bus fleet during the 1980's.

9.10 We Recommend that in order to overcome the immediate problemswe should purchase the maximum number of Leyland Titans andMCW Metrobuses but should press ahead as rapidly as possiblewith the plans for the XRM and the development of a London busproduction capacity funded by the GLC.

Capital Investment - Rail

9.11 We Recommend that the present tube network must be used to itsfull capacity and the rolling stock increased and modernised tofulfill this objective. The conditions that passengers travel under areoften appalling and it must be a priority to ensure that maintenanceand staffing shortages are eliminated in order to maximiseunderground usage.

9.I2 We Recommend that the frequency of service on the North Londonline (which is subsidised by the GLC) be increased and the rollingstock improved.

9.13 We remain committed to the extension of the Jubilee Line intodocklands and the GLC must continue to urge Government tomake adequate finance available for this purpose. The Jubilee Lineextension would -

(a) provide new access between the Isle of Dogs, Thamesmead,central London and the rest of the underground network.

(b) provide improved access between the Docklands area, centralLondon and the rest of the underground network.

(c) relieve overcrowding on some sections of the Central Line andDistrict Line.

(d) connect the main line terminal at Fenchurch Street into theunderground system.

(") increase interchange facilities in central London.(f) help relieve road congestion along the corridor served.(g) help relieve overcrowding on the inner sections of the North

Kent Line.

r36

(h) provide a spinal public transport facility for the Docklandsdevelopment.

(i) help stimulate the redevelopment of Docklands.9.14. Government's objection to the Jubilee Line extension appears to be

that the Jubilee Line extension cannot be justified in terms ofconventional cost/benefit analysis. We have argued that it will be agenerator of development and this is an aspect that cannot be takeninto account in cost/benefit analysis.

9.15 However, even if government changes its view the extension couldnot be completed before 1988 and therefore as an interim measurewe believe that the GLC should investigate the possibility ofadapting existing British Rail track which is at present abandonedor underused and runs (with only one short break) from FenchurchStreet Station to Beckton.

9.16 We Recommend that the top priorities for rail investment should be

(a) the expansion and modernisation of rolling stock on thunderground.

(b) the extension of the Jubilee Line to Docklands(c) improved connections between British Rail Southern Region

and the underground network.(d) other local extensions to the underground network where

possible and appropriate.

FARES

10.1 A key element in the fight to reverse the decline in LondonTransport must be fares policy. The 1973 Labour manifestocommitted the GLC to a low flat fare leading eventually to a farefree system but the GLC, under pressure from centralgovernment, abandoned this policy and increased fares by over100% in 2 years.

I0.2 Such changes in policy are damaging to a service which needs firmand consistent plans if it is to attract increased passenger usage.Therefore we are publishing as an appendix to this discussionpaper the financial projections on which the main options weconsidered were based. In the period between the publication ofthis paper and the final decision of the October Policy Conferencewe must have a full debate within the movement and in particularwithin the trades unions concerned so that the decision arrived atis accepted as our policy for the full term of the GLC.

10.3 The chart below shows the effect of fare increases on passengermiles in the last decade and the experience of the last Labour GLCis vital in considering our future policy.

r3'7

L0.4 Bus passenger mileage declined steadily up to 1973 and theLabour GLC felt that the level of fares was a significant andunder-estimated factor in this decline and thereforefroze LondonTransport fares. Between 1965 and 1972 an average of 69 millionpassenger journeys were lost per year from the buses, (totalpassenger loss of 25o/o). In 1973 bus passenger journeys went up26 million and in l974by a further 34 million, the two years whenfares were held steady. The 1,975 35% increase in fares led to a6.60/o drop in demand and further decline in the service.

10.5 However, LT's deficit can only be financed from fares, ratessubsidy or government grant. We will fight for improvedgovernment grant but we must consider the relative merits ofraising revenue from increased fares or rates. Rates are aregressive form of taxation and high rates have an undesirableincome distribution effect. On the other hand it is clear that lowincome groups in particular rely heavily on public transport andfares form a greater proportion of their expenditure and thereforehigh fares are also socially undesirable.

10.6 The effect of a high fares policy has been underestimated, and lossof passengers to private cars seriously undermines traffic restraint.Losses are hard to counterbalance by improved service, particularlyif the level of traffic congestion increases.

