The Regional Executive Committee set up Working Partíes to give consideration to the major policy issues coming before the etectorate at the

ated organisations are invited to submit amendments according to the timetable. The Policy will be
decided at a Special Meeting of the G.L.R.C. to be held lTth and lSth October, 1980 at Camden Town Hall.

G.L.C. elections in May, 198l. AffilÍ-

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

London's Economic Problems Policy Principles The London Industrial Strategy Build for People, not for Profit The GLC as customer and economic institution '7. New Municipal Enterprise 8. Grant Aid 9. Docklands 10. The GLC as employer 11. The London Manpower Plan 12. Paying for the Programme 13. Summary of recommendations Annexes: (1) Factory Leasing Conditions (2) GLC Labour Clauses (3) Homeworking Code of Conduct (4) Structure Diagram

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.



3 5



22 26 28 30 32 34


47 54 65 66 69 70


1. 2. 3. +. 5. 6"

Introduction The Strategic Role of the GLC Accountability Joint Policies and Programmes Labour's Financial Policy Reorganising the GLC

74 76 78 79 80 84 87 88 89


1" London's Housing Crisis l. Labour and Tory in Control of the GLC 3 Labour's Housing Priorities 4 Labour's Programme for the GLC j \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

92 92

95 98
101 101 101


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.


Introduction Labour's Approach to Planning Promoting and Controlling Urban Development Protecting the Environment Providing Open Space adn recreation/leisure facilities Tourism Summary of recommendations




TRANSPORT 1,. Transport - London's Last Chance



2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The Tory Legacy The Role and Powers of the Responsibility for roads


I26 I27



130 130

British Rail London Transport



1.1. Control of London Transport 1,2. Freight


Riverborne Freight 1,4. Taxis and hire cars

15. Appendix

142 143



\[embership Stephen Bubb Martin Coleman Bryn Davies Pat Farrell Michael Freeman Mick Gilbey John Grant MP Tony Hart Stuart Holland MP Norman Howard Ernie Large panny McCarthy John O'Malley

coopted coopted coopted coopted appointed by S.E. Region TUC coopted

\ick Sharman \igel Spearing MP
John Spellar -{Jan Taylor \lichael Ward

Harold Wild



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

Workiíg Party prepared papers for
tions and individuals:

uS, and so did the following organisa-

South Yorkshire County Council Labour Group

Richard Minns Socialist Environmental and Resources Association Fire Brigade Union John TilleY, MP


Greater London Association of Trades Councils Southwark Trades Council The Low PaY Unit Centre for Álternative Industrial Technological Systems
and several others

To all our thanks are due'


London to work in

1.1 A

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



economy in recent years, and dispelling some of the myths about the reasons for de-industrialization;


based on the many detailed studies of the London


I I i

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


Public Sector Intervention - the development of powerful new aqencies, accountable to a Labour GLC, to stimulate industrial activity and to plan manpower requirements;
Public Sector Development - the creation of new opportunities in the public sector, including a revised Direct Labour Organisation
and a restored London Fire Brigade; Public Sector Purchasing - the use of the GLC's economic power to assist industrial recovery. do the Tories think?



X;3 ltrtat

Tr -\ strategy for industrial recovery appears to be an alarming unbur{r - mixture of blind prejudice and far-fetched gimmickry.
""nr '-forces of the market". They



- because over everything else hangs an unquestioning faith in think private greed will restore the l-:a'4,:. economy - their euphemism for greed being 'incentives'. But we
ilrat market forces bear much of the responsibility for the destrucof London's employment base.

:rr:,r r.nC erosion ffiilhmmfuks

- because it's hard to know what they will think of next. llnp;ou*1 \Íotorways? Leisure Centres? Heliports? Air terminals? One mme4nL",ornaniac irrelevance after another has first been hailed as the lmlw€r - then consigned to the dustheap. l\clr
G{-C budget for industrial policy is tiny in comparison to the

Lr,rurcil's pro,tential. They work with the London Enterprise Agency Ü'lfilu;n $ llmtre more than a propaganda front for large firms. Their grandly mn][B; [-emdon Industrial Centre is just a jumped-up estate agency. And 6;lm re Ton Government - with its Urban Development Corporation 6s 11r*nnrr,rrg to suppress much of the work of elected local government in ffirr Ensr End.


The Government even seem to believe that "Enterprise Zones" - in which there could be no Town Planning law, no Health and Safety at Work Act, no Employment Protection Act - will lead to the creation of
new jobs

workers' rights or living standards.
ant extravagance

- though they do not

say at what cost to the environment, or to

Prejudice is heaped on prejudice, irrelevant extravagance upon irrelev-

-but precious little ever seems to happen. The only jobs the Tories create are the staff on the Board of the UDC.

1.3 Our


The programme we propose rests on democratic planning in conjunction with London's working people. We do not claim to have easy, instant solutions: 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 local


local authorities

they have all been tried, to a greater or lesser extent, by innovative

- and they have been costed We intend to put the resources of the GLC at the disposal of

fighting to save - or fighting to create - jobs in London. We applaud what has been done by workers in some large concerns in planning for the development of new forms of production, new forms of social ownership. future of the London economy lies with London's working people.


We intend to work to create opportunities for women, for minority communities, and for disadvantaged groups - because we think that the



Unemployment and declíne

London plays a key role in the British economy. It is the country's largest centre both of industry (with 1.3 million manufacturing, transport and wholesale distribution jobs) and of service employment (with a fifth of the nation's jobs in government, public services, finance and so on). Yet London's economy is in serious difficulty. Over the past 20 years the capital has lost some 500,000 jobs, a pace of decline that outstrips any other region in the country. Worst affected has been London's industry: it has lost a third of its jobs since the early 1960s. As a result, there is a serious unemployment problem and in some of London's industrial areas,

unemployment rates have persistently been double the national average. The actual numbers of people out of work are larger than in some areas that have in the past benefitted from regional assistance. Among some groups of workers, unemployment has risen particularly sharply. Between 1974 and 1979 women's unemployment for example went up four times in London, compared to a doubling of male unemployment in the same period. Another symptom of decline is physical dereliction. Rows of empty buildings and stretches of vacant land, abandoned by industry, are scattered throughout London. No less than 35 square miles of land is now classified as unused. There are other less obvious problems. Industry that remains in London tends by national standards to be old, small, inefficient. Much of it is desperately in need of modern equipment and buildings if it is to survive.


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

There has been a rapid expansion of professional and managerial staff (especially in the offices, schools and hospitals of the capital). But at the

other end of the spectrum there has been a growing number of low paid, low skill workers, whose jobs are unstable or often casual. They have been 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 public sector workers in London. These then are London's immediate problems: industrial decline, worsening living standards and conditions óf work for many Londoners' and the threats of technological unemployment 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 decades have been largely responsible for London' problem. We believe the public sector must take a major role in solving London's economic

Notwithstanding the level of unemployment, there are problems in the match between the skills of the unemployed and the vacancies which
arise. A mixture of imaginative, positive training and retraining policies, and planned investment, must ensure that new jobs are created to bring

work and prosperity to London.


The role of national and multi-national capital

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


emphasised that London's economy is not isolated from the rest of the country - despite its size and special features. That means that we have to look outside London to understand what's happened to the capital's

economy. We cannot, as the Tories have done, pick on simple local scapegoats (Borough Council bureaucracy, the decline of small firms and so on) to explain London's problems.
In fact many of the changes in London's economy are due to national and

even international factors.

For example the increasing international competition for markets over

Britain and elsewhere, have reacted to this pressure by merging or taking over other companies in an effort to dominate markets and squeeze out
rivals. They have also re-organised their production methods to cut costs, usually by installing new, often automated, capital machinery to save labour.
These changes have had their sharpest impact on manufacturing industry.

the past 20 years has cut profit levels, especially in industry. Companies in

However in other areas of the economy - warehousing, docks, offices, banking, hotels - there has been the same trend to labour saving machinery and an increasing dominance by large, often transnational

Britain of course has fared worse than most of its industrial rivals in these processes. Profit levels have fallen so low that much of British industry
pressure from foreign rivals.

has failed to re-equip adequately and many firms have closed down under


The costs of industrial change: the London job crisis

these changes have had their sharpest impact on the old industrial areas - and London has been hit particularly hard.

The result of this massive industrial re-organisation is that three quarters of the 500,000 jobs lost in London since the early 1960s have not re-appeared elsewhere. They have been lost forever.

For the large industrial firms have usually re-organised their production processes by closing down their London factories and opening new plant on greenfields sites, either in the Assisted areas, new towns and suburbs

or abroad. This is because London factories usually have the wrong characteristics for modern large scale production. They tend to be multi-storied, small, old, badly served by transport with high rents and rates. Their workers tend to be skilled, high waged and well organised.
Modern production methods in contrast favour large, single storey factories near motorways with a labour force willing to accept the lower manning levels and different working methods associated with new

capital intensive plant.

As a result, large firms have pulled out of London. Many medium and small firms, especially in the more profitable industries, have followed
suit. But that has not been the end of the story. With the dramatic changes in the economy many other smaller firms in London have been taken over

or gone bust. They have either succumbed to the pressure of rising costs and falling markets or been unable to cope with the increasing scale of

investment and the fierce competition of larger rivals.

In other words, London, along with the other older citiei has borne the brunt of the run down of British industry over the past two decades. That is why London has been left with areas of high unemployment physical dereliction and increasing poverty among the less well off. And that is

why its industry has become increasingly marginal to the national economy, with a growing proportion of its firms able to survive only by exploiting the low wages and rents of the declining areas.


Service Employment

Some people argue that the erosion of London's industrial base does not matter. They argue that service industry employment has been a growing

sector in the London economy in the last ten years, and that 'growth services' 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 - air transport, banking and finance, public services, betting shops, hotels and pubs. And of those only finance and banking (25,000 jobs) and public services (100,000 jobs) made any substantial contribution to job creation during the 1970s. What about the other job creating sectors, notably air transport and some leisure based industries? London for example has been the centre of

Britain's growing tourist industry - in 1977 London had 19 million visitors (7.8 million of them from abroad) who spent at least one night in the capital. They were big spenders - some Í1,500 million in I977 and it is estimated that tourists support some 250,000 jobs in London. However during the 1970s its growth has had only a modest job creation effect.

Between I971, and1,976,for example, London hotels created only 8,000 new iobs and even that growth has now levelled off. Catering jobs actually fell by over 3,000 in the same period. Moreover the quality of these jobs is frequently appalling - working conditions are generally poor, wages are low and job security minimal. Indeed these tourist based

growth industries have depended for their profits on exploiting

particularly vulnerable sectors of labour
for the growing low pay sector in London.

women. The expansion of these service industries is in fact


notably immigrants and

major reason

Second, many of these new jobs are office based - and changes in office technology make the future of this sector the subject of doubt. Some forecasts 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 as well as in services. London, as the headquarters ofgovernment, the banks and many industries, has taken a big share of this national growth in offices. Office development in London has attracted vast amounts of finance over the past 30 years - though it has been erratic and largely unplanned. This has meant that the type, location and number of London office jobs has often been decided by financial and property considerations, rather than by the needs of London's economy or its workers.
The future for office jobs however is now much more uncertain. Already there have been big changes: since the late 1960s, for example, clerical jobs have been declining as computer based machinery has taken over

many tasks and companies have moved many routine operations to cheaper offices outside London. So far, the growth in administrative and professional staff has compensated for this decline. However, the new cheap microprocessor technology will have a dramatic effect over the next 10-15 years - indeed, some estimate that a third of London's million office jobs could be threatened. Public Services


of the last 20 years. They have been an especially important source of jobs for the rapidly rising number of women wanting work. Between 197I and 1976 for example 80,000 new health and education jobs were created and 59,000 were taken by women. The public sector spending cuts of the mid 1970s halted this growth; the Tories' attack on local services will now actually reduce these jobs, despite the clear evidence of a desperate shortage of public services in London.

But if private service employment growth has not been an undiluted benefit to the development of London economy' iÍis the public services especially health and education - which have been the big job generators



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

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

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

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

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

In particular London's shattering industrial decline is the result of the private sector's failure to invest in new plant and buildings in London. In a

desperate effort to encourage firms to invest in their area, local authorities have taken an increasing role in providing infrastructure,

land, drainage, access roads, even the factories themselves. Over the last

few years Central Government has provided some backing to this approach with their inner city policy. This public investment in basic
cope with the scale of London's industrial decline.

services has been coupled with very expensive advertising campaigns and has had some success in some areas. It is however plainly not enough to

That decline is now so serious that only a large scale investment programme aimed at key sectors of London's industry will rescue the capital's manufacturÍng economy from almost total annihilation. The public sector will have to take an active role in such a strategy.
Although national measures will also be necessary, there is much that a regional authority like the GLC could do. Below we outline in detail the ways a public industrial development authority could mobilise both public and private investment capital. This would give the GLC a much greater 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 will have to take in the provision of trained manpower. We look in Section


at the needs and resources London has to improve the skills of its
Post war economic trends, the movement of industry out of London and


its concentration into large corporations, have meant that London's workers and residents have a decreasing influence over economic
decisions affecting their future.

Those trends underline the need to increase democratic control over economic decisions. Londoners, as residents and workers, must have more, not less, influence over the location of investment and conditions of
work. That is an important justification for a greater, direct public role in the provision of jöbs.
It is important to enlarge the control of workers over their work and the responsiveness of firms to consumers. That is why we should encourage

the development of more democratic forms of production, such as co-operatives and municipal enterprise. Public authorities can also do much to encourage private enterprise to improve its working conditions. As we have seen, conditions are often appalling, and there is evidence that they are worsening. The public sector has considerable influence over the private sector, through both the enormous public contracts that go to the capital's industry and through the provision of factory buildings. This leverage can be used to ensure firms adhere to certain basic requirements in terms of pay and

A further role for public bodies is to help the trade unions' efforts to improve working conditions. Local government readily accepts a role in supporting business with advice and financial help, with the argument that the welfare of residents is thereby improved. A precisely similar argument 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 workers face redundancy, then a Labour authority should be ready to put its resouÍces behind their struggle.
The contribution of public services to job creation, as well as to meeting social needs, should be underlined. An enlarged public sector could do much to cope with the problems of unemployment, especially with the adöption of new technology. The GLC has a crucial role in this field and as an employer itself, the GLC will extend to its own workforce the benefit of the principles we outline here. Where new jobs are created, and in relation to the GLC's own role as an employer, there must be positive steps to counteract the discrimination which exists in the employment of women, and of people from ethnic minority communities.

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

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

4. THE


4.1 The role of the public sector In earlier sections we have given our analysis of the problems of the London economy, and have stated the principles we intend to follow in
overcoming these problems.

London Industry and Employment policy is not a matter for elected local authorities alone: the response of the political labour movement, and of the unions, is also important. But since market forces will not by themselves regenerate the London economy, then there is a role for an expansionist, democratic public sector.

It would be easier to create this public sector impetus for economic recovery if we had a government that believed in economic planning, investment by the public sector, and institutions like a strong National

Enterprise Board. But in the absence of such a government, the case is no less important. And considerable progress can be made by an imaginative and determined use of the GLC's existing powers and resources.

And we cannot wait for the return of a Labour Government. The responsibility of a Labour GLC, as the elected representative of
London's working people, will be to counteract the market forces which have led inexorably to decline.


GLC and

the Boroughs

and have a good record in assisting the creation of new jobs, and retaining existing ones. It would be folly for any GLC to attempt to take over this activity. We seek an employment strategy in which the work of borough councils and the GLC is coordinated, so that the powers and resources of GLC and boroughs are used to best advantage.

Many London Boroughs have developed their own industrial policies,

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



How to intervene We propose that a Labour GLC should take the lead in coordinating employment policy in London by drawing up the London Industriit

The aim of the Strategy will be to strengthen the economic base of Greater London, increasing the range of choice of occupation open to working Londoners, by the stimulation - and direct provision - of
investment in both manufacturing and services. In pursuit of this aim we shall set out to increase the element of democratic control over industrial decisions: control by elected authorities so that investment decisions are taken with regard to the wider interests of the community, and control by work people in the workplace.

We shall encourage new forms of social ownership: independent public manner

ownership, and municipal enterprise, as well as employment by the GLC itself. We shall use the position of the GLC to attempt to influence the

in which technological change is implemented, so that the consequences ofchange are not increased lay-offs and redundancies, but a shorter working week and more fulfilling working opportunities.

Particular attention will be paid to the development of producer cooperatives: not because we expect the principles of cooperation to transform the London economy overnight, but because we regard the creation of new jobs under the control of working people as a distinct

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


The Industry and Employment Committee

The function of promoting and assisting the restructuring of the London Economy is quite different from town planning or land use planning. Planning Committees and Planning Departments do not take decisions on the development or management of public sector housing - they should not be responsible for the parallel decisions in the industrial field. Recommendation Three:

(i) (ii)

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

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

(u) (b) (")

To advise the Council on all matters of economic policy, and in particular the economic regeneration of Greater London;

To draw up the London Industrial Strategy, and to work with the London Boroughs for its implementation; To supervise the activities of the Greater London Enterprise

Board (see para 4.6 below);


To supervise the creation of a unified Direct Labour Building Organisation (London Community Builders) to serve the Council and other public bodies and subsequently to be responsible for overseeing the work of London Community

Builders (see section 5 below);

(") (f)

To control the activities of existing municipal enterprise - such

as the Supplies Department - and to stimulate

development of new municipal enterprise; (see sections 6 and 7 below).


To supervise the activities of the Greater London Manpower Board (GLMB); (see section 11 below);


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

) t

In addition to elected GLC members, the IEC should include
among its membership co-opted trade unionists and representatives

of London MPs


The Economic Policy Group


The IEC will need expert official advice in drawing up the London Industrial Strategy. We should like to see the creation of a small unit of officers to draw up the London Industrial Strategy and the London Manpower Plan, and to liaise with the London Boroughs, Central Government and the other bodies involved. The Unit would be primarily composed of economists. We see their task and function as distinct from
would be with overall planning, not with detailed implementation.
Recommendation Four:
those of a traditional local government department in that their concern




be responsible for drawing up the overall strategy and to ensure its

Rather than establishing another County Hall Directorate, there should be anEconomic Policy Group (E.P.G.) to advise the IEC, to

coordination with Borough proposals;


The Principal Officer of the

EPG (the Chief Economic Adviser to the Council) should be a full member of the Chief Officers' Board.

The Greater London Enterprise Board

Various bodies have called for a new public sector Industrial

Development agency. The brief of the present London Industrial Centre seems to be too limited to undertake this role; it is little more than a property development agency for the private sector. The GLC minority

Labour Group

in 1971 called for the establishment of a London Industrial Development Board. In the papers for their recent 'Radical Agenda for Londón' conference, the Fabian Society called for a London Enterprise Board. We have said that it would be easier to create the public sector impetus for economic recovery in the context of a government committed to the of economic resources. Such is doubly true of, a new national planning development agency. No doubt when we have a regional Líbour Government we sháll be able to make faster progress -but within our existing powers and resources we can make a considerable impact. And we -,itf ao so. if a Labour Government is not to inherit an industrial wasteland. 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 Enterprise Board (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



should have three matn investment íunctionsi

"Investment to promote strategic or structural change";

"general investment"; "development".


categories of investment that are most remote from the projects

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

assiJted by existing private sources of funds: industrial cooperativei, ne* públic enterprise, and municipal enterprise.


These initiatives will be central to the London Industrial strategy. ,,General Investment" covers the provision of capital for any public enterprises:

or private sector enterprise operating or wishing to operate in Gréater London. Priority would, however, be accorded to


newly starting uP;

(ii) at risk of closure;
(iii) operating in geographical areas of high employment; (iv) providing work in trades with high unemployment.


,,Development" in this connection means site acquisition, factory building or refurbishment, and related activities.

Any intervention by GLEB in respect of any of its three investment functions would be conditional upon three-way talks, leading to agreement, between GLEB, the enterprise and the Unions concerned,

London Industrial Strategy.

covering in particular future patterns of employment and investment in the enterprise. Such local Planning Agreements would form part of the



investment by GLEB, ownership of the premises shall continue to be vested in GLEB, and the lease agreement between the Board and the enterprise shall include clauses covering minimum wages and working conditions within the enterprise, or for home_workers linked with thé enterprise. (Draft clauses at Annexe One to this paper).
should not, ofcourse, be taken as implying that these three aspects should proceed in isolation. Projects like the proposed industry or science park (see section 4.7 below) would probably include a substantial element of development: land assembly, construction of buildings, and associated environment works; assistance to private-sector firms; and support for cooperatives or new public enterprise.

In addition, when enterprises occupy premises as a result of


The identification of three distinct investment functions for the Board

The creation of a powerful agency seeking to restructure the London economy could have disruptive effects on national priorities. Therefore the standing instructions to GLEB will preclude the possibility of any inducement or assistance being offered to a firm seeking to re-locate in London from one of the regions of high structural unemployment.

Three potential sources of finance for investment are available to



ic in

- 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 the 1972Local Government Act. Section 137 empowers the Council to incur expenditure up to the produ ct of a 2p rate (which in the GLC's

case is about f40 million a year) on projects in the interests of Greater London or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants. In 1,978179 spending under section 137 was f979,000.

There are also capital receipts and reserves. As well as being the "investment to promote strategic or structural change".

obvious source, under a separate budget head, for the administrative costs of GLEB, GLC funds would be used to finance


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


employees - a to giving the members of the fund - the GLC's implement shall We t.rtt ,uy in its'administration and investment' shallthen We I GLC' a of months 'abour irr"r" p.opo'ut, in it'" "á.ly as a whole) trustees the (and with tiuttees .""*U"t discuss with the the and increasing


the allocation ot á_'uútantial

the GLC fund in cash-flow of the funá to GLEB' Capital value of annum'.If the per f30m is ábout 1978 was f221m: net cash-flow Equity GLEB were to aim ior f40m from this source (the size of GLC from he obtained ö"p't"r for tnausi,yj i}r"n this c-ould of long-term suő.'unnuution Fuíd cash flow in 2-3 years' The aim of view' is point fund pénsion the from capital inuestmeniin firms, able.either to sell to benefit t.o- tft" gio*th of the firms by being the long-term from the investment at a"capital gain or to benefit increased income. in the interests A thriving, prosperous London economy can only be ensure that also provisions of future GLC pensioners' But statutory their Position is Protected'


The range includes London Borough 3. Other Sources pension funds; and punás;

othei public .sector sup".un.'uution institutions' Investment funds from ri"uncial -őn"v raised tr''o"Ár' be channelled through-GLEB, possibly these sourcer "ouiJ'o."iully with the Board underwriting a guaranteed rate of return' to specific We envisage money from the three- sources being !i"-d _ accounted possibly and investment Íuncti_oís- as outlined above of taÍg:'t^11tes GLEB for set to IEC the for separatety. rt witl be for of return; ttrese musi have regard to the long-term-project for different be well ."rlr.,ótrrri.rg the London economy, and may
functions, GLEB,will also-have In addition to its investment -providing: |ot.. firms within the London iiritii"g functiin sales' Industrial Strategy, specialiseá facilities for help with
the different investment functions'

packaging, advertlsing and design; and an export agency' GLEB will be required to make regular financial and poljcy reports directives to to the IEC. ttre Ii,C wi' have the iigtrt to issue specific

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

IEC' There The members will be appointed for fixed period-s by the superannuation GLC the of will be consultation wiiir ttre Trustees of such fund over the appointment of GLEB members: the form agreed arrangements of the nature the on muit'depend consultation

with the Trustees for the investment of the Fund's cash flow. Appropriate backgrounds for board members may include industrial management, economic research, investment fund management, trade union work or public service work. The main work 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 of industrial organisation, such as co-operatives. And there will be a division with responsibility for work in the Docklands Area. (see
Section 9 below). Recommendation 5

ti) {ii)

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

The administrative costs of GLEB will be clearly identified as a direct charge on the GLC, and not on any investment funds available to the Board from other sources; will have three main investment functions "investment to promote strategic or structural change"; .,general investment"; and "development"; intervention by GLEB in pursuit of any of its investment functions will be conditional upon agreement between GLEB, the

liii) GLEB it') Any ,r\')

future patterns of employment and investment in the enterprise;
Premises acquired, constructed or refurbished by

enterprise, and the Unions concerned, covering

in particular

GLEB in pursuit of its development investment function shall remain in the ownership of GLEB and be leased to the enterprises concerned;
Such leases will include clauses covering minimum wages and working conditions within the enterprise; or for homeworkers linked with the enterprise;
projects, such as the proposed industry or science park, will co-ordinate the three investment functions to one énd;

{vii) Qlgajor GLEB 'viii) iix)

The standing instructions to GLEB will preclude the possibility of inducements or assistance being offered to a firm seeking to move from one of the regions of high structural unemployment to

Greater London;

The GLC will fund
rate precept

capital receipts;

- and the Inner Urban Areas Act and section 137 of the 1972 Local Government Act in particular; reserves, and

GLEB from

its own resources, including the


Second, once the Labour



has extended to the members of the

pensions, (Recommendation 18(vi) below) we will negotiate with ihe Trustees so that GLEB will be able to attract a substantial and rising proportion of the cash-flow to the fund;


Third, having backed GLEB with the GLC's own money, and having soughl the consent of our employees to do likewjse with theirslwe Jhail seek funds through Borough pension funds; other public ánd private Sector pension funds, and from other financial


In addition (item (ii) above) to covering GLEB's administrative costs, the GLC's b*n t"to.t.ces will be used in particular for fundíng .,investment to promote strategic or Structural change''.
Specifi-c Sources functions;

of funds can be tied to

speÓific investment


The IEC will lay down for GLEB investment objectives and target rates of return; those targets may vary as between the different investment functions; also have a serviging function - providln^g, Jor firms within the London Industrial Strategy, specialised facilities for help with sales, packaging, advertising, design and exports; reports to the IEC;

(xiv) GLEB will

(*u) GLEB will be required to

rnake regular financíal and policy

The IEC will have the right to issue specific directives to


(xvii) GLEB will

be a board with about eight members, half of them full time; 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 proportion of the cash-flow of the fund, arrangements will be made for consultation with the Trustees on the appointment of Board


The internal organisation of GLEB will be formed primarily of divisions responsible for work with particular industrial sectors. But there will also be divisions responsible for forms of industrial organisation, and for Docklands (see Section 9 below); Specifically, one section of GLEB will be responsible for the encouragement of, and for assistance to, new producer




London and the new technology: science parks







Technological change is central to the success of the London Industrial Strategy. And technological change can be to the benefit of London's working people. It may be that large-scale production plants will not come to London, but there has been altogether too much defeatism about the development of new manufacturing capacity. For some of the most advanced industry, London is an ideal location. It has the required lransport facilities, in its airports and docks. It is convenient for access to nnancial institutions. And - crucially - it is a world centre for scientific


or nt




polytechnics and universities. In advanced technology industries the main growth area in London would be in small plants enabling scientists to produce innovative technology, and hopefully expand, and also in plants utilising electronics in their products. Therefore, in conjunction with establishments of higher education in London, we shall seek to establish at least one 'science park', the first probably in the docklands area. This concept has become established in the United States, and one has more recently been set up in this country, at Cambridge. Imperial College, City University, Queen Mary College, and North-East London Polytechnic aould be possible partners. The park should contain a mix of "starter units" for individual scientists io start up production and also to encourage existing companies to ;onstruct their own plants in the area. A number of small companies r*'ould also need to expand to larger plants over time and there should be

London's industrial future must be linked to London as a city of

B. ull

adequate space for expansion. There would also need to be some

attention paid to the surrounding environment and also the security of the site for premises, cars and workers. There should then be considerable interaction between component producers and users on the site.



There should also be facilities for product-development, either by

br rd

scientists, or by groups of workers: "seed-bed factories", in which simple premises could be rented at low cost while initial difficulties were being solved.

The GLC, would in addition, provide central services for the science park: canteen, day care for children, maybe recreation.
Recommendation six


(i) A

Labour GLC, in conjunction with London's major scientific institutions, will establish, as a part of the London Industrial Strategy, at least one science park, the first probably in the Docklands area.



The aim of the Science Park will be to create an environment ln

which the productive application of scientific research
high-technology industry can be made easier.


The Park will include: 'starter units'for individual scientists to start up production; larger premises to which small enterprises could expand in due course; and 'seed-bed' factories, in which individual

scientísts, or groups

of workers, could test and develop


(iu) The GLC

also provide such central services as day care for children, a canteen

would improve the environment of the Park; and would

and some recreational facilities.

Direct Labour


The first local authority direct labour organisation in the world was set up by the GLC's predecesior, the London Öounty Council, at the instigation of its Labour members, in 1892. The LCC took this step because it was clear that private contractors would not observe trade union conditions or

the Fair Wages Clause. Ever since then, good

DLO's have meant

- better value for ratepayers - better service for tenants and council departments needing
building repair work - better working conditions for building workers

Private capital has never been able to undertake the task of providing houses for rent at prices people can afford - but through the contract
system, private builders have made money out of local authority housing


Ever since 1892 direct labour has been in the forefront of political controversy in London. The LCC Works Department was smashed by a later Tory Council working in the interest of the contractors. Now the latest Tory GLC has tried to do the same thing to the present direct labour new-building organisation the GLC Housing Department's
Construction Branch.
The issue for the London Labour movement is not whether we CreaÍe a new Direct Labour Organisation: it is how we go about it.


London Community Builders



-::",':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|

- ::e past, building workers within the GLC have been employed by the :::-lrtments which require their skills - principally, the Housing with its'C'and'M'(Maintenance) Branches, but also in '- =:artment, : -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

': ,-: 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

1 S


, -:::: legislation permits DLO's to carry out repair work for other :- :: todies. -:-.;ral democracy arrangements as proposed for the GLC as a il : .. see section 10 below) will apply at the level of LCB i.e. there will -

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

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 full Li::= -:icials from trade unions with membership in the construction

::.-s,'rould not have negotiating responsibility on behalf of their -.', . :lr LCB employees.

: -.!::-,


ill be co-opted to the Sub Committee. It is envisaged that these

I :,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.


Dtrect Labour and Manpower Policy

S.r ,:e-:al responsibilities fall to the Direct Labour Organisation. .:r., :: ;:e public sector, the construction industry is notorious as a i{;: :.: -- ;asual labour. Its training record is appalling, and the only

-;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


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


Direct Labour

The establishment of London Community Builders provides an opportunity to improve the service offered to tenants on retained GLC
estates. We shall aim to provide an estate


a service to tenants

- based service, so that maintenance workers with the necessary skills will be attached to particular estates. For smaller estates we will seek, in conjunction with the unions, to introduce multi-skilled handymen to provide the required range of trades. The link between tenant and building worker - and therefore between the initial complaint, and the undertaking of the work,
must be made as close as possible.
management committees, giving tenants greater democratic control over their homes, is proposed. LCB workers will, through their trade unions, be involved in this structure, as will LCB management, to ensure full discussion of ideas on the future development of the service.

In the Housing Policy Paper, a scheme of estate and borough joint


Statutory Controls

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

There are two approaches to running a DLO. One is to treat it as a service to the Council pure and simple. The other is to treat it as a public sector contractor, competing alongside other private contractors. Whichever of these approaches we would ideally prefer, the choice has been made for us: the DoE's own reports, and now the legislation, say clearly that we must follow the second way.

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


(ii) LCB will be

All building workers presently employed by the Council should be brought within a unified Direct Labour Organisation - London Community Builders;
departments, with its own Chief Officer and sub com:nittee, reporting to the IEC;


of the

Housing and any other

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% of

the maintenance conversion and small works programme of the Council. By then, it will be ready to tender for all capital work; and will aim to undertake - initially - 50o/o of capital work. LCB will also
undertake repair work for other publiq bodies. This does not mean undertaking work done by other public bodies' own employees.

t) vi)

There will be a Joint Works Committee for LCB, along the lines


recommendation 18 below)

for the GLC as a whole (see section 10


In addition, two stewards elected by the LCB workforce through

normal trade union machinery will sit as non voting members of the Sub Committee. And two full time officials of trade unions with membership in the construction industry (though not as individuals involved in negotiations within LCB) will serve as co-opted members; By the time it is fully operational, LCB will employ its full quota of disabled workers; apprentice to every 5 skilled workers;



'"rii) Apprenticeships will be expanded;

LCB will aim for a ratio of


-{l LCB

will also recruit suitable retrained workers from Government Skill Centres;


The administration of housing repairs will be decentralized, so that as far as possible groups of workers will be attached to particular estates; to facilitate this, there will be a review of depot facilities; assist in meeting the needs of smaller estates, there will be discussions with the trade unions in order to introduce multi-skilled handyman posts;

Í1l To


r There will be a review of the system of ordering repair work, so as to ensure the shortest possible lines of communication between a
complaint being received, and the job being done;

rur i

LCB will be

management committees.

represented by management and workplace at the proposed estate and borough joint


svstems laid down by

should meet all the financial accounting and cost control CIPFA or by legislation.



The powers of the

one There are two ways of come those_that powers except no it has hand, it is a creature of statute: fromiegislation, it is hidebound by the doctrine of 'ultra vires'. It can only do what government permits it to do.

GLC looking at a local authority like the GLC. On GLC - and
the power of the

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 it chooses 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


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, within the scope that legislation permits.

of course, the GLC



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 or Board, 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 to
oversee the work of the Supplies Department.

within the GLC's present standing orders for contracts and supplies there are Labour Ölu,''"s (copy at Annexe 2) which make detailed provisions for working conditions in enterprises which supply the
We shall develop this role by drawing up a 'code of practice' for supplies

to the Councii, covering -.with variations

circumstances of particulai industries, - wages and conditions not less favourable than those negotiable for that industry; observation of good practice on health and saÍety; negotiation of trade union rights; and the




óbservation of similar conditions in respect of any homeworking In Annexe 3 to this report we reproduce associated with the enterprise. -of conduct produced by the Low Pay Unit' the homeworking code observe the requirements of this code. to Suppliers will be expected 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

crganisations which observe the provisions of the code, for all categories cf supplies. We shall then encourage other pubiic bodies, who di not themselves use the services of the Supplies Départment, to confine their :urchases to firms on the relevant 'fair list'.



lndustrial directory and product register, so that local firms can know goods and services are available within the County. We consider "rhat
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

\Íid Glamorgan County Council has drawn up a




-hat, combined with the 'fair lists', a similar system should be established







Responsibility for the GLC Supplies Department will lie with a Board or Sub-Committee of GLC members, reporting to the IEC; or
purchasing operation to further the ends of the London Industrial

ri) A Labour GLC will use the

economic power of the GLC's


:ii) Building on



rr) In conjunction with the relevant trades unions, ,fair lists'

GLC, will be drawn up, incorporating requirements on wages and conditions, health and safety, and trade union rights, and including compliance with a Code of Conduct on homeworking, similar to that drafted by the Low Pay Unit;

the Labour Clauses in the GLC's existing Standing Orders, a code of practice, to be observed by all suppliers to the


suppliers complying with the GLC Supplies Code of Practice will be drawn up. Other public bodies will be encouraged to confine their purchasing to 'fair list' suppliers;


I A )



computer-based directory and product register, covering enterprises within Greater London, will be introduced in conjunction with the London Industrial Strategy; Provision will be made to ensure that new co-operative and public enterprises can act as suppliers to the Council.
and Consultants





ll, of

,i.t section 5 above we have outlined our plan for the creation of a new lirect Labour Organisation, and made proposals as to the proportion of

:re Council's building work that should be undertaken internally.


Similar considerations apply with regard to professional employees. In some circumstances the use of consultants is justified. The Tories have gone far beyond this, reducing job opportunites and job satisfaction for GLC 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, and shown to be beyond the technical expertise of GLC staff, before
consultants can be brought in.

As far as building and civil engineering contractors are concerned,

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



that all jobs must be offered internally first, and shown to bé beyond the technical expertise of GLC staff, before consultants can be brought in;
It will become

GLC practice

(ii) A

code of practice for contractors will be drawn up, in conjunction with the rélevant unions; no firm not in compliance with the code will be permitted to tender for any Council work, or admitted to any

Council list of contractors;


The code will include requirements on wages and conditions, health and safety, and trade union rights, and will specifically prohibit the

employment of lumP labour;

(iu) As

previous Labour practice, and restrict contracts to firms in membership of the Joint Industry Board.

far as electrical contracting is concerned, the GLC will revert to




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



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 for direct manufacture might include street furniture, or office equipment;

construction materialJ- including joinery


and road materials. The


scope for both services and supplies being provided by new municipal enterprise will need to be reviewed at an early stage of the London Industrial Strategy.