1,0.7 Faced with these problems the idea of a fare free system isattractive. It defines once and for all the need to establish publictransport as a basic social service.(a) It is easily understood and could capture the imagination of

the electorate.(b) It could encourage a shift away from private to public

transport reducing traffic congestion and raising the quality ofthe environment.

(c) The removal of high fares which restrict the mobility ofworkers, prevent families from going on outings, visitinghospitals, the shops or friends could do much to enrich thequality of life of many Londoners.

(d) Such a scheme would change and raise the status of publictransport and establish it as the primary transport service forLondoners. It could help fix public transport as an essentialsocial service.

10.8 If fares were abolished and the cost met from the rates this wouldincrease the typical ratepayer's weekly bill by approximatelyt1..25 per week. In return all members of the family would haveaccess for free travel on the buses and tubes. Given the presentlevel of fares this clearly represents a.bargain for the great

138

majority of families.6Zo/oof lhe cost of the scheme would be met bycommercial ratepayers. However, before a fare free system couldbe introduced several problems need to be tackled'

10.9 (a) Unless there is a major injection of capital fo1 n9w vehicles,tubes and equipment the existing services might be unable to

cope with extra Passengers.(b) There would be difficulty at the interchange points where

British Rail and London Transport lines meet. Passengerswould wish to transfer from fare paying BR services to freeLondon Transport services. There is the additionalcomplication of those BR services not wholly contained_withinthe GLC area, carrying commuters who do not pay GLC rates"

(c) The rates system, even with rebates, bears unfairly on the old'

(d) There must be a guarantee of no redundancies and theposition of the transport workers who would face retrainingto. ne* jobs will need sympathetic and realistic negotiationwith their unions. Any expanded or changed transport systemto meet an expected increase in passengers will need

adequate, skilled and well paid staff. This is a real prioritr"

(e) The reliability and quality of services must be improved withgreatly increased expenditure on new buses and tubes, moretransport workers, bus lanes and streets, tighter control ofparking and improved traffic managment schemes'

(f) Londoners should not pay for free transport for tourists. Thisobjection could be met by a hotel tax on visitors, but this

would require legislation.

10.10 The appendix also examines other fares options the second ofwhich ii a proposal to immediately cut fares by 25% and then

freeze them foi the life of GLC. This scheme allows time to buildup the rolling stock whilst attracting back passengers,,means less

upheaval for LT staff and initially only increases.the^averagedömestic rate bill by 25p per week. However the savings from the

fares free system do not of course occur.

1 0.1 1 The third option is a return to the subsidy levels of the last 2 yeatsof the Labour GLC (19'.15-1.977). This would involve an initial cutin fares followed by regular increases in line with inflation. Rateswould initially rise by 25p per week. In the light of the effect of thispolicy on London Transport as spelt out above we could notrecommend it to the movement.

10.12 In our discussions we have noted the success of South Yorkshire inexpanding public transport following their policy of freezing faresan_d the recént Success in Sweden.fuhere rail fares were reduced by

30% causing an initial increase in passengers of 14%'

139

10.13 We have spelt out throughout this paper the reasons why webelieve that an expanding public transport system is essential toLondon and its people. We believe that such a system should befare free as soon as possible and continuing increases in oil pricesreinforce our view that this is essential given the energy crises andthe environmental impact of the motorway alternative.

10.14 We recommend that immediately upon taking office the LabourGroup should(a) Cut fares by 25o/o in order to regain lost passengers and

structure the fare reduction so as to attract car commuters thusreducing road congestion.

(b) Negotiate a new 'deal for staff' geared to attracting adequatenumbers of staff to maintain and operate the existing rollingstock to full capacity.

(c) Buy in as many buses as possible until LT can develop its ownbus production capacity.

(d) Push forward with a programme of bus lanes and other buspriority measures.

(e) Ensure that the tube network is used to full capacity to meetpassenger demand.

10.15 These measures are essential to reverse the downward spiral ofpublic transport, restore staff confidence and thus reduce staffvacancies. They must be the immediate priority of the LabourGLC. As these measures start to make an impact the GLC shouldprepare to introduce a fare free system no later than June 1982and begin negotiations with British Rail to include their stationswithin the GLC area in the fare free system.