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


Consortium Working

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


London Buses

Until the latest phase of 'rationalization' at British Leyland, London's buses were made in London. This situation must be restored. Building on eristing London Transport maintenance and depot facilities, a Labour GLC will establish a bus manufacturing plant. Under the 1969 Transport Áct we have the power to do this: it is a power we intend to use. .{ppropriate measures of industrial democracy will be introduced, and ihe bus factory will be managed by a Board answerable to the IEC.
Recommendation Ten

t i

In the preparation of the London Industrial Strategy, the Economic

Policy Group will be asked to identify services or products suitable for new municipal enterprises,
In the development of new municipal enterprise the


including the other metropolitan authorities,

GLC will seek to promote consortium working with other local authorities Labour GLC will restore the capacity to build London's buses in

i A

London by establishing a bus plant, managed by a Board answerable to the IEC, with appropriate measures of industrial




In this Report we have deliberately avoided proposing the creation of new GLC departments. Economic policy is a matter for the London

Boroughs, for the

propose and GLMB. But, in employment policy as in other areas, we envisage achieving some of our objectives by grant-aiding outside organisations. establishing * notably

IEC and for the specialist bodies we


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 GLEB

as having responsibility for encouraging and assisting new producer co-operatives. We believe that a proportion of the funds available for for co-operatives. One way in which this could be done is through the local 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 a borough boundary, for instance in inner west London, the GLC should
"investment to provide strategic or structural change" should be reserved

fund or part-fund a local CDA itself. The appropriate level of funding is of five year grants for full time staff and office expenses. A Labour GLC could also assist this process by providing a five year grant to enable a London federation of local CDA's to employ full time workers. These workers would help local CDA's become established, work to ensure that

finance and assistance become available for co-ops, develop the marketing of the goods and services of co-ops, and maintain links between the numerous people and organisations concerned with
co-operative development in London.


The London Trade Union Resource Centre

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

They said:

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

London. If it was rewritten replacing 'small business' with 'Trades Union Branch'we would be seeing circulated at ratepayers expense round London the following - "The GLC's concern is to explain the importance of the Trade Union branch to London", and "The GLC has every sympathy for Trades Union Branches and can appreciate that at times they must feel that they can please no one", and also "Full participation by Trades Union Branches in the economic life of London is essential if t-ondon and its inhabitants are to prosper." "
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
.rply a veto when they finally find out what's happening.

ho feel that they are seldom consulted and left with no option except to

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 Stewards

-.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 be ir-rpported by a Labour GLC. We shall therefore be prepared to assist i:Lrups of workers seeking to develop alternative forms of production, ;'.rth finance, with premises, or in other ways.

8"5 Action


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


conditions will be imposed (Recommendation 5(vi) ):



of factory



introduced for supplies (Recommendation 8(iv) ): and the restrictions currently in housing tenancy agreements will be replaced by a registration scheme (Housing Working Party Report para. 8.2):

'fair lists' including provisions about homeworking will


but we still need more information about the scale and nature of
homeworking in order to draw up more comprehensive policies. Other areas for action-research include low pay in London, and the employment of women.

We beiieve that useful work in these areas may be undertaken by community based projects in the voluntary sector, although we fully recognise ihat this would not in itself be an adequate response to the
issues raised.

Recommendation Eleven


A Labour GLC wilt


furthering its employment objectives; appropriate circumstances

use grant-aid to outside bodies as a means of

The GLC will contribute to the funding of local CDA's in
The GLC will make a grant to the projected London Federation of


(iu) The GLC will give financial support to the proposal from

Greater London Association of Trades Councils for a Trade Union Resource Centre, so as to enable the Centre to be established and to




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


Democratic Control

In Section 4 we restate our determination that the local government role

in industrial and employment policy should continue to be a shared responsibility of the Boroughs and the GLC. In Docklands, this cooperation has been reflected in the establishment of the Docklands

Joint Committee, on which the five borough councils and the GLC are represented. The TUC is also directly represented on the DJC, and in our

riew this representation should be expanded. The Docklands Joint Committee has been responsible for preparing and updating the Docklands Strategy, which should continue to form the basis of redevelopment; the idea of an Urban Development Corporation is


The Docks

people. The retention and development of the Upper Dock is as rmportant to our industrial strategy as it is for the transport of goods.

The Upper docks are an important part of London's transport network; and, in addition to direct dock work, many other jobs in East London jepend 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 working



:n Docklands. The trades unions representing dock workers have a :articular interest in future economic development in the area; we have lroposed increased trade union involvement in the DJC (para 9.2); trade union representation on the Industry and Employment Committee Recommendation 3(iii) ); we envisage trade union representation on GLEB (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 detailed rrsanisation of the Docklands Division of GLEB with the trades unions
Tlost involved.

-{t Section 4 above we outlined our proposals for a Greater London Enterprise Board. This will be the main instrument of our policies for the iegeneration of the London economy. As proposed in Recommendation :txix), one division of the Board will have special responsibility for work

Recommendation Twelve



will be the implementation of the Docklands Strategy and the retention and modernisation of the Upper Docks; A Labour GLC will work closely with the Docklands Joint
Committee to implement the strategy;
the Docklands Division of
The main instrument for industrial regeneration in dockland will be

The basis ofthe approach to the regeneration ofthe docklands area



The detailed organisation of the Docklands Division of the

-t -1

will be discussed

involved in the area.

- in



with the main trades unions


As employers the GLC and the ILEA are responsible for about 70,000 full time staff. (Further references, in this section, to the GLC include, also, ILEA as employers). The GLC is also indirectly responsible, in its role as pay-master and policy-maker, for the 60,000 staff who work for London Transport.
Three questions arising from this position are important for an incoming Labour administration:

(i) How do we use (iD

the economic power implied in being a large employer to further the objectives of our economic policy?
How do we act as a good employer? - or, how should the Labour Party put its political principles into practice when it finds itself in the position of being an employer? do we use the staff resources in order to provide the best possible service to Londoners?
The Quality of Service Audit

(iii) How

Central Government pressure on local authorities is for cost-cutting through reducing staff numbers: there is too little concern with the quality of service to the public.
In many departments staff vacancies are rising, with resultant reductions in 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 for work in - for example - the Parks, and to provide sufficient staff to ensures that those standards cannot be met.

achieve those standards. This would avoid the current practice of establishing standards and then following a manpower policy which
Recommendation Thirteen:

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

proposals for recruitment of new staff directly involved in the delivery of




GLC and Women's Work

\lthough at national level the Labour Party has a good record in passing legislation on discrimination against women, there are few women in Chief Officers' posts in local government, and relatively few women at :enior levels. The employment structure of the public services still does not adequately reflect the needs of women workers, and therefore does not provide equal access to the various grades of job.

positive discrimination.

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

Recommendation Fourteen:


Day-care facilities will be provided for the children of GLC employees, at County Hall and at other workplaces;
implement measures of positive discrimination in favour of women workers so as to increase the range of opportunities open to women within the GLC;
ensure that these assist women workers, through the development

tii) In liii)

consultation with the trades unions

a Labour GLC


Leave arrangements and hours of work will be revised so as to

of part-time work and job-sharing;


committing the GLC to positive policies to promote - opportunity in employment.

The GLC will adopt as a matter of policy an Equal Opportunities Clause, along the lines advocated by the TUC General Council,


.Tust as

EthnÍc minorities

women are under-represented in senior posts in local government, so are people from minority communities. Thus our equal opportunities

rolicy must extend also to people from minority groups.

B e shall also ensure that, in the recruitment of school leavers by the Council, particular efforts are made to provide opportunities for young 3ople from minority communities.
Recommendation Fifteen


The equal opportunities employment clause shall apply in respect

of minority groups;


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. 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 oí discourágemént 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:

will be reviewed in order to ensure Recruitment and training procedures ^at quota of disabled people. its statutory least employi that the Council and that it provides the right opportunities for school leavers'


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 serioush reduced, and industrial relations left in an embittered state' have deliberately set a rigid future cash limit on the London Fire 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 established confideice 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's

strike, 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. Manr Fire Brigadés in Grelt Britain have already gone over the 42 ho.ur week.

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


drastically revise the level of fire cover in London when the reduction in hours came. consequently to meet the deadline of the 42-hour week being introduced on 1 April, 1979 the GLC have produced an interim plan 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 first restore, and then improve upon, the I974level of fire cover.
Recommendation Seventeen: The new GLC will not regard itself as bound by any arrangements regarding the operation of the London Fire Brigade entered into by the Tories before the election, unless these are wholly and without reservation agreed between the GLC and the FBU; Essential fire cover levels will be agreed, with the FBU and Home Office with a full commitment to provide the necessary capital equipment, manpower, training etc., to reach those levels;

íiii) The programme

for major improvements to fire stations will be

fiv) A

Labour GLC will provide the resources to maintain the agreed fire cover levels, despite the growth in incidents and growing problems in dealing with them (traffic congestion etc.). We shall eri only on the side of caution; we cannot afford not to provide the

{v) A

facilities for proper maintenance;

proper reserve fleet should be provided, together with effective

{vi) The GLC will enable the Brigade to establish a fully manned fire prevention branch, staffed by operational Fire Officers within a
fully manned operational Fire Brigade to enable the backlog of Fire Prevention work to be cleared and the present workload to be efficiently 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 industrial democracy by the time of the 1977 Election. unfortunately the incoming administration chose to scrap what had been agreed.

- that m-orkpeopleshould have a greater degree of control over their lous. ttris applies as much to the public services as to other forms of economic

R"e believe that the previous

nur view


and it is central to our London Industrial Strategy


was right to move in this direction. It is


activity. In addition, advice from representatives of council employees will be extremely valuable in the formation of policy.
We do not, however, believe that the machinery of industrial democracy should be divorced from trade union structures. We therefore propose a system based on the nationally agreed arrangements for Joint Works Committees, so that trade union workplace representatives have direct access to elected members. The Joint Works Committees will operate at departmental level, with two workplace representatives from each JWC sitting 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/her workplace, b) in his/her Department, c) at policy making level, excluding

full Council/Authority, for his/her Department, and on service wide
policy matters. The way in which the suggested arrangements should apply to London Community Builders, the new direct Labour organisation, is described at Section 5 (Recommendations 6(v) and 6(vi) above).
There is one further area of considerable importance to which industrial
democracy needs to be extended. At the moment there is no participation by GLC employees in the decisions concerning the GLC Superannuation Fund. This is unacceptable. The management of the fund implies an enormous responsibility for the savings of GLC workers. They should not be excluded from a say in those decisions.

Recommendation Eighteen:


There should be Joint Works Committees at the level of each GLC department, modelled as closely as possible on the provisions in the relevant national agreements;

(ii) The

employees' side of each Joint Works Committee will be workplace representatives elected by trades unionists within the Department concerned;
The employers' side will be elected members of the

GLC committee


(iu) In order

that these arrangements should work effectively' their introduction will be accompanied by an agreement recognising


participation in these bodies as qualifying for time-off, and providing office, secretarial, and resources assistance; Two workplace representatives from among the employees' side or each JWC will serve as non-voting members of the relevant GLC


Arrangements will be made to extend industrial democracy to the management of the GLC Superannuation Fund by the election of member trustees through arrangements to be negotiated with the unions; undertaken in consultation with the unions with membership of the

(vii) The introduction of measures of industrial deocracy will GLC.

10.8 Flexibility
We have proposed the introduction of a career structure more open to women and people from minority communities. But enabling people to

recognise their full potential should concern socialists as public employers in relation to all employees. Local government has many artificial barriers: between departments, between professions, and
between grades

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

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

To ease these transfers, there may be a case for giving them priority in applying for these vacancies. For senior, and for highly specialised staff there will be more difficulties. However, these will be much fewer in
number. There will also be a need for retraining facilities. Recommendation Nineteen:

(r) GLC (ii)

grading structures should be reorganised so as to create an integrated service-wide salary and career structure, with no artificial department, professional, or blue collar/white colour barriers;

The Council's commitment to retraining for staff whose present function is eliminated should be increased;


These proposals should be the subject of full consultation with the unions with membership among GLC staff. Wages and Conditions

Traditionally, the

GLC has been outside the national wages and conditions negotiations for local government. However, for the most part this position has not been used to better the offers made through national machinery.
While many GLC staff are relatively well paid, there are pockets of low
pay among manual staff in some departments. It is suggested that there is a case for: reversing the traditional position, and deliberately setting out to pay higher wages; establishing a GLC minimum wage to eliminate low pay in GLC employment; and moving towards a shorter working week.

A Labour GLC will

reintroduce a Union Membership Agreement for manual employees and will commence negotiations for a Union Membership Agreement covering other grades.
Recommendation Twenty:

(i) A (iD

Labour GLC will seek to better the rates for local government employment negotiated under national agreements;

A minimum wage - based on data about the cost of living in London - will be introduced, to eliminate low pay from within the GLC;
There will be negotiatíons to reduce the working week;

(in) The Union Membership Agreement for manual staff will be reinstated, and negotiations commenced to introduce similar
agreements for all grades.

adaptation of the London economy to technological change. We have agreed that, in so far as the Labour GLC will have any control we are determined to see that change takes place in the interests of working people, not in the interests of employers. Similarly when new technology - word processors, visual display units, and more recent developments - is introduced within the GLC, we will negotiate with staff about the way in which this is done. We are interested in new technology in order to improve our service to the people of London - not in order to cut jobs. Recommendation Twenty One:

10.10 Technological Change Much of the London Industrial Strategy will be concerned with


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

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

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 of London, and some groups of workers, endure high levels of unemployment, 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 to accept jobs that pay less. To avoid this trap, we again see a need for planned, democratically controlled public intervention. Manpower problems require action by the



(and the

ILEA) on two

(i) (ii) ll.2

By influencing the number and size of employment enterprises in London. The proposals under Section 4 "The Role of the Public Sector" will, we believe, create employment in London. However labour market problems remain and so the need for:Influencing the size and structure of the labour market itself. This includes providing opportunity for workers in the Capital to train and retrain in necessary skills and making job mobility easier. The London Manpower Plan

Many firms and industries in London have found problems in recruiting and retraining the right labour. Thus London needs a manpower policy, that complements our industrial strategy. Such a manpower policy would rnclude training workers for the right employment, re-training workers
for new jobs (an increasingly important task with growing technological change), and helping the unemployed in London by job creation schemes, training courses to enable them to seek employment and active help in getting jobs.

Already in Britain and in London we have the elements of

manpower policy. At a national level, the MSC is responsible for national manpower planning and has played an important role in London with its schemes for the unemployed and for training and re-training. The MSC Strategy for London provides some useful steps towards a plan for London manpower problems. At a Borough level many Boroughs, particularly under Labour control, have played an important role. We do



not seek to interfere at either level; we envisage a continuing and expanding role for the Boroughs and the MSC. However, because of the scale of the problem, and because we feel there is a need for a greater public sectoi role, we want to evolve a London Manpower Plan, which will build upon some of the work contained in the MSC Strategy for London.


The Anarchy of training

Many different agencies are involved in training - among them the MSC,

the Industrial Training Boards, schools and colleges of further education and many voluntary agencies in the private sector. In some areas of work the 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 specific courses where necessary, but above all would try and get some co-ordination between all the agencies operating in London. And the what is provided by all the various agencies and publicise this throughout

level of publicity for many courses that are provided is very low and a London Manpo*er Plan would seek to gather information above exactly London.

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

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

11.4 Linking Training with Education
Close co-ordination is needed between schools and colleges, the youth service and the various industrial agencies and the MSC. At the moment each '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 be expanding educational facilities to cater more for those who are not at

présent the main users - in particular working adults and the ünemployed. Technological change' attitudes to work' the growth of shorter working time, more job changes and rising unemployment all
make this area more important.

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


and colleges. Most young people leaving school are just not prepared for

- they know little of unemployment conditions or employment 'rights', trade unions and the whole nature of collective bargaining. The level of careers advice in schools is still very low. We need to encourage greater links between schools and industry - making use of industrial tutors and others involved in trade union or management training to give guidance and advice in schools (and not just for the non-academic!). We ought to encourage work experience schemes for staff and pupils, again not just for the non-academic, or just limited to factory experience; but our approach to work experience schemes must not be an uncritical one. Work experience must be monitored in conjunction with the trade unions.
Links need to be seriously developed between local industries and trade

unions and schools. And

considerably more resources, wíth a review of courses for senior pupils in schools and the provision of careers resource centres for school staff.

in particular, the careers service



Young Workers and Youth Unemployment

The Labour movement's goal is nothing less than the provision of

examining the different situations in which young people find themselves.

a job or training place for every young person. We shall use our position in London to move towards that end. This aim can only be realised by

Some school-leavers at 16 or 17-plus will have obtained employment; of these, some will have jobs requiring skills and will be given day-release or

allowed to attend Training Centres. Others will be in unskilled or semi-skilled work and are unlikely to receive any structured

education/training; those people who take on this latter type of job are likely to require support and guidance which can be provided through schemes such as the unified vocational preparation programme (UVP) which was sponsored by the previous government. The ILEA and employers should take a much more positive attitude to such schemes and training even if not directly related to the job concerned. Encouragement should be given to young people to attend courses on basic education, life and social skills; craft training will help young people who may wish eventually to commence on skill training or who are required to change their job in later life.

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

'oversee' training programmes in London.

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



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


The Long Term Unemployed

long periodsof unemployment. For many older workers, the possibility of finding a new job is remote and they may well have to face fifteen to twenty years without work.

An incresingly large part of the labour force is having to resign itself to

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


The Greater London Manpower Board

There is a need for a body, on the lines of the MSC, which would fulfill the roles of the present national MSC and TSA but in the London Area. There would be considerable advantage in setting up such a board on a

tripartite basis with GLC representatives and representatives from London employers and unions. A solely GLC board or Council sub-committee would not be as useful in bringing in the experience of those involved in industry in quite the same way as a semi-autonomous
body could.

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


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

to improve and expand the training and re-training

Board's first task would be to draw up the London Manpower Plan

Londoners, generallyto promote the needs of Londoners in employment ne-eds of London industry and commerce and to and the "-!loy-"nt the unemployed and for particu1ar groups of help for provide .p"liuí Lo.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.

schemes for'

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'buildingonthework already undertaken for the MSC's Strategy for, London; to advisethelEConmanpowerplanningandlabourmarket


problems, and to seek to co-ordinate the work of statutory' voluntary and commercial agencies in this field; To provide co-ordination for training activities in I'ondon' to


áreas like hótels and catering or construction) and to Set up new schemes for training and re-training for Londoners;

(.) To (d) (e)

provide job and training schemes and day education centres for the unemPloYed; To provide particular help to the 16-19' to

ethnic minority groups aná other groups experiencing special problems; To develop forms of work. experience, -monitored in conjunction with the trades unions concerned;



To provide advice to workers on training schemes-in general; in particular for redundant and unemployed workers;
for á// workers in the London area and to work closely with the

MSC and the London Boroughs in this regard;
will be established on



a tripartite basis with representatives



(iii) The GLMB will

operations will be under the control of the Board;

report regularly to the IEC of the GLC and a will be provided annually to the GLMB; day to day

(iu) The GLMB will employ its own staff; (u) The GLC will provide sufficient finance to provide the staff and to provide money for the provision of training schemes, help for
educational and careers schemes and for schemes to provide short term employment and training for unemployed Londoners;

(ui) The IEC will

press the MSC to improve the quality of its basic service of matching people to jobs;

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

11.9 Manpower Policy
Local authority housing

and Housing Policy

is hard for the working person moving to London to obtain; houses today in London can cost three of four times more than property in other parts of the country. A skilled worker intending to leave a part of the country where there may be limited job opportunities and come to London where there is a skill shortage may be unable to purchase

Similarly, skilled workers sometimes move away from London in order to be able to buy their own homes. There may, therefore, be a need to put forward various schemes to provide "key" workers with housing.
a property or to obtain a mortgage.

We say deliberately that there 'may' be a need: for it is hypocritical of those employers who pay low wages to say that their workers cannot afford housing.
principle of allocating housing resources according to housing need, there will be ways in which measures of housing policy can contribute to the achievement of the aims of the London Manpower Plan and the London Industrial Strategy. Those who want to continue to live and work in London should be encouraged - and enabled - to stay. Recommendation Twenty Three

However, while Labour's housing policy remains committed to the

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

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





Encouraging Housing Associations to bear in mind the importance of key workers when allocating property;
flat sharing scheme. This could be particularly useful inrespect of young appréntices who may well be the key employees of

(iu) A



Short-term lettings for key workers as defined above to use as a temporary 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 by the establishment of new employment enterprises in that Borough. Another location such as Brenf or Ealing may provide a better location

for 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 part of 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.


importance if fares are abolished or reduced. If however the fares system is ietained, then there will be a case for considering differential public transport subsidies on employment grounds. Close liaison is required between GLEB and London Transport.

to the public transport service will be of particular

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 shown that 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 budgetary policy speaksiouder thán iheir words. In 1980/81, total capital spending 'on (most of which is loans anyhow) -is p]1nled..!o be f7 ".ttptoy-ent million - óut of a total GLC capital programme of. t375.3 million.

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

GLC revenue

So much for economic regeneration under Cutler.

12.3 Labour's Economic Policy


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

(i) (ii)

The extent to which in 798712 funds cap be switched within the
existing budget to enable new activities to be started; The speed with which new staff can be recruited and new initiatives commenced; specific precept

(iii) Our


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 that spending will occur during the lifetime of a 1981-5 Council. The estimated costs are at Novembe r 1919 price levels - the same basis as the most recent GLC budget. Table One lists the recommendations of the report, showing

(a) (b)

The year in which it is proposed to implement a proposal; The proposed level of spending on a proposal in each of the first three years of the Council;

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

(u) (b) (")

the scale and source of existing budget transfers in 198112

which that precept will be levied;

the amount to be precepted in subsequent years, and the power with

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 accordance with the Council's powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act. Table Three groups those headings, expenditure on which is to be funded under 5137 of the 1972 Local Government Act (the power to levy a 2p rate).

Table Four lists the amounts which it is proposed to transfer out of GLC budgets for Industry and Employment, and for Strategic Policy Formulation. Present budgetary provision is as follows:
existing 48

lndustry and Employment:
Strategic Policy Formulation:

Capital Net Revenue
Net Revenue



7,000,000 2,865,000 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 assumptions outlined so far;
Table Seven shows the implications for the precept.


on the


1. To be 2. To 3.

structure, MaY 1981.

implemented as part





be implemented in 1981,12 by transferring funds from Tory Strategic Éo[cy Formulation and Employment Budget - thereafter by prJcept un-der 5137, "J'972 Local Government Act, or under

4. 5. 6.

existing GLC Powers. To be implemented immediately after election by transfer of funds from Tory Employment Budgét; thereafter á from 5137, á from Inner Urban Areaó Act. Specifying that these costs are to be met in this 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. GLEB will be enabled to start its investment programme int98L12 by 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' Science Park spending to come from GLEB budget' 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 Industry and Employment Recommendations:
Target Implementation Dates Incidence of Expenditure 1981-4

Recommendation ImplementationI9Sl.12 L98213 1,98314 Notes



Cost Cost €000 f000



3. Institution


May 1981



4(i) Economic Policy Group 5(ii) GLEB - admin


250 500

500 750

500 750


from 1981 1,98u2

5(ix) GLEB 4
5 6


5,000 70,000 100,000


6(i) Science Parks 7. London Comm. Builders starlt up costs

May 1981



-500 500 200 509


8(iv) Institution
7 8 9

of Fair Lists


7 8

8(v) Product

Register 9(ii) Code of Practice for ContÍactoÍs
L0. Municipal

from L981 from 1981

50 50
100 1,000


10 11

11. Grant-aid

from 1981

May 1981

Day care

500 1,000 1,000
5,000 5,000


10 11


17. Restoration of fire service 18. Industrial


15 76

Democracy 22(i) GLMB admin costs

May 1981
from 1981

100 500

100 500


22(v) GLMB programmes


L979 Survey Prices



Cost of administering fair list system. f O.25mto be transferred from existing 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 from


this 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 of Í50,000 from existing employment budget in 1981'12' Thereafter charge on 5137 precept.


Cost of starting new municipal enterprise, including loan of starting capital 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 of spending in early years will be capital, then revenue' f5 million per annum increase in London Fire Brigade budset in

real 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



industrial democracy to be charge on


administrative arrangements to support GLC establishment expenses. met by transfer from existing be Initial admin costs of GLMB to Inner Urban Areas Act on thereafter á employment budget; precept,ton S137. GLMB programmes to be fundedSfrom Inner Urban Areas Act precept;$from 5137; it is the intention also to attract funds from other sources, such as the MSC.


Table Two Expenditure to be financed under Inner Urban Areas Act



1 2 3 4 5

GLEB - admin GLEB - investment GLMB - admin GLMB - Programmes
1979 SurveY Prices

(Table One - Line 3) (Table One - Line 4) (Table One - Line 15) (Table one - Line 1ó)

0.375 30.00 0.330 7.000 37.70s





0.330 10.000 60.705


Table Three Expenditure to be Financed under 5137, 1972lacal Government Act Line l




Sm 0.s





GL[]B investment
Fair List
Administration Product register ContÍactors Code of Conduct Grant Aid

(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)

0.5 0.375 30.000
0.4 0.2

30.000 0.4 0.2 0.05


6 7 8 9


- admin


0.05 0.25 0.170 3.000

0.170 3.000 35.195

l0 Total
1979 Survey Prices

Table Four Transfers ouÚ of Existing Industry & Employment' & Strategic Policy Formulation Budgets in financial year l98ll2


t98t 12

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Programme Establishment of EPG Admin costs of GLEB

GLEB investment funds LCB start-up costs

(Table (Table (Table (Table

2) One - Line 3) One - Line 4)
One - Line One - Line 6)



To be repaid at normal rates by end of 1983/4 Fair Lists
Product register Code of Practice for Contractors Grant Aid Admin costs of GLMB Total
1979 Survey Prices

(Table (Table (Table (Table (Table

7) One - Line 8) One - Line 9) One - Line 11) One - Line 15)
One - Line


0.25 0.05 0.05





Table Five Additional Items on GLC Establishment Costs

198U2 t98213



Day care Admin for Industrial

(Table One - Line


im 0.1

f,m 1.0




(Table One - Line 14)

0.025 0.1


1979 SurveY Prices

GLEB: Investment Income: Cash Flow

Table Six

lm fm f,m lgmls te83l4 1982t3 ts8jrt2


1 2 3 4 5 6

Inner Urban Areas PrecePt 5137 Precept SuPerannuation Cash Flow

(Table 4 -



(Table 2 -

30 30

50 30 20

50 30 30

Line 2)
(Table 3



(See note below)


Loan rePayments

(See note 2 below) 70

1979 SurveY Prices



Notes to Table Six

are illustrative and notional' 1. Figures for Superannuation Fund income to agreement of member subiect cash-flow fund Availability ot.up".uonu"tl*

2. Á


has been used' delib"r"tely low estimate of the rate of return






fm Íage Ím Íage Ím fage amount amount amount
Inner Urban

Areas Act

s131 19'72


Line 5)

(Table 2



37.705 1.98 60.',10s 3.2

(Table 3 -

Line 10)
(Table 5 (Table 1 13)

34.94s 1.84 35.195



Increased Establishment Costs Improvements to Fire Service

Line 3)


1.1 0.06 5


0.06 0.26




1979 Survey Prices



Note: Table seven assumes that the yield of a precept of lp is Í19 million

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.

Recommendation One: The local government role in employment policy should continue to he shared between the GLC and the boroughs, with greater coordinatioÍl to meet the aims of an agreed Strategy' (Para 4.2). Recommendation Ttvo: A Labour GLC will, in conjunction with the London Boroughs, be responsible for drawing up, and co-ordinating the implementation of the London Industrial Strategy. (Para 4.3).

Recommendation Three:



one The Industry and Employment Committee (IEC should be of the main Standing Committees of the GLC; The IEC's terms of reference should be as follows: and in a) To advise the Council on all matters of economic policy' London; particular the economic regeneration of Greater 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); Building supervise the creation of a unified Direct Labour d) the ' To serve to orgu.ti.ution - London Community Builders to be subseque:rtly and Council anJ othet public bodies Community London of work the responsible ioi ou"'i"eing S,rita".. (see section'5 below);

e) f) -'

To control the activities of existing municipale nterprise


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


g) O'

stimulate itl" á"u"rJp*ent of new municipal enterprise; section 7 below); Manpower To supervise the activities of the Greater London below); 11 sou.á (GLMB); (see section To provide grant aid to bodies concerned with employment polüy in Gr"eater London; (see section 8 below); members, the IEC should include trade unionists and representatives

íiii) In addition to elected GLC \'r' il;;;j;;;.;b;hit*-opted
of London MPs. (Para 4'4)'
Recommendation Four:

(i) (ii)

there Rather than establishing an-other Countv Hall Directorate' IEC' the advise to (bpc) roti'y Group should v" u" its i".p""'iur" foi-ára*ing up the oveiall'strategy and ensuring proposals; coórdinatio with Borough Adviser to The Principal Officer oithe EPG (the Chief Economic Board. officers' chief the of memb'er full the council) ,no.,iJu"u


Recommendation Five:

(D (ii)

London Industrial The main vehicle for the implementation of the Board (GLEB); Enterprise Londo' Ct"atei Strategy *iff U"1tre costs of GLEB will be clearly identified as a The aáministrative -tn" GLC, and not on any investment funds direct charg" on

(iii) GLEB will
(iv) Any

investment function shall remain in the ownership of GLEB and be leased to the enterprise concerned; (ui) Such leases will include clauses covering minimum wages, and working conditions within the enterprise; or for homeworkers linked with the Enterprise; (vii) On major projects, such as the proposed industry or science park, (viii) The standing instructions to GLEB will preclude the possibility of inducements or assistance being offered to a firm seeking to move from one of the regions of high structural unemployment to Greater London;


"development"; intervention by GLEB in pursuit of any of its investment functions will be conrJitional upon agreement between GLEB, the enterprise, and the Unions concerned, covering in particular future patterns of employment and investment in the enterprise;
Premises acquired, c<tnstructed or refurbished by

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

available to the Board from other sources; have three main investment functions "investment to

of its development


in pursuit

GLEB will co-ordinate

the three investment functions to one end;


The GLC will fund GLEB from its own resources, including the rate precept - and the Inner lJrban Areas Act and section 137 of the I972 Local Governrnent Act in particular; reserves, and capital
receipts; Second, once the Latrour


GLC has extended to the members of the GLC Supperannuation Fund a say in decisions about their pensions, we will negotiate with the Trustees so that GLEB will be able to
attract a substantial and rising proportion of the cash-flow to the fund; and having sought the consent of our employees to do likewise with theirs, we shall seek funds through Borogh pension funds; other public and private soctor pension funds, and from other financial institutions;

(*i) Third, having backed GLEB with the GLC's own money,

sources of funds can be tied to specific investment functions; (xiii) The IEC will lay down for GLEB investment objectives and target rates of return; those targets may vary as between the different

(xii) In addition (item (ii) above) ro covering GLEB's adminisrrative costs, the GLC's own resources will be used in particular for fund "investment to promote strategic or structural change". Specific


investment functions;

within the London Industrial Strategy, specialised facilities for help

GLEB will

also have a servicing function - providing, for firms

(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; Trustees of (xviiipepending on the precise agreement reached with the the proportion'of a of GLC Superannuution tund íor the investent
primarily of (xix) The internal organisation oj Qf,nn will be formed sectors. But industrial par.ticular with work for divisions."rponJibl" industrial of there will also be divisions responsible for forms organisation, and for Docklands; for the (xx) Specifically, one section of GLEB will be responsible co-operatives' producer new encouragement of, for assistance to'
(Para 4.6). Recommendation Six for consultation cash-flow of the fund, arrangements will be made members; Board of ap*pointment with the Trustees on the

with sales, packaging, advertising, design and exports;

(i) \/ A

Labour GLC, in conjunction with London's major scientific institutions, will establish, as a part of the London Industrial the sliut"gy, x r"u.i on" ,'í"n'" park, the first probably in Docklands area. un (ii) The aim of the Science Park project will be to-"tlt^lt" scientific of environment in which the prodúctive application i"."ut"tt in high-technology industry can be rnade easier' individual scientists to start (iii) \ -/ The Park will include 'starter units' for small enterprises could up proOuction; iuig". premises,.to .which ,seed bed' in which individual factories, ánd e*pana in due "oui'"; and develop new test could workers, groups'of scientists, or

(iu) fn" CIC


would improve the. environment of the Park; and would a canteen also provide such central services as day cq.e for children' 4'7)' (para and iome recreational facilities'

Recommendation Seven:

(i) All


building workers presently emloyed by the Council London brought within a unified Direct Labour Organisation CommunitY Builders; and any other LCB will be independent ^9{ jh:" Housing Committee, sub and Officer departments, with iis own Chief

should be

(iii) All

(iu) Within


senior posts in LCB will be recruited by open advertisement; two years of the election, LCB will aim to carry ot 100o/o of the maintenance conversion and small works programme of the Council. By then, it will be ready to tender for all capital work; and will aim to undertake - initially - 50% of capital work. LCB will also undertake repalr work for other public bodies;This does not mean undertaking wo'rk done by other public bodies' own employees; There will be a Joint Works Committee for LCB, along the lines

reporting to the IEC;

recommendation 18 below); (vi) In addition, two stewards elected by the LCB workforce through normal trade union machinery will sit as non-voting members of the Sub-Committee. And two full time officials of trade unions with membership in the constuction industry (though not as individuals involved in ne,gotiations within LCB) will serve as co-opted members; (vii) By the time it is fully operational, LCB will employ its full quota of disabled workers; (viii) Apprenticeships will be expanded; LCB will aim for a ratio of one apprentice to every five skilled workers; (i*) LCB will also receive suitable retrained workers from Government Skill Centres; (*) The administration of housing repairs will be decentralised, so that as far as possible groups of workers will be attached to particular estates; to facilitate this, there will be a review of depot facilities; (^i) To assist in meeting the needs of smaller estates, there will be discussions with the trades unions in order to introduce


for the GLC as a whole (see section 10


(xii) There will be a review of the system of ordering repair work, so as to ensure 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 joint
(xiv) should meet all the financial accounting and cost control systems laid down by CIPFA or by legislation. (Section 5) Responsibility for the
management committees

multi-skilled herndyman posts;



Recommendation Eight:


GLC Supplies Department will lie with a GLC members, reporting to the IEC; (ii) A Labour GLC will use the economic power of the GLC's
Board or Sub-Committee of

purchasing operation to further the ends of the London Industrial

(iii) Building on


the Labour Clauses in the GLC's existing Standing Orders, a code of practice, to be observed by all suppliers to the GLC, will be drawn up, incorporating requirements on wages and conditions, health and safety, and trade union rights, and including

compliance with the Low Pay lJnit's Code

of Conduct


(iu) In conjunction with the relevant trades unions, 'fair lists' of


enterprises within Greater London, will be introduced in conjunction with the London Industrial Strategy; (ui) Provision will be made to ensure that new co-operative and public enterprises can act as suppliers to the Council. (Para 6.2).

suppliers complying with the GLC Supplies Code of Practice will be drawn up. Other public bodies will be encouraged to confine their purchasing to 'fair list' suppliers; A computer-based directory and product register, covering

Recommendation Nine:

(i) (ii)

It will become GLC practice that all jobs must be offered internally first, and shown to be beyond the technical expertise of GLC staff, before consultants can be brought in; A code of practice for contractors will be drawn up, in conjunction with the relevant unions; no firm not in compliance with the code will be permitted to tender for any council work, or admitted to any Council list of contractors; The code will include requirements on wages and conditions, health and safety, and trade union rights, and will specifially prohibit the employment of lump labour; As far as electrical contracting is concerned, the GLC will revert to

previous Labour practice, and restrict contracts to firms in membership of Joint Industry Board. (Para 6.3).

Recommendation Ten:


London Industrial Strategy, the Economic Policy Group will be asked to identify services or products suitable for new municipal enterprises; In the development of new municipal enterprise the GLC will seek
In the preparation of the

including the other metropolitan counties; A Labour GLC will restore the capacity to build London's buses in

to promote consortium working with


local authorities

London by establishing Recommendation Eleven:

to IEC, with appropriate measures of industrial democracy;

a bus

plant, managed by a board answerable

(i) A

(ii) The GLC willl

Labour GLC will use grant-aid to outside bodies as a means of furthering its employment objectives;
appropriate ciícumstances; The GLC will rnake a grant to the projected London federation of

contribute to the funding of local CDA's in

(iu) The GLC will give financial support to the proposal from


Greater London Association of Trades Councils for a Trade Union Resource Centre, so as to enable the Centre to be established and to function; The GLC will grant-aid, and assist in such other ways as may be appropriate, groups of workers seeking to develop alternative products, or the resources for alternative production; The GLC will be prepared to assist with grant-aid action research projects in such fields as home-working, low pay, and womens'

work. (Section 8).