CONTROL OF LONDON TRANSPORT11.1 There are particular problems in the relationship between the GLC

and London Transport Executive which have been illustrated inrecent years by the constant bickering between the LondonTransport Executive and the County Hall administration. There arevery few parallels in local government to this relationship, andperhaps the nearest one we can find is that between the Secretary ofState for Health and the Area Health Authorities. The Council andthe Secretary of State make overall policy and lay down financialguidelines; the day-to-day running of the service lies with the boardor Authorities. Most interestingly, both the Secretary of State andthe Council retain only one real sanction if their directions are notfollowed: that is to dismiss the Board or Authority.

11 .2 In January 197 5 the Labour administration issued two directives to

140

the Executive. Firstly, that the Executive should maximisepassenger miles within the level of financial resources decided bythe Council, secondly that the Executive was expected to achievéthe average levels of service forecast in its revenue budget, and if atany time during the year it became apparent that the average levelof service was unlikely to be achieved the Executive shouldimmediately inform the Council. This directive implied that withinthe GLC set of financial constraints and target service, LondonTransport was expected to run things as economically as possible.

11.3 By contrast, the incoming Tory administration ot Í977 Set out tomake London Transport virtually self-financing in revenue terms.Their directive was that fare increases should be kept to the rate ofinflation. At the same time the fare subsidy was cut back in realterms year-by-year. This policy was maintained until July 1979when the decision was taken to increase fares considerably in excessof inflation, at the same time to reverse the policy of reducingrevenue support.

11.4 Since 1977 it is clear that London Transport has not provided theservice which the GLC has asked it to, as a result London Transporthas been the subject of a great deal of adverse comment, not onlyfrom the public but also from members of the Council. However,the present GLC has refused to accept that among the causes ofdisruption to the bus service are traffic congestion, with which itrefuses to deal, and which results in vehicle breakdowns and makesrecruiting difficult, and also the level of cuts in GLC financialsupport to London Transport. This issue and the tendency of theTory party to blame London Transport for the effects of Torypolicy, e.g. fare increases, seem to have undermined therelationship between the London Transport Executive and theCouncil.

11.5 The distinction between policy direction and day-to-daymanagement has been used consistently by the presentadministration to prevent members of the Council investigatingLondon Transport's operations. If London Transport is tosucceed in giving London the public transport service it needs, it willbe necessary for the Executive and the Council to work much moreclosely together and to reach genuine agreements on the course ofaction to be followed.

11.6 At the same time the Executive must be made more accountable tothe Council and its decisions and activities must be the subject ofcloser scrutiny by members of the Council. Failing this, it may benecessary to consider ways in which the Council can take muchmore detailed control of London Transport.

141

11.7 We recommend that -

(u) there should be places on the London Transport Executive tobe filled by representatives of the trades unions.

(b) there should be regular monthly meetings between theCouncil's Transport Committee and the London TransportExecutive to review all aspects of the service and discuss waysof resolving problems as they arise;

(c) there should be regular meetings on a district basis betweenborough councillors, GLC Members, local LT management,local Transport Union representatives and representatives ofcommuters to discuss the day-to-day problems of LondonTransport and make recommendations for improvements tothe London Transport Executive and the GLC.

FREIGHT

12.I The movement of heavy goods vehicles into, out of, and withinGreater London causes acute difficulty. Many lorries are too bigand too noisy, causing congestion, pollution and environmentaldamage. They are often in the wrong place at the wrong time andcreate a major safety hazard, especially when loading andunloading.

12.2 725 million tons of goods move into and out of London each yearbut only 25m tons is moved more than 100 miles. A further 125mtons is moved within London. 807o of the tonnage moved to andfrom London and nearly all that within London goes by road.

12.3 Existing Labour Party policy is for the use of limited lorry bans andthe building of more lorry parks (these may have to be lessgrandiose than previously envisaged). Lorries must be encouragedto use the M25 and strong representations made to the Governmentwith a view to introducing legislation to limit the size of vehiclesentering London.

12.4 The possibility of providing new rail connections for wholesalemarkets will be looked at, particularly the resited Covent Gardenand Billingsgate markets and we will support the pedestrianisationof shopping areas and encourage lorries to deliver away from themain frontages of shops where possible.

12.5 We will actively oppose any increases in either gross or axle weightsof juggernauts, as well as any increases in height of vehicles - i.e. wewill campaign against increases in size as well as weight.

RIVER-BORNE FREIGHT13.1 The last Labour GLC commissioned studies

r42

the feasibilitv of

increasing river-borne freight, including the opportunities^affordedÚy tr'" wiáening of the Gránd Union Canal and the benefits which

uó".o" from BÁCAT and LASH floating containers. Widening the

Grand Union Canal in stages to take these containers would yield a

substantial return on invJstment and the amount of water-borne

freight could be increased by 50o/0. Unfortunately, the Governmentderíand that Canal improvements and provision of new berth

facilities should yield an economic return on investment: a

'"qui."-""t that tÍrey do not applyto their own road schemes' The

GiC shouto continué to pressüre the Government to take a more

positiveattitudetothecommercialpotentialofinlandwaterways.

TAXIS AND HIRE CARS

14.1 The taxi and private hire car businesses are significant parts of the

public transport system' The. Ivlaxwell Stamp Committee

iecommendeá that the private.car hire trade should come under the

Same Sort of licensing cóntrol as taxis and that both trades should be

Ú'""gnt within the aűthority of the GLC, acting through.the agencv

of a statutory control boárd, comprising re'presentatives of the

union, propri-etors, owner drivers and the GLC'Í4.2 Theacceptance of responsibility by the GLC for both taxis and hire

árs depends on thó financiál árrangement suggestd and the

establishment of an acceptable means of control' However' from

ihe t.unsport policy viewpoint, the GLC is the logical choice as the

controlling authority for both businesses'

l4.3Thenewcontrolboardwouldberesponsibleforrecruitmentand- - t.ui"l"g of drivers, preserving the. standard of vehicle used'

establiJhing an appeal proceduré for drivers whose licence has been

suspended"o. '"uöt"o and recommending changes in the ancient

Huitn"y Carriage laws. We are opposed to any unlicensed parallel

car services.

14.4 We would support the establishment of co-operatives and also the

right of driveis to be employed by-garages 9l te-l*.t and conditions

n;gotiated by their unión. All cabs should be linked into a radio

system.

APPENDIX

15.1 While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the

Í43

figures used in this paper they should be treated as no more thaninformed guesses which are provided for the purpose ofcomparing different policies. The projections are based on figuresgiven in London Transport's Annual Reports and monitoringreports to the London Transport Committee.

As far as possible the figures have been adjusted for inflation onthe basis indicated - however a number of factors are not takeninto account, in particular the effect of London's decliningpopulation.

Each increase of 1p in the rate costs the typical domestic ratepayerapprox. f2.50 per annum.

I5.2 STATISTICAL BACKGROUND

InflationTraffic Receipts ÍÍGLC Fares ReliefGrant - ActualFares Relief NeededTo Maintain 1976 LevelDepreciation and RenewalGrant - ActualSubsidy as o/o ofExpenses

Average Fare PerPassenger Journey - Buses

- Tubes

Working Expenses

Í Projection

tt Includes GLC contribution for OAP travel (Í24m in 1979)

15.3 As the preceding table shows since L976 the level of fares reliefhas been cut in real terms.At the same time fare increases havebeen higher than inflation.

r44

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

160Á 1'60/0 8Vo 17V, 20Vo tf249m f292m f334m f370m f433m I

f87m Í63m f50m f54m f.64m t

f87m f101m f].L7m t"l26m f148m Í

f27m f34m f44m Í58m Í68m t

3ltlo 24%o 2'!.o/o 2I%o 21.Vo f

8.9p l0.7p 12.0p 13.2p 16.5p Í22.3p 26.6p 31.2p 34.5p 41.6p t3ó9m 398m 440m 520m 610m t

15.4 Fare Free Public TransportTaking the most radical option first it is difficult to assess the exactcost of providing fare-free public transport in Greater Londonbecause it is not clear how much would be saved by the eliminationof the ticketing process, however one estimate of the cost ofcollecting and inspecting fares in 1969 was f 10-15 million and thiswouldnowbef30-40million. There would also be savings fromthe capital budget of up to f 100 miltion which the Tories plan tospend on automatic fare collection equipment during th-e nextdecade.