Recommendation Twelve:

(i) (ii)

The basis of the approach to the regeneration of the docklands area will be the implementation of the Docklands Strategy and the

retention and rnodernisation of the upper Docks; A Labour GLCwill work closely with the Docklands Joint Committee to implement the strategy; The main instrument for industrial regneration in dockland will be the Docklands Division of GLEB; The detailed organisation of the Docklands Division of the GLEB will be discussed - in particular - with the main trades unions involved in the area. (Secion 9).

Recommendation Thirteen: Each 'seryice' committee of the Labour GLC at its first meeting, and thereafter at six-monthly intervals, will consider a 'Quality of Service Audit' report, covering the level of public service the Council aims to provide; the extent to which current provision matches that level; the extent to which any shortfall is attributable to staffing problems; and proposals for recruitment of new staff directly involved in the delivery of service. (Para 10.2). 60

Recommendation Fourteen


(i) (ii)

Daycare facilities will be provided for the children of GLC employees, at County Hall and at other workplaces; In consultation with the trades unions a Labour GLC will implement measures of positive discrimination in favour of women workers so as to increase the range of opportunities open to women within the GLC; Leave arrangements and hours of work will be revised so as to ensure that these assist women workers, through the development of part-time work and job-sharing; The GLC will adopt as a matter of policy an Equal'opportunities Clause, along the lines advocated by the TUC General Council, committing the GLC to positive policies to promote equal opportunity in employment. (Para 10.3).

Recommendation Fifteen

(i) (ii)

The Equal Opportunities Employment Clause shall apply in respect

of minority groups; 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. (Para 10.4).

Recommendation Sixteen:

Recruitment and training procedures will be reviewd in order to ensure that the Council employs at least its statutory quota of disabled people,
Recommendation Seventeen:

and that it provides the right opportunities for school leavers. (Para 10.5).

(i) (ii)

The new GLC will not regard itself as bound by any arrangements regarding the operation of the London Fire Brigade entered into by the Tories before the election, unless these are wholly and without reservation agreed between the GLC and the FBU; Essential fire cover levels will be agreed, with the FBU and Home Office with a full commitment to provide the necessary capital equipment, manpower, training etc, to reach those levels; The programme for major improvements to fire stations will be accelerated; A Labour GLC will provide the resources to maintain the agreed fire cover levels, despite the growth in incidents and growing prob61,


(ui) The GLC will

facilities for proper maintenance: enable the Brigade to establish a fully manned fire prevention branch, staffed by operational Fire Officers within a fully manned operational Fire Brigade to enable the backlog of Fire Prevention work to be cleared and the present workload to be efficiently dealt with. (vii) The London Fire Brigade's river fire service will be restored. (Para

lems in dealing with them (traffic congestion etc.) We shall err only on the side of caution; we cannot afford not to provide the resou rces; A proper reserve fleet should be provided, together with effective

Recommendation Eighteen:

(i) (ii)

There should be Works Committees at the level of each GLC
department, modelled as closely as possible on the provisions in the relevant national agreements; The employee's side of each Joint Works Committee will be work-

place representatives elected by trades unionists within the
Department concerned;
The employers'side will be elected members of the

GLC committee

(iu) In order that these arrangements should work effectively, their introduction will be accompanied by an agreement recognizing

participation in these bodies as qualifying for time-off and providing office, secretarial, and resource assistance; (u) Two workplace representatives from among the employee's side of each JWC will serve as non-voting members of the relevant GLC committee. (ui) Arrangements will be made to extend industrial democracy to the management of the GLC Superannuation Fund by the election of member trustees through arrangements to be negotiated with the unions; (vii) The introduction of measures of industrial democracy will be undertaken 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 an integrated service-wide salary and career structure, withe no artificial department, professional, or blue/white collar barriers;



The Council's commitment to retraining for staff whose present function is eliminated should be increased; These proposals should be the subject of full consultation with the unions-wiih membership among GLC staff. (Para 10.8)

Recommendation Twenty:

(i) A (ii)

Labour GLC will seek to better the rates for local Government employment negotiated under national agreements; A minimum wage - based on data about the cost of living in London - will be introdúced, to eliminate low pay from within the GLC; There will be negotiations to reduce the working week: The union Membership Agreement for manual staff will be reinstated, and negotiations commenced to introduce similar agreements for all grades. (Para 10.9).

Recommendation Twenty

introduced into the GLC without negotiations with the trades unions concerned, covering -Áning levels' hJalth and safety, and other aspects. (Para 10.10).

one: No technological innovation will


Recommendation TwentY Two:


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 work already being undertaken for the MSC's StrategY{or London; to advise thJIEC on manpower planning and Labour market problems, 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,

(c) (d) (e) (f)

help for industrial training boards (particularly in ptouid" ^areas like hótels and catering or construction) and to Set up new schemes for training and re-training for Londeners; , ' To provide job and training schemes and day education centres for the unemPloYed; To provide particular help to the 16-19 year old group' to ethnic minority groups and other groups experiencing social
problems; To develop forms of work experience, monitored in conjunction with the trades unions concerned; To provide advice to enterprises on labour needs and labour supply;


(g) (h) (ii)

tives from the

(iii) The GLMB will report regularly to the IEC of the GLC and a budget will be provided annually to the GLMB. Day to day
(iu) The GLMB will employ its own staff; (u) The GLC will provide sufficient finance
operations would be under the control of the Board;
to provide the staff and to


GLMB will be established on a tripartite basis with representaGLC and the ILEA, and trades unions and London

To provide advice to workers on training schemes in general, in particular for redundant and employed workers; To provide help for the expansion of training and education foral/ workers in the London area and to work closely with the MSCI and the London Borough in this regard;

provide rnoney for the provision of training schemes, help for


educational and careers schemes and for schemes to provide short term employment and training for umployed Londers; The IEC will press the MSC to improve the quality of its basic service of matching people to jobs; Greater resources will be devoted to the ILEA Careers Service.

(Para 11.8).

Recommendation Twenty Three: (i)

The provision of


100o/o mortgages by the GLC. An arrangement with Building Societies, and in the Council's own


mortgage lending policy, whereby key workers in firms involved in the London Industrial Strategy (see recommendation 5 (iv) above) may be given priority consideration for mortgages; Encouraging Housing Associations to bear in mind the importance

(iu) A

of key workers when allocating property;


flat sharing scheme. This could be particularly useful in respect of young apprentices who may well be the key employees of tomorrow; Short-term lettings for key workers as defined above to use as a temporary base whilst more permanent arrangements are made, e.g. house purchase. (Para 11.9).

Recommendation Twenty Four:

We therefore call upon the movement to endorse the following proposals:



switch of f5 million capital, and f 1.95 million revenue, in the existing employment budget in l98ll2


(ii) iiii;

An increase in the precept of 4'2p in 1'98213 A further increase in the precept of 1'2p in 1983/4' (Section L2)'

Annexe One Leasing Clauses tpűiZ.e and Recommendation 5(vi) refer)
clauses Draft clauses for the leasing of industrial premises' These. for provisions leasing normaÍ the a." áe.ig.rea to be added"to industrial Premises'

The Lessee covenants:


of labour to pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions those than favourable and standards of liealth and safety no less is work the where district the in established for trre,liaJe or industry the which to or arbitration áinegotiation carried out by -u-"il^i*y trade



trade every person.employed to permit witho,r, t", o, hindrance each and recognised to any union trade i"dependent by the Lessee to;tin *y for any p.'.po."i of cóllective bargaining' or all of the "*t"r't (in) in the event of any question arisin-g as to whether any observed being requirement. .f^iíi: ó;venant oithi. Lease are otherwise not if shall whether i" *ftof" ot in part the question Lease be referred settled or oisposeá ót u"t*"".' the parties to this b9 nominated by may which deciiion for m"nal io u" i"a"p"tia*it thereof to an the Secretary of stut" for Employment or in default Lease and this to parties i"á"p*a""ít iron"iug.""d between the tribunal independent to agreemeni or in default of such nomiiation lrssor' the by purpose nominated for this (u) to observe ttre provisions of the Homeworking Code of Conduct as aPProPriate.

parties u." orgJni*iióí' or émployers and independent b*'u.rior', ,""ogniíJ to any extent fór tire purp9'':' of ::l'.::']:"of the proportions substantial of gaining repr"*tt";i"" ;spectively workers engaged in the tiade orlndustry in the.district',^ iái". or *'g"s hours of conditions or standards in"tt uu*n'." ""v "r " the Lessee shall pay rates of of health uno 'urcií_.o-establiíhed of labour and standards of conditions and ou."*" rloois *"g". ""0 healthandsafety-whi"t'u'"notlessfavourablethanthegeneral safety ná"i', .o"ditions'and standards of health and jn ot*ug"., i"*i the circu_mstances general oí."*"o u"v ótt'"' "i'ptoy"" whose slmllar' are engaged is Irssee the or inóustry in whictr


to display at all times during the continuance of this Lease for the information of all employees in every factory, workshop or place occupied or used by the Lessee for the execution of this Lease and to supply 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 and contracts.




standing orders on tenders

Compliance with standing orders and code of practice

H1(76) -

contracts made by the Council or by a committee thereof shall 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 shall contain fair-wages clauses as follows:-

(1) The contractor shall at all times during the continuance of this contract abide by, perform, observe, fulfil and keep all and singular the provisions following that is to say: (1) The contÍactor shall in respect of all persons employed by

him whether in and about the execution of this contract of

otherwise (except legally-bound apprentices for whom no rates of wages and hours and conditions of labour have been established) pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions of labour not less favourable to such persons than the rates, hours and conditions established for the trade or industry in the district

where the work is carried out, by machinery of negotion or

arbitration the parties to which are associations of employers and trade unions representative respectively of substantial proportions of the employers and workers engaged in the trade or industry in the district; (ii) In the absence of any rates of wages, hours or conditions of labour so established the contractor shall in respect of all persons employed by him as aforesaid pay rates of wages and observe hours and conditions of labour that are not less favourable to


such persons than those in practice paid and observed by good employers in the district where the work is carried out whose general circumstances in the trade or industry in which the contractor 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 of

labour prescribed by any wages regulation order for the time being in force pursuant to the Wages Councils Act 1959 or any statulory modification thereof for the time being in force, if and

so far as those rates, hours and conditions are more favourable to

such persons than the rates, hours and conditions prescribed by the foregoing paragraphs of this caluse; (iv) The contractor shall also perform and observe all and singular the terms, stipulations and provisions of agreements between associations of employers and trade unions or awards affecting

any trade or trades employed by him and on the part of employers to be performed and observed. Provided that nothing hérein contained shall be construed as preventing the operation of any recognised or prevailing rules as to overtime; (v) The contractor shall not do or knowingly suffer to be done any act or thing intended or calculated to discourage any person or persons employed or about to be employed by him, whether in connection with this contract or otherwise, from becoming or continuing as a member or members of a trade union or trade unions, aÁd *ill not in any way penalize any such person by reason of his membership of a trade union; (vi) The contractor shall at all times during the continuance of this contract display and keep displayed' (on the site of the works and) in every faótory,, workshop or place occupied or used by the coníractor in and about the execution of this contract in a position in which the same may easily be read by all persons in his employ a clearly printed or written copy of the foregoing paragrapns of this clause, with the addition of a heading or title as follows:

'Greater London Council - Contract for....... - Copy of Labour

Clauses' and a footnote as follows:Complaints made by, or on behalf of, employees aS to non-compliance on the part of öontractors wit^h oi infrigement of the terms of the labour clauses imposed by the Couniil will not be recognized if made more than three cálendar months from the date when the alleged breach occurred: 67

produce to such officer or officers of the Council as the said clerk rrnay 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 of hours worked by him (distinguishing between normal time and overtime), his trade, and the rates of wages and the amount of wages actually paid to him; and (viii) In the event of any question arising whether the requirernents of this clause have been or are being observed, such cluestion shall, if not otherwise disposed of, be referred forthwith fbr decision to an independent tribunal to be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment, and the decision of such tribunal shall be final. (2) Should the contractor at any time during the continuance of this contract fail to pay to any person employed by him in and about the execution of this contract wages in conformity with the provi sions of the foregoing item (1) the Council may, without in any way pre judicing or affecting any other of its rights, powers and remedies under this contract in respect of the breach of contract involved, pay to such person the amount of the difference between the sum (if any) actually paid to him by the contractor as wages and the sum that he would have received had the contractor performed and observed the terms and provisions of such sub-clauses, and the Council may recover from the contractor, as a debt due to the Council, the amount so paid by the Council as aforesaid.

(vii) The contractor shall, whenever called on so to do by the director-general and clerk for the time being to the council,


No underletting or sub-contracting on the part of the contractor shall operate to relieve the contractor in any respect from his liability to the Council for the due execution of this contract, and the contractoÍ shall be and be held responsible to the Council for the due performance and observance by all sub-contractors in the execution of their sub-contracts of all and singular the terms, provi-

sions and conditions contained in the foregoing item (1) (so far as applicable to persons employed in and about the execution of this contract), and on the part of the contractor to be performed and observed. Failure or neglect on the part of a sub-contractor to perform and observe such terms, provisions and conditions or any one or more of them shall be deemed to be failure or neglect of the contractor to perform and observe the said terms, provisions and conditions to the intent that all the right, powers and remedies reserved to the Council by this contract in such event shall apply accordingly.


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 that person or firm does not pay such rates of wages and observe such hours ánd conditions of labour as are not less favourable than the rates, hours and conditions established by machinery of negotiation or arbitration ftlr the 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 tlf wages and hours and conditions of labour that in practice. obtain among

goöd employers in the district where the work is carried out whose firm leneral circumstances in the trade or industry in which the person or
is engaged are similar.

Annexe Three

A Homeworking Code of Conduct

(para 6.2 and Recommendation S(iii) and Para 8.5 refer)


Piece work prices should be the same for all homeworkers and thc price list should be made available all homeworkers. They should bc ás 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 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 problems and queries can apply to homeworkers' (vii) The employer should deduct tax and National Insurance from thc

homewórkér, and provide the necessary information



(viii) The employers should register all homeworkers with the local authority, as they are required to do by Section 133 of the Factories Act. (ir) Homeworkers should be given a copy of this code of conduct by their employer.



Structure Diagrams


Overall Structure



The Industry and Employment Committee


Council Members & T.U. nominee ,& MPs





+---I I

(Council Members)

luaroR lsoaRos



























R. Balfe E. Carr Sir Reg Goodwin I. Harrington A. Harris K. Hill H. Hinds R. Irwin C. Johnson E. Masters R. Shaw

co-opted co-opted co-opted co-opted




London - the problems we face


press and broadcasting; with the largest concentration of
manufacturing industry; with the most popular tourist centres;with the widest range of shopping facilities; with an environment ranging form inner area clecay through to affluent suburbs and the rural areas of the Green Belt. The problems faced by London are similarly large and complex.

Greater London covers an area of 610 square miles, and with a population of just under seven million, contains about one-eighth of Britain's population. It is the largest and most complex urban area in the country with the centres of Government, finance, the arts,


With high congestion, bad and expensive housing,

usually to settle in the comfortable and affluent areas of the South-East. In 1961 London's population was 8 million, it is now 6.9 million. Manufacturing industry has lost 500 thousand jobs since 1961. Traffic congestion is now at is highest ever, and London has the densest road network in Britain. Despite the decline in population London's housing is the most expensive in the country, for home-owners, council tenants and for private tenants. London still has the greatest concentration of bad housing, despite the massive improvements brought about by the public housing programmes since the war. In many parts of London there are major deficiencies of open space and recreational facilities.

environment, and job loss, people have been moving from London,



The Tory failure

Londoners cannot look to the private sector to solve these difficulties. A free for all will not lead to better housing; no private firm will provide open space; it is the decline of the private sector

which has caused the loss of so many jobs; it is the speculators who threaten many areas of London with ugly, unwanted office blocks. The Tory GLC has actively conspired to promote these divisive trends. They have sold public land, needed for housing and industry, to office developers. They have stood back, and granted planning permission for schemes which drive out communities and blight the environment. Under their stewardship London Transport has stumbled to ever lower performance, burdened by contradictory demands, vacillating leadership and a financial stranglehold imposed by the Tories. Housing need has mounted every year, with 15,000 families homeless each year and last year for the first time ever, over 100,000 families were forced to apply to their local authority for


housing. The Tory response to this was callous in the extreme. They ceased building; from Labour's six to seven thousand new homes a year, to virtually nothing. Hundreds of sites have been sold off, at a loss in many cases, to their friends in the business world. Homes built for Londoners in housing need have been sold off on the private market, again at staggering losses in many cases. Families

with small children have been trapped in tower blocks, old people restricted to antiquated walk-up estate flats. The suburbs with their decent environment and good housing have been closed off to inner Londoners, by the pernicious transfer of GLC estates on terms which reduce mobility to pathetically low levels.


The Tory Government is imposing further burdens on the people of

London. Huge cuts in public spending, and switches in spending toward their cronies in the Shires, have hit London hard. Higher
prices have been a direct result of Tory policy. High fares and rents,

high fuel prices, high food prices. Prescription charges up, school meal charges up. Everywhere, living costs for ordinary people are being increased. The benefits for all this go to the rich in the form of tax handouts. The poor pay the bill in the form of higher prices, and reduced child benefits and other welfare payments.

Local authorities are a frontJine target for this reactionary

dogmatic regime. Not only do they bear the brunt financially, but they are also having their independence stripped away. Heseltine will not rest until he has reduced local authorities to powerless, voiceless, agents for his own purposes. They will no longer have the power to assess local needs as expressed by the local electorate, and to act accordingly.

(c) Labour's


A Labour GLC will vigorously

problems may occu,r well away from the areas where the symptoms appear. opportuníties to deal with those causes and symptomS' may arise in still other areas. Furthermore, geography may have nothing to do with problems we see, they are far more likely to be related to

oppose the attacks on Londoners' living standards. Equally, it will oppose all moves by Government which upsurp the rights of democratically elected local councils. Labour believes in a strong, accountable public sector, able to provide the services that Londoners need. On winning the GLC Labour's objective will be to use the GLC's financial resources to redistribute wealth to the less well-off. Labour will deal with London as one city. There will be no artificial boundaries such as those used by the Tories to trap the elderly and low income families in the inner areas. The area approach to policy cannot succeed, except in very limited circumstances. The causes of particular

economic and social



Improving the quality of life for Londoners will require action
across 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, minorities particularly hard. The environment must be protected
problems of decay - over

and in sufficient number to eliminate the unemployment that afflicts the poorer areas of London and hits the young, women and ethnic

and improved. Housing particularly is suffering from major


40o/o of London's housing was built before hundreds of thousands of Londoners live in unacceptable conditions. Transport in London is crying out for urgent action, after years of decline under the Tories. Labour is aware of these needs. On taking control of the GLC Labour will be seeking speedy, effective results, and for this reason will not embark on long-term studies searching for ideal solutions,

- and

which as well as bemg wasteful of time are often unattainable given the legislative and financial constraints. Beneficial legislative change will not be forthcoming until a Labour Government returns to power. There is little point then in seeking short-term solutions that require Government action. However the need for change in many aieas is accepted, and a Labour GLC will press the case for those changes.


In seeking real irnprovements in London a Labour GLC will develop a more co-operative approach. Labour will respect the

needs and wishes of individuals and communities and will involve people in the decisions that affect their lives. There will have to be

closer co-operation between the GLC and other public

organisations, especially the Borough Councils. Labour will seek to achieve progress through agreement.


The Strategic Role of the The financial role



The GLC spends about f2 bn each year. Currently, some f450m is raised in rates. A 1p rate raises f20m, whereas a typical penny-rate

product for a borough council would be about fám. The GLC therefore affords the opportunity to raise money across London, with a relatively low burden on individual households. Labour strongly believes that this broad financial base must be used positively, raising money from all London, including from the

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

commercial sector and the prestige premises of the city centre,


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 achieve results. The problems which face London áre too great to be handled by the local boroughs alone. The Tory view on the other hand is long on hot air, short on action. Labour will refuse to
Tories. Instead, a Labour GLC will concentrate on assessing London's needs and identifying means whereby these needs can bé met. Labour will look for programmes that can be readily implemented albeit within a consistent view of London's long-terÁ needs.. In many cases, other agencies will be the appropriate executiv_e body, and Labour intends to give what help is nécejsary _
embark on grandiose utopian planning which has characterised the


advice, finance, staff etc. - and to aid the co-ordination of agencies acting in related fields. If however the GLC is the only organisation able to carry out the required programmes, Labour will ensure that there is no delay in getting the job done. Labour will not seek to gain powers to over-ride boroughs' spending decisions. Getting things done needs co-operation not confrontation. Ultimately; if the boroughs cannot or will not carry out the necessary programmes, particularly for relieving housing need or encouragingemployment a Labour GLC will aid other executive agencies, oi do ihe work


The advocacy role

necessary to build an effective lobby to try to minimise the excesses of the Tory Government. The GLC should campaign to ensure that all London local authorities get the financial resoúrces they need. Similarly it will be necessary to press for local authorities to be given the powers they need to deal with the problems they face, aná the

London needs a voice, one that is capable of putting the London case effectively. Labour believes that the GLC should carry out investigative work into all matters that affect Greater London, using its information and research capabilities to the full. It will be

anachronistic anomaly of the City of London endeá.

Several areas of public life such as the NHS and the police are removed from direct local democratic influence. This is undesirable, as Londoners should have some say in these vital aspects in their lives. Under the Tories the NHS in London is suffering from major cutbacks. A Labour GLC will monitor these guts, an-d _will publicise where London's interests are being damaged. Where Government and Regional Health Authorit!

policy runs contrary to the needs of Londoners a Labour GLC will campaign for change. In particular, it is imperative to separate the financing of national facilities from that of local facilities, to ensure


that national services are not financed out of the diminishing resources being allocated to London. In dealing with the police London is much worse off than the rest of Britain. Other cities have police committees, highly limited, but nevertheless a direct local link between the police and the communities they serve. In London the Metropolitan Police are answerable only to the Home Office, despite the fact that the police raise f240 million from the London ratepayer. The Labour Party
views, with very great concern, the fact that there is no democratic

control of the Police in Greater London, and that there is no adequate method of dealing with complaints against the Police. Accordingly, a Labour controlled GLC will invite boroughs to join in establishing a Police Committee to monitor the work of the Police Force as a prelude to it gaining power to control the Police.


Open Government

The GLC has a reputation of being an impenetrable bureaucracy. This is not acceptable to Labour, and changes will be sought. In
future the intended

manner as possible

dividuals and organisations will be invited to comment. On major issues, background papers that have contributed to the policy making process, will be made available. Where possible, files will be made publicly available, except those which contain commercial planning, or personal details that could be damaging if publicly known. Means will be investigated whereby public involvement can be increased. For example it may be possible to introduce a public question time to council and committee meetings.

GLC programme will be presented in as public a - prior to decisions being made - and in-


Assisting voluntary and community groups

The community cannot fully participate unless they are fully

informed. In many areas of London public policy is better, because of the active, positive involvement of representative community groups. In other areas, like the South Bank and Docklands excellent plans have been drawn up because of public participation, only to be scrapped before they could be implemented, at the doctrinaire insistence of the Tories in County Hall and Government. Labour believes that community interests must be protected and

community life enhanced. To achieve this a Labour

GLC will


extend its funding of community and voluntary groups to ensure that alternative views can be effectively e*presied. This assistance could be financial, or in the form of providing premises, reprographic facilities and so on. Labour will undertake to report fuily ó the relevant groups, on the GLC response to the views received, as token participation is insulting, and wasteful to all concerned. Under Labour the GLC will actively seek outside views, and in some circumstances it may be_appropriate to co-opt community and other representatives to GLC committees. officérs will be given a duty to consult with local groups and to report back to the élected


Organisation at the local level

Official attitudes will have to change if the GLC is going to become more responsive. Labour will seek to decentralise the GLC's management organisation, with decision-making delegated to as local a level as possible. officers will be expected1o také decisions, to^take responsibility for them, and to be accessible to the people affected by the decisions.



Labour believes that there is a clear need for an elected authority able to take a London-wide view, antl that the GLC's financiál strength must be used to benefit the less well off. A new way of much more productive way. On regaining control of the GLC Labour will establish a GLC role that is more sensitive and flexible to Íhe differing circumstances of each borough. A Labour GLC will offer to assist boroughs and other organisatlons, to maintain their programmes in the face of Tory cuts. tbl

A new role for the GLC To many Londoners the GLC is a remote, even irrelevant, organisation. Many voices have called for its abolition, however

approaching policy must be found that employs the GLC assetsln a

Achieving co-operation


GLC powers generally require some level of executive involvement, that is to say it cannot make straightforward cash
to the boroughs. To achieve real progress, close co-operation

will be essential and Labour will ensure that this is achieved by (i) agreement by the GLC to accept the boroughs'proposals for the schemes in question; (ii) committing the GLC to local joint management of the projects with full involvement of the borough councillors,

officers and the appropriate unions and local community
representatives and boroughs when they request it. Which projects?

(iii) undertaking to transfer ownership/management to




The easier joint projects to establish will be those where GLC and borough powers overlap. If boroughs need support in, say, social

services, where the GLC has few powers, it may be necessary for the borough to adjust the distribution of its own resources and allow the GLc tó fill the gap in non-social services areas. The Labour Party in

I-ondon will have to support Labour councillors, in the boroughs

and on the GLC, to overcome objections from parochial establishments which prefer to implement their own policies. Identification of specific schemes depends on initiatives from the boroughs, however there are some fruitful areas to explore. In
house building the

cannot stretch to, or could develop sites already in borough ownership but not programmed for early development because of the cuts. Prior to implementation there would need to be full

GLC could acquire

sites that borough resources

agreement on density, design, materials, lettings, etc, ideally to the bórough specification. To help modernisation the GLC can commit revenue resources to HAA's and borough estates and acquired properties. Boroughs would state their detailed requirements in ierms of money, staff (skills and numbers) and preferred policies. Parks, recreation and arts spending should also be investigated to identify projects where GLC support is viable. Government cuts are likely to threaten voluntary organisatiuons, as resources will be concentrated on mainstream services. A Labour GLC should seek to set up a liaison service with boroughs and with voluntary bodies

whose activities accord with Labour priorities, to ensure that

organisations that would have been funded by boroughs or whose activities are otherwise beneficial to London, are referred to the GLC, releasing funds for use elsewhere.


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


Financial principles


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


so on.

weakened if we fail to use our resources efficiently and to maximum effect. It is also Labour's intention to achieve a proper balance between capital investment and revenue spending. It is clearly of major importance that capital spending on housing, transport and other elements of public infrastructure is enough to achieve and maintain high and rising standards, on LT, on estates, in parks and The first objective will be achieved by a rapid redirection of

programmes, away from

real need exists. This will be carried out in consultation with the

campaigns and grandiose irrelevances, toward those areas where

Tory asset-stripping,



borough councils and other organisations where appropriate. The change of direction will be backed up by continuous review and monitoring activity to identify new opportunities and to ensure that existing programmes meet Labour's objectives.


The second objective will require a positive approach toward

Labour's manifesto commitments. Elected members of the GI-.C are supposed to control a Í2bn organisation in their spare time, clearly this all too often leaves the power and influence with the
officers. We believe that this is unsatisfactory. For this reason there

reviewing the effectiveness of the programmes intended to achieve

Department for audit skills, from Policy Studies for policy review, from Programme Office and O & M.

Council, being subject neither to other committees nor the Director-General's Board. Staff serving the committee would largely be obtained from existing functions, from Treasurer's

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 to report on staffing levels and skills, on unit costs, on the effectiveness of the programmes, and on the steps that should be taken to overcome problems, achieve the best use of existing staff, and to amend programmes. The committee should report direct to

must be an effective and independent Performance Review Committee charged with the duty to carry out "quality of service audits". The committee must be given adequate officer support,


The GLC's financial resources

The GLC spends about f2bn a year. Currently some f450m is raised on the rates, the rest is provided by charges, grants and repayments. Alone among local authorities it has a self-financing borrowing requirement. The capital fund was established by

capital fund, (except for housing) in excess of f 200m. This gives thé GLC relative independence of the money markets, as it reduces the

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


Financing Labour's Programme

On gaining control Labour will end wasteful Tory spending on unnecessary and unwanted projects, and will stop the profligate disposal of public assets, often below cost and often below the asset value. 'lory determination to smash the public sector, and the GLC in particular, has fuelled this asset stripping. So far they have sold shops and commercial properties and many acres of land to their friends in the private sector. Labour will use the capital resources of the GLC to build up public assets, to be used for the benefit of the whole 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 council houses, and to build urban motorways will be broken up and the staff redeployed. The money saved will be used to finance beneficial prograÍnmes. Capital will also be freed, particularly from the road prograÍnme' for investment in public transport and other worthwhile projects. Much that Labour wishes to achieve can be implemented within the current level of real resources, but government policy is crucial. Grants account for a large proportion of GLC income, and loss of grant, as threatened by the Tories, will throw the burden onto the ratepayer. It is not possible to accurately estimate how much Labour's programme will cost because of:(i) The ruinous level of inflation; (ii) Cuts by the Tory Government;
straitjacket as well as the difficulties that will exist in rebuilding socialist pro-

5.6 5.1


Powers taken by the Tories to put local authorities



grammes after four years of Tory destruction. Labour must approach its task with realism, and we have attempted to indicate the scale of expenditure required to finance the options put forward by the Manifesto Working Parties.

The major call on resources came from housing, transport and employment. Of these, the new priority being given to London's economic needs will require additional spending. This policy area is so important, that finance for employment initiatives must be found
election, the programmes proposed in the Employment Manifesto could require a maximum of f100m. The net contribution by

to overcome the traditional low key approach taken by local authorities. In a full year, possibly two-three years after the


London's ratepayers will depend on the scope to redirect existing

employment-generating projects, and on the availability of finance from the private sector and investment bodies. If the expenditure is totally rate-borne, it will add less than 5p to the rates, or about f l" 2 a year for a typical London ratepayer.

reSourceS' the willingness of Government to bacÉ

5.9 GLC

support for LT (capital and revenue) is currently f250m. This attracts Government grant - Í)'20m in 1980/81. The proposals put forward in the Transport Manifesto, first and foremost will reqúire more capital spending to provide a decent and regular bus and tube

5.10 Scope for this should be available initially by redeploying existing capital allocations. Revenue support for London Transport

however, will require considerable additional expenditure. The free fares option preferred by the Transport Working Party will require the replacement of the Í500m now raised on fares. This sum is the equivalent of25p on the rates, or f55 - f60 per year payment by the typical London domestic ratepayer. The option of returning to the fares subsidy level of 1976 would cost Í100m or 5p on the rates.

5.11. Housing is the other main call on resources. Labour's programmes will take time to implement because of the destructive behaviour of the Tories at the GLC and the certainty of obstructionist tactics by the Tories in Government and the boroughs. Even the Tory GLC's programme has been slashed by Government - cut by over f 100m. The cost of Labour's programme will depend on whether the Government continues housing subsidies to the public sector, and

on whether the Government peaalises local authorities which refuse to massively increase rents. It seems unikely that annual capital expenditure will be able to increase rapidly, because of the shortage of sites and the length of time it takes to get new programmes going. Even if Government refused to grant aid any of
the increase, yet permitted it to take place the maximum additional cost would be unlikely to exceedfL20m or 6p on the rates, by 1985.

It is more likely that the major fight against housing cuts will only lead to a gradual recovery to the levels of expenditure achieved under a Labour Government. If that were the case the impact on the rates would be much less. The proposals for the housing revenue account will require additional subsidy, again depending on the level of support from Government andalsJ on the after-Jffects of transfer of estates.

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

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


assessment nearer the election. By then the Housing Bill and the Local Government Land and Planning Bill will be law. the impact of transfer of estates will be clearer, as will other aspects of GLC Tory policy. HIP and TSG allocations will also be known. It should be possible to submit an updated financial assessment to Conference in October that also included an indication of the potential financial

It will become possible to make a more

accurate financial

consequences arising from the amendments tabled by affiliates. This Working Party recommends that after Conference' small groups of candidates be set up to develop detailed programmes for implementing manifesto policy. One of these groups should be given the responsibility for matters of finance and administration, including the costing of the detailed proposals from the other

5.14 Accurate and feasible financial assessments will be difficult as the incoming Labour GLC will have to battle with Government to

overcome the tight constraints that have been imposed. Increased spending, and the freedom in using existing resources which are so nicessary for London, will be difficult to achieve, unless the Labour Movement as a whole is successful in toppling monetarist dogma from its currently dominant position. 5.15 Labour will campaign to win the GLC election committed to protecting and expanding public services, obtaining efficient use of iesources for Londoners. These objectives are not compatible with Tory extravaganzas such as the f30,000 Chairman's reception.

Labour will therefore introduce good housekeeping principles throughout the GLC. Ceremonial functions will be stopped. Rate -

USA, and trips by various other members around the Far East. Labour will also scrutinize, and reduce, the use of chauffeurdriven cars by both officers and members. Our priorities exclude all
such exercises in privilege and status.

and taxpayers pay for services, not luncheons for civic dignitaries. Globe trotting jaunts for officers and members will cease. The last two years have seen, amongst others, Cutler joy-riding around the

6. REORGANISING TIIE GLC 6.I Labour is comrnitted to a radical

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

programme that cannot be


recommended in transport (section 11) housing (section 8) and employment (section 10). It is desirable to move away from Iarge

monolithic departments toward smaller units. The

smaller and less rigid hierarchies, however, it is important that there is a committee structure able to impose political will and direction on the bureaucracy. Fewer committees, meeting frequently, should assist in this:- accordingly we recommend this structure:-

of the other working parties should lead


Special Committees

Policy Committee Staff Appeals Committee Performance Review Committee
Standing Committees (a maximum of 11 recommended)

Finance and General Services Committee Staff Committee Housing Committee Transport Committee Employment Committee Planning Committee Recreation Committee Public Services Committee Fire Brigade Committee The Policy Committee will co-ordinate the work of the other committees and settle the order of priority for the various


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

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

6.3 GLC members have major responsibilities

and Labour believes that members should be paid to enable them to commit the necessary energy and enthusiasm to the task. Labour will therefore press for the necessary changes in the law, to allow payment of a salary to

meantime it will be necessary to adjust the timing of the meetings to reduce the daytime commitment to encourage people from a wider range of backgrounds to become GLC members. Morning meetings

GLC members, based on the average wage

at any given time. In the

should be avoided, and meetings beginning earlier than 4 p.m. should be discouraged. A significant proportion of committee business should be taken in the evening, subject to satisfactory arrangements, for GLC employees affected, being negotiated with their Unions.


D. Nicholas

M. Dewar


S. Duncan D. Gillies

H. Kay E. Knight J. Kotz G. Meehan J. Moseley B. Sawbridge M. Williams G. Dimson(co-opted) J. Mills (co-opted) B. Bush (co-opted)

Evidence was invited and received from a number of organisations and individuals representing the views of tenant organisationsr pressure groups, and other local authorities.


waiting lists, among the 15,000 households who become homeless eacÉ year or who live in London's many sub-standard properties. The Tories in Government and at County Hall blithely brush ihe housing crisis of London 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 massive and growing scale of housing need in our capital city. 1.2 The severity of the housing crisis in London is self evident to those who care to look:83,000 households do not have a hot water supply 90,000 households only have an outside WC 331,000 households lack exclusive use of all basic amenities 107,000 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 thousands more people live in run-down neighbourhoods, badly maintained estates T9 i" high density or high rise flats unsuirable for families with young children. London's housing problems are getting worse. 7.4 Not only is the housing stock deteriorating, but the costs of living in London are high, and rising all the time. The high cost of housing in the private sector is forcing more and more people to turn to the public sector

LONDON'S HOUSING CRISIS 1..1 For those Londoners living in homes they can afford and in which they are huppy there is no housing crisis. They do not suffer from a leaking roof, damp, overcrowding, lack of secuiity, poorly arranged or inadequate facilities' Even these Londoners, however, are awáre of London's housing crisis for they have relations, neighbours, or work colleagues who are among the 300,000 households on London's housing


officials of the London Boroughs) states that: "new applicants consist of larger families with children, single parent families, young couples, and particularly single people who traditionally local authorities have not had the resources to assist
but who are now forced to turn to the public sector for help because

for help. Since the Tories took control of the GLC, thé number in desperate housing need has grown dramatically. In the 2 years April7978 - March 1980 new applications to the housing waiting lists of the 32 London Boroughs reached record levels of abo.ti t00,00-0" ach year.The Association of London Borough Housing Officers (the Chief Housing

of their increasing difficulty in gaining access to private sector
accommodation they can afford."
The Tories will not admit that a housing crisis faces many of these people.

better home.

only Labour controlled authorities will provide the opportunity óf




It really matters which party controls the GLC. The record shows GLC's housing role, the Tories are determined to destroy it. Compare the records of the Labour administration in control of the GLC between Í973 and 1977 and the Tory administration which took over early in 1977.
that Labour built up the




5Úo0 .0m0






77 t78





ÍMn ffin







10000 9000 8000 7000

\ \




2.2 Labour seriously tackled London's housing problems. The Tories, on the other hand, are determined to strip the GLC of all its important housing functions and to get out of housing. That is why they are trying to
encouraging vast sales of homes, land and building sites and why they have virtually ceased to build. 90


all the GLC stock to the Boroughs, that is why they




3.1 Labour's belief is straightforward. It is that everyone not only the fortunate and wealthy have the right to a decent home at a price he or she can afford. The Tories may say this too but their actions do not bear out their words. Only a Labour GLC will confront the three great housing challenges 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 is the 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 favour those who are wealthy and well housed. 3.2 The justly rising housing aspirations of Londoners must be met in a positive fashion. Our approach is twofold. Labour will actively support and help those Londoners who wish to own their homes, but this cannot be at the expense of those with no home or those who wish to rent. Equally Labour also seeks to safeguard a strong and growing public s€ctor. This will provide a varied choice to Londoners through a balanced housing stock, competing for and satisfying its consumers in all necessary

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


The GLC's strategic role A Labour GLC intends to use its ability to raise money across all of London to provide positive financial discrimination in favour of those areas of London where the worst

housing conditions exist.