15.5 PROJECTIONthereafter.

Expenses(Based on 1978)

Fares relief grant assuming78 level maintained& adjusted for inflationEstimated savings from farescollection & inspection

Assuming 20o/o inflation in 1980 and 10olo

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

730m 803m 883m 971m 1069m

77m 83m 91m 101m 111m

58m 64m 79m 77m 85m

99m 108m 119m

9m 22m 2Im 19m

504m 544m 602m 665m 753m

26.5 28.6 31.7 35.0 39.6

Depreciation grant adjusted forinflation based on 58m in 1979 81m 90m

Savings on capital by notimplementing AFCExtra amount to be fundedfrom rates

Extra precept over andabove inflation (see note)

Note _ the Council already makes a contribution of aboÍrt f24 million at1979 prices for OAP's free travel - in 1981, this would reduce the extraprecept by 1.7p.

15.6 Some reference must be made at this stage to effects of TransportSupplementary grant. At present the fares relief grant is includedin the expenditure allowed when the grant is calculated. In fact theLabour Government was pressing the GLC to increase its faresrelief grant. It would be virtually certain that any large increasesnow would be excluded from the TSG and would thus have to befunded completely from the rate precept. It is also possible that a

145

Tory Government would decrease the TSG by what it consideredto be the amount 'overspent'. As the TSG amounted to just over I

120m for 1980 and may rise to f140m in 1981 this could meananother 6-8p on the precept.

I5.'7 Initial cat oÍ 25o/o in fares - then hold fares in money terms

A relatively modest cut in fares can be made initially thus avoidingthe need to make a major increase in the precept by not increasingfares in following years the actual subsidy is increased and faresbecome relatively insignificant in real terms.

15.8 PROJECTION - Assuming 20o/o inflation in 1980 and 1,07o

thereafter

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

Traffic receípts neededit 1979 subsidy maintained 520m 571.m 629m

Amount to be collected after25o/o reduction in fares 390m 390m 390m

GLCpaymentforOAPfreetravel 34m 37m 40m

Deficit to be made good

Total subsidies (excluding OAPfaresgrant) as o/o of expenses 35Vo

692m 761,m

390m 390m

44m 49m

744m 199m 258m 322m

7.5p 10.5p 13.5p 17.0p

39o/o 44o/o 48o/o 52o/o

by real increase

Extra precept

96m

5.op

15.9 Restore and maintain the 1976 level of subsidy in real terms

Of the alternatives discussed this is the most modest, it wouldnevertheless have someimpacton both rates and fares and meansmaintaining a subsidy of around 31.% and increasing fares annuallyin line with inflation.

15.10 PROJECTION - assuming 10olo inflation

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

Fares relief based on1.979 levelFares relief need to maintainÍ97 6 IevelExtra subsidy needed

Extra subsidy as precept

r46

77m 85m 93m 702rn I12m

178m 195m 215m 236m 260m

101m L10m l22m 134nr 1,47m

5.3p 5.8p 6.4p 7.0p 7.7p

**

1

:

I

15.11 Flat Fares

,A fgurth option is the introduction of a flat fare system. This courdbe based on a single flat fare for every journey which woulá needto be about 15p or 1óp on the buses topioduce ttre same income asat present. However, this would tend to encourage longerjourneys and discourage shorter ones. This difficurty"couia u.oyercome by devising a zoned fare system. The actual farescharged would need to be carefully worted out but overall couldbe set at whatever level vis-a-vis tÍre subsidy the council wanted.To produce the same income as at present on the tube the flat farewould be 40p.

147

EDUCATION

\Íembers of the Education Working Party

Sir Ashley BramallMr. C. CherrillMr. R. EvansMr. J. HolbrookMrs. E. Kerr-WallerMr. D. MilesMrs. J. MostynMrs. S. PeacockMrs. P. RowanMr. N. StartMr. R. Twining

(Chairman)

Papers were received from a number of individuals and fromorganisations: they were all considered at meetings. Speakers on specificsubjects attended a number of meetings and answered questions.

Tbe working party report was amended by the executÍve committee, andthose amendments are included in this report.

The Tory Attack on ILEA

The Labour ILEA is under heavy attack by the Tories, who are pressingthe Government to break it up and hand education to the boroughs. Theysay that ILEA is 'not elected', that it is financially irresponsible, that iispends too much money.

What is the truth? Every member of ILEA is elected. Thirty-fivemembers are directly elected as members of the GLC and ILEA for thethirty-five constituencies of Inner London. The other thirteen areeiected members of the Borough and City Councils in Inner London,elected by those Councils to represent them on ILEA.

In'most education authorities only a minority of members serve on theEducation Committee. Every member of the ILEA is on the EducationCommittee and one of its sub-Committees, and thus plays a direct part inrunning education.

lI EA raises its money in exactly the same way as every County Councilthat runs education - through the Borough councils which raise the rates.The difference is that ILEA alone has representatives on it from theBorough Councils themselves, to remind them of the financial needs ofthe Boroughs when deciding its finances.

IT.EA .does spend more on each pupil in its schools than any othereducation authority: it has smaller classes and fewer pupils for eachte^acher, and it spends more on books and materials. The ILEA is proudof this record under Labour. I-ondon has great educational deprivationand disadvantage among its people, which can only be helped by using therich resources of London to the full. In Inner Lon áon24% of oúr chilárenqualify for free dinners, against a national average of 1.4o/o. A Labourcontrolled ILEA will guarantee the continuation of the school mealsservice in its present form and existing prices in real terms; 27o/o of rnnerI-ondon children come from one-parént families; 10% do not speakEnglish as their first language.

The break-up of ILEA would place most London boroughs under animpossible financial burden, without the rich resources -of London'sbusiness centre at the disposal of the education service, or would compelthem to cut down on education spending. It would break up a servicewhich provides facilities and support foi pupils, students and teacherswhich can only be provided in a large aréa ánd by a rich authority. Itwcruld increase enormously the cost of education. Néw offices would haveto be set up all over London and thousands of children and studerts whogo to school and college in other boroughs would have to be paid for by

150

their home boroughs.

All this upheaval is proposed so that the Tories can wrest control ofeducation from Labour in the few boroughs which they can dominate.After years of teacher shortage in the schools, staff stability and smallerclasses are showing their results in higher standards. What is needed nowis stability and progress in education, not upheaval designed to cutexpenditure. We now recognise that the 4.2o/o cuÍ in service for 1980 waswrong. We realise that the London situation demands an expansion ofprovision not regression and that the policy proposals contained withinthis document will require a growing rate of expenditure.

ILEA AIMS TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATION SERVICE FOR ALLPEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ALL ABILITIES, FLEXIBLE ENOUGH

TO MEET THETR NEEDS AT ANY STAGE IN THEIR LIVES.

Partnership with Parents

ILEA will continue to seek ways of involving parents in the life of the

schools. Pioneered by ILEA, parent Governors have been elected toevery school. Parents' Consultative Committees have been set up in each

of the ten Divisions, with a central Parents' Committee which all parentGovernors are entitled to attend, at which local ILEA members andsub-Committee Chairmen are present.

The school records of all children in primary schools are already open toparents, and it is ILEA policy that parents should have access to theiróhildren's records. It is also ILEA policy that parents are welcome in the

schools at any time, and teachers are encouraged to consult with parentsabout their children.

Parents, members of the public or individuals concerned with the

education service have ready access to information and advice, eitherthrough one of the Divisional offices or from County Hall;, both haveinstruótions to give information about the service throughout InnerLondon. It will be future ILEA policy under Labour to promote Parents'Associations in all schools.

To a substantial degree parents are getting their choice of school on

transfer from primary to secondary level. In 1,979 a record percentage oi

151

98.r%o of children transferring were placed in their first or secondpreferred school.

Progress towards Nursery Centres

ILEA is committed to the radical improvement of the provision ofchildcare facilities to meet the needs of the under fives and their parents.

There are more children in nursery schools and nursery classes withinILEA than in all the Outer London boroughs put together. 46 nurseryschools and 399 nursery classes are providing full-time or part-timeeducation for 35olo of three and four year olds.