Labour recognises that if this drive to improve housing conditions in London is to be successful there must be a strategic housing plan so that the activities of the Boroughs and the GLC are co-ordinated. Such a plan must take into account the level of economic activity in London,

employment cycles and resources of the building industry, all of which are inextricably linked to housing. The main objectives of the plan will be to assess the need for new and improved homes in Greater London, to ensure the allocation of housing according to need on a London-wide basis and to encourage increased mobility within London. A Labour GLC would help those Boroughs unable to meet housing need in their areas and step in and implement housing programmes in those Boroughs unwilling to meet the necessary targets.



staff, organisation and resources. The Tory Government, claiming to give greater freedom from the detailed control of housing projects,will control the vital areas of land and dwelling acquisition, and rents, and will put

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 many areas. The Tory GLC has crippled the housing department by cutting its

strict limits on the money we can spend. The Tory controlled London Boroughs will do all in their power to stop GLC home building schemes. Despite these problems, a Labour GLC will fight to fulfill its promises.

powers and resources to meet London's housing needs, in order to stop the Tories in their attempt to force working people to continue living in bad housing, and a poor environment.

We must approach our task realistically, while campaigning for the


3.7 Labour's

be done to ensure that all Londoners are decently housed. Second a campaign will be waged to ensure that a Labour GLC is given the power and money to implement a housing programme which will ensure that all Londoners are decently housed. If the Tories in Government and in the London Boroughs attempt to sabotage this programme against the wishes of Londoners, their tactics will be relentlessly opposed. Third the increased expenditure necessary to provide more homes will be subject to vigilant control to ensure that money is not wasted but used carefully and sensibly to the benefit of all Londoners.

the full extent of London's housing crisis will be publicly exposed. An honest public assessment will be made of what must

Pledges Labour makes these pledges:-

4. LABOUR'S PROGRAMME FOR THE GLC 4.t Labour will increase the provision and desirability

of council homes


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


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



5.1 Labour rejects the Tory view that there is a "surplus" of decent homes in London. The so-called "crude surplus" argument used by the

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

skilled workers, must be vigorously pursued. More homes must be built and they will be houses with gardens wherever possible. No tower blocks will be built. Labour faces a daunting task in trying to revitalise the housebuilding programme. The Tories at the GLC have systematically
and ruthlessly disposed of building land to speculators and broken up the


Policies which halt the loss of population, particularly of young and

new schemes.

Housing and Architects Departments. The Tories in the outer London Boroughs have always hindered new GLC housing schemes in the past and now the Tories in Government are not giving consent and finance for

5.3 The

Home Building Programme We must start building homes quickly. So in the short term Labour will negotiate design and build arrangements with large private firms to gain access to their land holdings. In the longer term it will be our aim to develop, once again, our own capacity to design and build new homes. We will set up a new direct labour organisation - London Community Builders - with the target of
being able to handle up to 50olo of building contracts within two years. The use of directly employed labour which can acquire the necessary building skilis and continue to use them on a range of sites will be essential. It is the

erperience of Labour administrations that properly run, direct labour produces a better quality of craftmanship at no greater cost than private contractors and leads to reductions in future management and maintenance costs.
including the maximum use of dependable materials, and the repetition of proven successful designs, while giving a reasonable allowance for experiment and pioneering.

5.4 We will

seek to speed the building process by various means,


Thamesmead Labour wishes to see the completion of Thamesmead as quickly as possible. A great effort will be made to ensure that the Thamesmead community is socially varied by ensuring homes are available for the elderly, the disabled and single people. Priority will be siven to the completion of the central area, the provison of adequate local facilities and improved transport links through the Thamesmead area.

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


Land AcquisitÍon The development of small sites could make a significant contribution to the new homes programme and a Labour GLC

will establish a special team of officers to seek out and speedily develop small sites. We would seek to establish good working links with other public organisations to obtain their surplus land. There would be a vigorous policy of buying sites to build on particularly in the Tory controlled Outer-London boroughs where there is ample land and a

marked shortage of publicly rented housing. The opportunity to purchase key sites on the riverside and elsewhere will be taken. GLC sites like coin Stieet in Waterloo will be retained for housing and community facilities to meet local needs and not sold to speculators to add still more to the glut of 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's older private housing stock. Much potentially good quality older housing is falling into a state of serious disrepair and unfitness. Unless swift action is taken further large scale clearance will become necessary.


Many of these houses are occupied either by elderly owners who cannot afford to repair them or by private tenants whose landlords will not repair them. Labour recognises the vast need for improvement and repair in this part of London's housing stock.
Government controls are going to make it extremely difficult for a Labour GLC to buy and modernise these houses for letting to people in housing need. This is essential, however, if London's housing crisis is to be overcome when London's older houses are falling into disrepair faster than they are being improved.


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

6.5 The GLC would help to finance any unsubsidised work needed in renovation areas and elsewhere. Environmental works would be strictly monitored to ensure that they did not just lead to gentrification and the dispossession of local residents.
a comprehensive advice and agency service to the tenants, owners and prospective owners of older housing. This would provide help in obtaining grants and loans, and in assisting with building works. The GLC would press for grant levels to be regularly reviewed and increased in line with building costs. A Labour GLC will seek a much needed review


GLC offered

An Advice and Agency ServÍce Labour would also ensure that the


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

housing need. We will therefore try to achieve allocation according to this principle 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. Houses rvith gardens have been allocated almost entirely to those who are able to

7, HOUSING FOR PEOPLE IN NEED 7.L We are firmly of the view that homes

should go to those most in

buy rather than those who need this type of accommodation most. We rvould implement a number of measures to reverse this trend. We would stop the sales of vacant houses by the present GLC which goes far beyond even the requirements of the Tory legislation on "the right to buy". We *'ould also call a halt to "ready access" schemes which allocate by newspaper advertisement and overnight queuing as this is unfair to many and open to abuse. proportion of vacancies in former GLC stock. Labour will fully support similar arrangements for people to move from one borough to another in

.2 A

Strategic Role


statutory scheme

will exist to allocate


borough built stock.

A Labour GLC will establish a London-wide nobility scheme which will comprise:
- new GLC dwellings; - vacancies in the remaining GLC stock; - nomination rights in former GLC stock transferred to


London. It is our intention to ensure that every borough makes a reasonable local needs and to the housing needs of ';ontribution, having regard to T-ondon as a whole, and we will use all legal powers to ensure that no

boroughs; - contributions from borough property in respect of new provision and vacancies in the exisiting stock; and - nomination rights to dwellings provided by housing associations in

borough evades its responsibilities. It is our belief that Boroughs should contribute 40o/o of their vacancies to a common allocations system. -.3 The mobility pool will be usecl to provloe ror those existing public lector tenants and waiting list applicants who wish or need to move to another part of London. We will also seek to reach agreements with authorities outside Greater London to provide for moves to and from other parts of the country for employment or other reasons. But in distributing resources in this pool we intend to have primary regard to nelative housing needs in different parts of London, including the need to provide for the homeless, for general borough housing needs, and for key w orkers.

line with our belief that public housing should be allocated according to need we are opposed to artificial restrictions on access to council housing. We will seek to have these removed, by agreement with the London Boroughs or by the promotion of legislation if necessary. We are particularly opposed to fixed periods of local residence for eligibility

7.4 In

for rehousing from waiting lists, to compulsory waiting periods for rehousing, to points schemes which give priority to length of local residence and the rules which restrict rehousing of single people of
working age.
7 .5 It is important that tenants and those on the waiting list should know precisely what their chances of transfer or rehousing are, and the type of property they could be allocated. The next GLC will follow the example of the Manchester DC, and will operate a system that shows people exactly how their needs are assessed and how they are matched with available property. Applicants will be told of their points priority and the priority required for dwellings of a particular type and location. They will be able to decide whether they wish to wait the necessary period for that property or to take an earlier offer of something less in demand. We shall introduce this scheme first in respect of the- retained GLC stock, then in respect of the mobility pool. We shall also attempt to encourage the London Boroughs to introduce the scheme for their own lettings. Such a scheme will be more responsive to tenants expectations and should help to reduce refusal rates on offers of accommodation. This alone will help to cut down vacancies in local authority housing but we will also seek to make other management changes to reduce the numbers of empty properties - not least we shall stop the practice of holding property empty

for 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 been transferred to the London Boroughs, and the GLC will no longer be in a position of letting over 20,000 ot its own properties every year. Although the number of properties sold will not be very large in relation to the total stock they comprise nearly half of the most attractive GLC homes. This will leave the incoming GLC with a residue of high density high rise flats and old unmodernised homes, predominantly in inner London. The opportunity to use this stock strategically will be limited. One of our priorities in allocating from the mobility pool must therefore be to make transfers easier to obtain for existing GLC tenants. This can reduce overcrowding and high densities and also enable allocations to be matched with estate modernisation schemes and better management
7 .7 Special needs There are three groups in housing need who in the past have had a particularly raw deal - the elderly, young couples and single


people of working age. In future, the new construction programme will bear in mind the needs of these groups. Special provision will be made, but the main assistance will come from changes in the general allocation policy.
7 .8 In the case of elderly people, preference will be given to allow them to live near to relatives and friends who can support them. The popular

seaside/country homes schemes will be extended to provide greater opportunities for the elderly to move away from London and enjoy their retirement beside the sea. A Labour GLC will continue to offer to buy homes from elderly owner occupiers which are too large for them or ri-hich they are unable to maintain. In return we will offer them the chance to buy or rent something smaller or more easily managable.


greater variety of accommodation offered to them, and we will not confine provision for them to homes that other groups refuse.
-\ccommodation will also be set aside for flat sharing schemes in tower rlocks and on older estates. It should be remembered that by 1981 about 1 in 4 of London's households will be people living alone.

oung couples including amendments in the housing need point systems so that they are not at a disadvantage compared to other groups. Within the general allocations scheme we will ensure that single people have a


We will seek changes in allocations policies for single people and


.ge group, hostels are not a solution. Nevertheless, there are certain sroups who need or prefer this type of accommodation. As with other nousing, the hostel accommodation available is inadequate both rumerically and in terms of quality. We see the provision of this type of :ccommodation as a particular job of a strategic housing authority and nill seek to increase the number of hostels in Greater London. In the leme way we wish to increase the provision of refuges for battered r,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 when
rher,wish to leave.

We are convinced that for the vast majority of single people of any

thorough 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, and

i,11 Eliminating

Discrimination Many investigations, including a

on regaining the GLC will ensure that our housing policies do not riscriminate. In consultation with representatives from the ethnic
minorities our housing allocations will be monitored to ensure that those sr:ccessfully housed on each GLC estate, are a fair cross-section of those xho wish to live there.


7.12 Council

House sales The public housing stock is depleted both numerically 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 desirable areas. 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 GLC aid to trrá Lóndon.Boroughs for the housing of homeless families and those on the waiting list has slumped by 50o/o during the years of Tory control.

'7.1,3 Labour will immediately halt the doctrinaire and divisive Tory GLC 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 advice

and mortgage assistance. Labour is happy to encourage o*rr"r-o""rr!at-ion but not at the expense of people ollhe waiting or
transfer listi. For similar reasons the Homesteading and Equity Sharing schemes, both of which have in any case been failures, will be stopped.

Families who have entered such schemes and subsequently tind themselves in difficulties will be helped to withdraw'


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-fashioned rigidity 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 of providing reiident caretakers where possible and will negotiate, with ienant oiganisations, a Tenants' Charter of rightsrvhicLwould improve on the inádequate Charter now becoming law. This Charter will, for example, give tenants the right to be actively involved in the-decisions that aifecitheir estates, and not simply consulted. Tenants will be given
from-rent if essential day to day repairs are not carried out by the

the right to do their own repairs via independent labour and debit the cost



within given specified times after registration with the district housing

office. We also wish to ease petty restrictions such as those on homeworking. Homeworking will be allowed so long as it is registered u'ith the Housing Department and does not contravene health safety or noise 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 up rents at double the rate of inflation, while at the same time standards of repair and maintenance have tumbled. In addition the Tory Government has 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 should
aim 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 which should not be paid for solely by tenants. At present GLC rents exceed :nanagement and maintenance costs. For this reason, when Labour wins

:hereafter, until management and maintenance costs exceed rental

GLC election,

we intend to impose a rents freeze for the first year, and


.: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.
'';':th tenants oranisations and the boroughs in which

.rhour is built up and that a planned maintenance programme

The importance of value for money cannot be overstressed. Labour determined that a cost-effective repairs service using directly employed

Tenant Involvement in Management Negotiations will be opened GLC stock remains, :Ll arrive at flexible solutions to devolved management. An appropriate iiructure might be:



Estates Committees with tenants making up at least half the members, with the balance drawn up from GLC Councillors, local borough councillors and appropriate Trade Union representatives.

These committees should have wide powers but they will not be able to take disciplinary action against fellow tenants or have access to confidential information about them. Within a budget, they should determine overall policy for their estates, advise on improvement

and modernisation, assess standards of management and maintenance, and prepare proposals for the needs of their community. Estate officers should be accountable to these
Borough Level Ioint Management Committees should

responsible for the day to day control of the management system,


the allocation of financial and manpower resources and acceptance of tenders for improvement work. Its other major task would be to prepare annual proposals for the housing under its control and co-ordinate bids from estate committees and evaluate priorities. A representative from each estate committee, Trade Union, borough representatives and GLC councillors should serve on this


A Housing Committee at County Hall, with trade union and tenant representatives would decide overall strategic policies.
Sub-committees should be unnecessary.


,.package schemes". These do not take enough account than the present of tenanti' wishes, nor oithe need for major structural and remedial work or environmental improvements. Priority will be given to rehabilitating

Improvements to estates and their environment A future Labour GLC would ensure that estate modernisation schemes consisted of more

existing and ex-GLC stock particularly in the Inner Areas. A rolling p.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 on envirónmenial improvements will include the upgrading of communal areas 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 pioperties will ensure that rehabilitation goes more smoothly and at the
énd of the day, that newly modernised estates will be attractive to tenants.

agreeménts with boroughs on short term lettings and treatment of_empty

Tenants will be fully consulted about all estate modernisation schemes. To enable tenant organisations to play their full part in these new policies grant aid will be given to the London Tenants' Organisation.

8.8 Tower Block Improvements Schemes to improve the quality of life in tower blocks by the installation of entry phone systems, the up-grading of common areas, better refuse handling arrangements and so on, will be

expanded. Almost every block requires an individual solution and full tenant consultation will be undertaken. It will not, however, be Labour's policy to increase rents to offset the costs of such work which in many óases create a decent living environment for the first time'

Major Technical Problems Labour will expand the programme of works it itarted in 1,97 6 to put right major technical problems caused by economies forced on local authorities by central government. Labour will also seek to ensure that experience gained in this field by the GLC can be used to help other local authorities rectify their existing problems, and prevent similar ones occuring in the future.


The proposed new decentralised housing management structure, the
rehabilitation programme and the wider role envisaged for directly employed labour will require dedicated staff with skill and flexibility to implement our policies. Labour believes that all staff and particularly those at the "sharp end" who deal with day to day management or effect repairs, should be given training and provided with adequate back up services and remuneration to ensure that they can carry out Council oolicy effectively and efficiently.
need to respond and be responsive to tenants' wishes, the more sensitive

10. OWNER OCCUPATION 10.1 Labour is not opposed to owner occupation. During the four years n'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 Loans scheme. The Tories performance for their four year term (1.977178 to

1980/81), based on actual loans and estimates by the Tories themselves, shows that only 13,375 people will have been helped to buy - a cut of

10.2 Labour particularly wishes to help first time buyers, key workers rnd 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 those buying expensive houses or trading up for financial gain; -


give preference to those who wish to buy properties in districts where 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.

l,jd to the housing stock and where they have the full support of their :embers.
nousing associations can provide a way of increasing the social ownership and quality of housing. The GLC would only lend money to registered T{ousing Associations and would look favourably on associations which


Co-operatives Housing co-operatives will be supported where they


Housing Associations While controls on municipalisation exist

:rovide specialist housing to vulnerable groups. A Labour GLC woutd

only support other housing associations which have a community base and a.e fully accountable to their tenants in the areas where they work.
shorthold form of tenure will lead to increased homelessness and lack of security for many private sector tenants. A Labour GLC will press for full security of tenure for private sector tenants and a reform of the fair rent systernwhich is now crippling tenants with large rent increases in many areas. Labour will partióularly help the tenants of the many mansion

1.3 The Private Rented Sector Government


for a


blocks which have been hawked around the speculative property companies. We intend to assist them in finding co-operative or-other sociáily acceptable solutions to their housing needs, if necessary by the promotion of legislation on their behalf . Labour will do all in its power to énco,'.age the swift and final demise of the non resident private landlord, including seeking powers to work with the boroughs to bring into municipál ownershíp all private rented accommodation, except in cases where there is a resident landlord.

12. INTO I2.I The


proposals in this document represent a radical change of direction in housing policies for London. A Labour GLC would establish strategic housing objectives, seek sites, provide homes, promote mobility, and exténd owneÍ occupation opportunities to people on low incomes who want to buy in the private sector. It would ensure that these objectives are carried out. In housing management, however' there will be less intervention than now. Tenants will have real power to run their estates and control day to day management.