More full-time classes must be provided, but even 'full-time' nurseryschools and nursery classes do not in themselves solve the problems ofworking parents or the needs of their children. It is ILEA's policy to worktowards the integration of full day care with nursery education. ILEA isready to provide the educational facilities wherever local authorities areprepared to co-operate with social service support and training.

ILEA has successfully pressed the Department of Education to alloweducation authorities to provide teachers in day nurseries, where toomany children have been deprived of pre-school education. We arecommitted to providing teachers for this purpose.

Full-time nursery centres, attached to primary or nursery schools andopen during the holidays, are the way forward. Declining rolls in theprimary schools will offer opportunities to extend pre-school provision.We are protecting this spare capacity, and continuing to press localauthorities to provide non-teaching staff in order that the increasingneeds of working parents can be met. This need can be met in two ways -by childcare being made available to nursery schools or classes, or byeducational support being made available to day nurseries.

Another field of co-operation between ILEA and the London Boroughsis in the training of childminders and home helps.

Spending on our Children

we defend the high level of spending on our children because the specialcircumstances of London demand it.

It is ILEA's practice to provide schools with the most modern and up todate equipment. Substantial investment has been made in the proviiion

1,52

of computing facilities - all secondary schools are being equipped to meetthe needs of the 1980s. The education television service is providing avideo cassette library service and a wide range of programmes speciallydesigned for schools. 75o/o of ILEA primary schools already have videocassette recorders, compared with 10olo nationally.

ILEA's level of spending compared with every other education authorityis best shown by the table below -

ILEA Best Outer BestLondon MetropolitanBorough District

BestCounty

t546f.6r2

Cost per pupil(excl. admin.)

PrimarySecondary

Expenditureon books perchildPrimarySecondary

L625 t544L834 f722

Í'25 f.13f"48 t43

L549f700

f10f"43

f10L39

There has been a steady improvement in pupil-teacher ratios in InnerLondon. In 7972 the ratios were 1 to 23 in primary schools and 1 to 15+ insecondary schools. In 1980 the ratios were 1 to 17 in primary schools and7 to 14 in secondary schools.

In 1979, when the numbers of children in ILEA schools fell by almost36,000 the numbers of teachers increased by I42.It is ILEA's policy tocontinue to improve the pupil teacher ratio in the schools.

The end of Corporal Punishment

Dr. Michael Rutter in his study of twelve London comprehensive schools,found that behaviour in schools which concentrated on punishment wasworse than those where the emphasis was on rewards.

Corporal punishment was abolished in ILEA primary schools in I913,and a firm decision was taken in I979 to abolish corporal punishment inall ILEA schools by 1981. Strong support for this decision came fromteachers' representatives on the Education Committee. ILEA was thefirst education authority in the country to decide to ban the cane in all itsschools.

153

Organisation of School Students

We would seek to pursue the enlightened view of a mature relationshipbetween staff and school students by recognising the National Union ofSchool Students or similar organisations in all schools where branchesexist or are formed. If we are able to create a healthy democratic societythe seeds of this must begin in our schools with a structured dialoguebetween teachers and their students and so we would consider providingfunding and facilities.

Comprehensive Education

Since September 1977 ILEA has had a completely comprehensivesystem of secondary education, the aim of which is to provideopportunities for every child, whichever school they attend and whatevertheir aptitudes and abilities, to develop their full potential.

ILEA and Employment

It is ILEA's policy that every school shall provide extensive careersadvice as part of the curriculum in all secondary schools. Everyencouragement is given to schools to develop links with employers, andwe would wish all children to have the opportunity of work experience tohelp them develop their choice of career. Closer links are being formedbetween schools and colleges of further education, with many collegesnow running bridging courses designed to help young people in thetransition from school to work, and in particular during the time they maybe unable to find work. An expanded careers service is needed to helpyoung people in the difficult task of finding suitable jobs.

In adult education it is planned to extend the mother and toddler schemeson housing estates, organised in co-operation with Social ServicesDepartments. Work with unemployed groups will continue where there isa need.

More links need to be developed between industry, trade unions andschools. Educational training must be made an integral part of theManpower Services Commission scheme, and close liaison must bedeveloped between colleges and the MSC. ILEA has an important role inproviding opportunities for the young unemployed people at colleges offurther education.

Special Education

ILEA plans to improve provision for the handicapped, with special stress

154

on the needs of those over 16, and to make nurserv provision forhandicapped children from the age of 2. We are endeavouring to ensurethat all teachers are qualified to deal with chilclren with specialeducational needs.

trLEA's Teachers

Greater stability in staffing during the last three years has made it possibleto develop in-service training, for which there is a need inside the schools.The induction scheme for new teachers will continue to tre given highpriority, as will opportunities for teachers to acquire the basic skills ofmanagement.

PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES

Falling Rolls

The decline in the number of schoolchildren in Inner London is certain tocontinue over the next five years. It is our policy to turn this decline to theadvantage of both children and parents. We plan to achieve more spacefor each child, a better pupil/teacher ratio, and the retention of the widerange of curriculum choice in secondary schools - every one of whichmust be able to make avaiiable a fully comprehensive education.

We reject the excuse of falling rolls being used to justify school closures.Schools will be closed only in cases of extreme physical deterioration ofthe school or its catchment area. We make this policy on the basis that weare in favour of smaller schools if necessary and that it is our aim to linksecondary schools to provide a viable range of sixth-form courses. Fun-damentally we are concerned to protect the teaching and non-teachingemployment position in our schools, particularly at a time of deliberatecreation of unemployment by the Tory Government.

Science

A survey of science provision in ILEA secondary schools has shown thatgirls are not getting proper opportunities to pursue this subject. Everrpossible step will be taken to increase laboratory facilities and to improvethe amount of science on the timetable, particularly for girls.

Sports FacilitÍes

London schools inherited from the past a dire shortage of plaving fields

155

and sports provision, which makes it necessary for children to travel longdistances for their games. ILEA is spending f 1m a year on providing newlocal facilities which will benefit both children and the local community.

EnglÍsh as a Second Language

A survey conducted by the ILEA Research and Statistics Group in 1979indicated that for about one in ten ILEA pupils English is not a firstlanguage, and that more than 120 languageÁ aie spokén in their homes.Increasing provision is being made for these children, and we aredetermined to help them to fulfil their potential in both languages. ILEAwill produce information on education and schools in the main minoritylanguages.

London's Special Problems

The particular difficulties and stress which affect children growing up inLondon, and other inner cities, cause some children to behave in wayswhich are unacceptable and disruptive.

ILEA accepts two special responsibilities - to help the disturbed childrenand to ensure that the majority of children are able to concentrate onlearning.

A special fund has been established, running at f2|m a year andemploying 400 teachers, to help the schools fulfil their obligations tochildren in trouble. Support units have been set up to enable children tobe withdrawn from the classroom for a limited time and, with the help ofspecialist staff, returned to their schools better able to take advantagé ofthe opportunities offered. The Education Welfare Service, intermediatecentres and home tuition are contributing to help children with individualproblems and truancy. In addition, a large number of schools havesanctuaries.

The fact that the suspension rate is beginning to decline indicates thatILEA's programme is proving successful. Funds will continue to be madeavai'able to ameliorate the stresses of London and to help children withspecial problems.

The Needs of the Whole CommunÍty

To achieve greater co-ordination between the different servicesproviding for the 16 to 19 age group within ILEA,local academic boards

1,56

i

{

I

I

will be set up involving representatives of schools, colleges, adulteducation institutes and the youth service. These boards will monitorcontinuously the provision within each area to ensure that the needs ofthe whole community are being met. Further education colleges must beenabled to make more provision for the 1 6 to 19 year olds who have failedto benefit from education in the schools.

The Relationship between ILEA and the CLPs

One of the strengths of ILEA's constitution is that all Inner LondonCouncillors are represented on the Education Committee, as opposed toother authorities where membership of the Education Committee is amatter of selection.

However, the Greater London Regional Council of the Labour Partyhas agreed that they wish to see a closer relationship between the localCLPs and the ILEA Labour Group in the development and theimplementation of educational policy, and will be makingrecommendations to achieve this.

1.57

Published by GLRC Labour Party, 195 Walworth Road, London SE17and printed by Victoria House Printing Co.,25 Cowcross St., LondonEC1.