1,2.2 Labour believes that these policies will result in an enlarged and invigorated public sector responsive to the needs of its tenants and providing thém with real variety and choice. At the same time there will
be an important owner occupied sector open to those who wish to choose

it but not one regarded as the only desirable tenure. This duality will provide a balance of housing opportunities and choice which is in tune with the r:ising housing aspirations of Londoners in the 1980's and a
lessening of the present divisive gulf between the badly housed and the well housed in our capital city.

Preparing for Power

Following the agreement of a housing policy statement by special conferenóe a small working party comprised of not more than six GLC prospective candidates should be established to prepare the detailed ground work for the implementation of Labour's housing policy from the first day that Labour takes control of County Hall. The working party
should have powers to co-opt.




J. Corbyn - Chairman P. Dimoldenberg N. Gerrard

E.P. Bell - co-opted

E. Gouge M. Grabiner A. Mclntosh - co-oPted
Evidence was invited and received from a number of individuals and




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 all

carefully controlling our environment to ensure less waste and less pollution 1..2 The difficulties that wilt be faced are large; the planning powers of the GLC are limited, and partly overlap with the Boroughs' The Secretary of State for the Environment has enormous powers to dictate 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-national
corpoÍations and the "laissez faire'' lobby will not be followed' (b) Elected representatives must have real control over planning policies.
(c) Homes must come before roads. (d) Speculative building has no place in a socialist London. (e) Pollution and destruction of the environment' suffered by all

caused by the few, cannot be tolerated.

1.4 The policies of the next Labour GLC will be
work in London. Our aim

principles. We hold no brief for private enterprise interests, but are électe^d to serve the interests oÍ the mass of people who live and

based on these


- most have no yachts coast south and cottages week-end escape route to - that will maké London the clean and exciting city it could be.
is to create an environment fit for all people


In the past London has suffered from unwieldy planning procedures,

will further devofue the day to day detail of planning to

often based on unrealistic, utopian plans for the future. Planning processes must now be reshaped, retaining all the elements that benefit Londoners while streamlining procedures and adding new elements to deal with those problems the Tories have refused to deal with over the past four years. To meet this requirement Labour

boroughs, and will not commence any large scale plan making exercises. The basis of a Labour GLC's strategic role in planning will be wide ranging, speedy research into specific problems aimed at providing realistic proposals for implementation. Labour will
co-operate extensively with the London Boroughs and pay full heed to the views of Londoners expressed through public consultation. Unlike the Tories, Labour at the GLC will not abdicate from its responsibility to ensure that action follows speedily after the identification of problems and possible solutions. Indeed, executive action and financial intervention by the GLC must be part of its strategic role if no other agency is appropriate, capable or willing to

tackle the problems of London's poorest communities.

Labour believes that the GLC should take an overall view of London's needs, whether or not there are specific GLC powers. It will 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 for the GLC and for other relevant organisations; and to co-ordinate

with Government and other public agencies, and the private sector, to establish programmes to achieve the desired ends. Indeed, a Labour GLC will take the lead in forging an effective partnership between the public and private sector to solve London's problems. In carrying out its strategic planning role the GLC under Labour will give top priority to reviving London's economy. This must be accompanied by major improvements in the run-down, decaying and derelict areas long deserted by the private sector.

Rehabilitation should be preferred to redevelopment. Road traffic growth, particularly heavy lorry traffic, must be curbed. Open spaces must be protected, and provision increased in the deprived areas. Residential areas that have suffered from decline must be

of major programmes of environmental improvement. Historic buildings must be put in good order and not be allowed to be bulldozed for the sake of profit. Opportunities for recreation must be extended to ensure that no areas are under provided for. Where there are competing demands, priorities will be established in the best interests of all Londoners. not in favour of any one sectional interest.
given the impetus

Labour dismisses the reality of the Tories' so called 'commitment' to "the inner city", - a commitment that for the past four years has not been reflected in any of their programmes. Each year of their adminstration has seen cuts in their capital spending. 'Inner city' spending by the GLC was in fact sustained by grants from the Labour Government. On regaining control of the GLC Labour will not impose artificial geographical barriers on its activities.

The strategic role should concern itself with the identification of the lack of amenities and facilities throughout London, and seek to

A Labour GLC will not be solely concerned with large scale schemes, when so many areas of London are deprived of decent, basic, local services.
remedy the deficiencies.


To be effective the GLC must accept that the planning role must (a) Less interference with day to day planning matters, (b) Monitoring of trends; research and analysis to highlight

(c) Devising suitable programmes to tackle the problems of

problems and opportunities,

London's run-down and under provided areas. (d) Obtaining the necessary finance and powers on behalf of Londoners, (e) Implementing the agreed programmes quickly and efficiently all within a context of liaison and co-operation with the Boroughs
and relevant organisations.



The effects of private enterprise in London have been to produce

great contrasts. In the Inner Boroughs in particular large areas have been left to decay and become derelict. At the same time some areas suffer from the overdevelopment of hotels and offices. A Labour GLC will not grant permission for further office development in the

central London area and in other parts of Greater London which are already overdeveloped such as Croydon' Tory planning policies have, of course, favoured speculation in grandiose commercial development. Where this has happened the inevitable results have been increases in commuter traffic, the disappearance of traditional industry, and the destruction of local communities. The Riverside is a sad example of these problems. Between Battersea and Surrey Docks decaying residential neighbourhoods and industrial sites are being overrun with soulless office blocks, tourist traps, and blocks of luxury flats. This whole area is becoming a speculator's paradise, encouraged by the mercenary attitudes of the Tories both in the GLC and in Government. Yet elsewhere vast areas of the Riverside remain totally derelict. A Labour GLC would seek to develop such areas to provide housing, open space, and local jobs for the working people of Inner London. Acquisition of sites by the GLC will be essential, and further pressure for office and hotel development will be resisted.


The South Bank/Coin Street Area


The Coin Street area is the last possible major site for the provision of local industry and housing for the community in North Lambeth. Labour was putting such plans into action when the Tories gained control of the GLC in 1977. Now housing, open space, and light industry are being axed. Instead there is a scheme for massive office development, a 45Oft high luxury hotel, restaurants, and luxury housing. This is in opposition to the wishes of the Borough Council, the local community, and in direct contradiction of the approved district plan. A Labour GLC will immediately stop the disposal of remaining publicly-owned land on the South Bank, and if it is still possible will return to the previous plans for the area. The GLC has been deeply involved with this area of London, which is subject to major commercial pressures. The previous Labour GLC developed the Covent Garden Plan, with principles and programmes agreed with the local community. While paying

Covent Garden


lip-service to the plan, the Tories have allowed West End-type

offices, expensive shops and wine bars to take a strong grip on the area. Housing and the needs of local small scale industry have been forgotten. Labour will seek to reverse this process. Future GLC policies will aim to sustain and develop the principles accepted

locally, and where possible development responsibility will be devolved to Westminster and Camden Borough Councils. The immediate objective will be for the GLC to bring its own properties rapidly into proper use. Our priorities will be the provision of decent housing for letting to local people at reasonable rents, and of small modern industrial or commerical units to help local
businesses. Recreational opportunities in the area will be reviewed,

as our objective must be to encourage a thriving,

diverse community. The closure of existing facilities serving local needs will

be opposed. Labour will also seek the introduction of traffic
management schemes, to reduce the problems caused by rapidly rising traffic levels.

Priorities in Planning

.-t The Riverside, Coin

Street and Covent Garden are particular illustrations of the effects of Tory policies and allowing a private

sector free for all. But in their different ways they represent some oÍ

the major planning problems faced in many parts of London. The policies of a Labour GLC for these areas are based on priorites and attitudes which apply generally across London. Employment and housing initiatives will be given highest priority. Inner areas must be


protected from excessive hotel and office development. The encouragement of industrial and commerical development on suitable sites in Outer London will help to minimise travelling for workers and contribute towards the reduction in non-essential traffic in Inner London.


into practice rapidly. The basis of policy formulation must be sound extensive research, carried out quickly, and related directly to specific problems and programmes. The GLC, because of the area it covers, can carry a range of skills beyond the scope or requirements

Labour will recognise the need to formulate realistic solutions, relevant to the needs of working people and capable of being put

of any one Borough. Labour will ensure that other public bodies, particularly the London Boroughs, have easy access to GLC research facilities and activity.


Labour will aim to bring a sense of realism back into planning proposals. Where the necessary resources are clearly not available to implement plans, or where review shows that old proposals are no longer valid, the Labour GLC will rescind those plans, lifting the planning blight which causes stagnation and decay. This especially applies to the safeguarding of lines for possible future road-building schemes. There are areas which have been blighted in this way for
highway improvement programme and cancel all schemes falling outside the agreed programme.

many years, restricting development, and destroying neighbourhood morale. The Labour GLC will state clearly its

Development Control


generally be retained. Government pressures which seek to impose higher housing densities and lower standards in the public sector will be opposed. A Labour GLC will aim to assist Boroughs which find their housing programmes under threat because of this pressure. The assistance could take the form of staff and other resources, or the GLC could carry out land clearance, and building if necessary, and if invited to do so by the borough.

Labour's priority is to preserve existing communities and to protect existing neighbourhoods. Development Control is however, in the vast majority of cases, a matter for decision by the Borough Councils. Very few planning applications really require direct GLC involvement. Clearly this is necessary on those major development proposals which have an impact over a wide area or deviate widely from the GLDP guidelines. Labour particularly intends to prevent the indiscriminate spread of offices and hotels, to protect historic buildings and open space. While individual sites must be looked at on their own merits the density of development guidelines will

,1.8 The GLC does have a primary role in conservation. Labour will

ensure that the Historic Buildings section is restored to its former strength, and will offer these highly specialised skills to individual Boroughs. The powers available to protect historic buildings and to declare Conservation Areas will be used to the full, to prevent neglect or demolition by uncaring owners. Beyond that the Labour GLC will use the information and expertise gained by this section to advise other agencies and to launch public campaigns where legislative powers are otherwise inadequate.

Land Acquisition


restrictions hinder many desirable projects. The GLC has considerable capital resoures, and Labour will aim to deploy these to bring lasting benefit for Londoners, by buying land for housing and commercial development, for recreation and leisure projects, and for environmental improvements. Where appropriate some of
these land holdings would be transferred to Borough or community ownership. A Labour GLC will do whatever it can to alleviate the effects of Government cuts on the hard pressed deprived areas. With this in mind, the GLC will offer to help in the acquisition or development of sites where boroughs lack the necessary resources. This would be at the request of, and in the context of a detailed agreement with, the Borough concerned. Ownership and management of the development would be transferred to the Borough on completion.

powers which allow for easy land acquisition, as Government

Many important planning objectives cannot be achieved without bringing land into public ownership. The Labour GLC will fight for

,:.10 To facilitate land acquisition, it will be necessary for the Labour GLC to develop close working links with the Boroughs and with other public bodies with large land holdings, such as British Rail and the Gas and Electricity Boards. The Tory Government has removed statutory notifications. Labour will seek to establish joint, bilateral agreements, and campaign for reinstatement of the statutory obligations. Shopping

:.11 Shopping in London is dominated by the West End with a heavy emphasis on the attraction of tourists. The GLDP identified 28 major shopping centres scattered throughout the GLC area, ancl a
much larger number of smaller centre, precincts, and local shops. The growing trend in car use for shopping, and modern retailing

practices could, without control, lead to the burgeoning of hypermarkets serving car-owning customers. This could have

drastic effects on the viability of local centres. The elderly, low-income households, and others with restricted mobility would be confined to the use of declining, expensive shopping centres. 3.72 Labour rejects this pattern of development which fails to protect the interests of so many Londoners. Our priority will be to support existing centres, particularly those primarily accessible by public transport. Hypermarkets and Superstores will not be allowed. In the run-down areas of London the Labour GLC will seek to co-operate with the Boroughs to improve the range and quality of services available. Particular use can be made of the Inner Urban Areas legislation passed by the previous Labour Government.
Community Benefit 3.13


common feature of planning applications for the speculative development of offices or hotels is the addition of token modifications, such as a handful of flats, a shop, or a fragment of open space, in an attempt to ease the obtaining of planning permission. Labour will be concerned with the desirability of the main 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 gains for the community in general. To help rebuild community life in

inner areas Labour will seek commitments from developers to provide 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 land owner or developer. Where the GLC owns land wanted for new development, Labour will extend the principle of planning to include taking equity shares of the revenue generated by new development, providing new sources of income for benefit to the

Tory FantasÍes 3.15 Horace Cutler and his Tory colleagues at County Hall are obsessed with grand designs, produced with fanfares of publicity. The Olympic Games, an airport terminal in Docklands, Urban Motorways, a giant new conference centre have all made the headlines at one time or other. All of these schemes have certain things in common. They would be a vast drain on London's resources, do not benefit ordinary people and they effectively

prevent sensible discussion of the problems of the areas they affect. Above all nothing has ever happened apart from the issue of press


releases and the employment of consultants to produce glossy

3.1ó These fantasies are irrelevant to the real needs of London. There

are no simple one-off solutions to the problems faced every day by most working people. Labour believes in bringing forward realistic proposals that will improve the quality of life street by street, area by area. We recognise the scale of the task. parts of the city, and will be able to redirect staff and money toward

,1.17 Fantasies

will end in 1981. We will lift the blight affecting many

worthwhile projects.

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 commercial base and meets the neglected housing, environmental and social needs of F ast London's communities. The development of Docklands is in danger ,rf being separated from the problems of the other parts of the Docklands Boroughs 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. Labour ras 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 Dockland

rrogramme 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 Urban Development 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

the Port of London Authority to concentrate its investment further down

the river, but also from the decision of private capital to abandon manufacturing industry in the area. In some cases firms which are

profitable, but not providing a sufficiently high return have been closed to állow investment elsewhere and the speculative holding of sites in the hope of attracting offices or other kinds of new commercial development. Lo-cal people have had to accept lower paid jobs, a longer journeY to work or ,rnempioyment. One third of the industrial jobs in East London have been losi since 196ó and, in particular, the Newham part of docklands saw 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 London which have a ievere shortage of good quality housing and the Docklands Boroughs expect to be abie to meet an important part o{ their public housing needi here. In addition, Docklands is an area which has suffered for maiy decades from a lack of public investment, and improvement in schools, health facilities, open space and public transport are required for the existing as well as the future population.

The most important holders of derelict or unused land are public

agencies, 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 East London. Local groupi have been involved by means of the Docklands Forum and its represéntation on the Docklands Joint Committee and this involvement needs to be strengthened. It is important as this is the only local organisation on which the T.U.C. is directly represented. The creation- of an urban Development corporation will break direct democratic links between East Londoners and the organisation of Docklands development. A Labour GLC will give support to the opposition to the Ürban Development Corporation which the Labour Páity and the five Dockland Boroughs have already expressed.


The Strategic Plan aimed to reverse the decline in employment by

improving the area's infrastructure, especially its public transport and access roads, and by constructing four large modern industrial estates. Since L976 there have been successes and over 300,000 square metres of new factory space is expected to be completed by 1982. However, the pace of industrial decline has exceeded the most pessimistic predictions
of the strategy, the attraction of new jobs has been made more difficult by

rre major trade unions with membership in the area. Labour would ;ommit the GLC's research capabilities and resources in support of tsorough Industrial Development Programmes and local riaining

;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 with

:een in warehousing and simple, final assembly operations. The field of industrial development, a new field for London local

:he national economic situation, and much of the new employment has

.{ Continuing Role for the docks

iuture development of the Port of London's upper doóks and wharf :\ stem and, indeed, in the absence of a national ports strategy to understand 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 European 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 Upper Docks, 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 in East London both as an improved transport facility in the heart of London 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

There has been a failure to integrate the Docklands development into the

;argo) which have become increasingly important

in the


afford this housing and the Strategic PIan envisaged thát söx or the new rousing would involve some form of public provision. A Labour GLC will rL'e committed to the provision of cheap housing for local people in Docklands. House building is proceeding and shóuld have completed

Docklands represents an important opportunity for East London tsoroughs to build housing at lower densities and with adequate open slace'and community facilities. It is essential that local peopleire ablé to

The determination of the conservativ'e Government and

:..000 by March 1982.


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-'g

programmes and the provision of community facilities as origina--''

There has been a reversal of the high priority given by the Strategic Pnu to public transport. The Conservative GLC has promoted large scale roa; projects, over and above those link roads that are necessary to improt't access 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 whilt setting 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 givs greater 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 rc the building of the Southern relief Road which will not help Docklanis but mainly serve to reduce commuter traffic on the A2. Labour believes that changes in the proposals for the Docklands shoulc only take place if there is general support from local people and loca* groups. Labour is committed to the principles of public consultation anc involvement in the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

The environment must be of concern to everybody. Daily, people see their own environment worsened by the greed of private enterprise and public authorities either unwilling or unable to do
anything about it.



particularly by exhaust fumes from cars yet little is known about the problem, their effects, or how to eliminate them. Ground pollution mars many major sites in London, a legacy of the crude industrial processes of the past. London's households and businesses produce ever-increasing volumes of waste. The need for building materials brings a threat to areas of London where gravel can be extracted. wasteland.

Chemical pollution of the atmosphere is worsening, caused

Urban decay is evident in unused sites, derelict buildings



The GLC's powers to remedy these many defects are limited. however Labour will use these powers to the full to impose strict
standards, on those who create pollution of our environment.


Control of pollution



The control of Pollution Act gives the primary functions to the boroughs. The GLC does have the capacity to provide highly trained technical staff for monitoring. Labolr beiieves that the GLC should establish London-wide standards to protect the environment, and should use its resources to offer tire borough c_ouncils a fully equipped and trainecl technical monitoring service. without a clear understanding of the problems borougticouncils cannot take the necessary remedial action. The GLC óan build a larger pollution-monitoring unit than can any one borough councir. Pollution control will then become easier, and the cost wi"ll be borne London-wide. Labour believes that this issue is so vital to all of us
that it will be prepared to divert extra resources to pollution control.

\\'aste disposal and recycling

I -< und_e| the present system the London Boroughs collect the rubbish,

the GLC disposes of it. The recycling of waste is clearly very crucial to our society. The waste of metal and paper by pre'ent -éthocl' i' nothing short of criminal. The Labour party beiieves that the role of



waste to the maximum useful extraction from waste products.



must be to move the emphasis away from .disposal' of

The role of the GLC under Labour will be to provi<le sufÍicient staff and resources to allow for the recycling of paper, metal and glass.

natural resources by excessive packaging and will be doing all in its power to force national standards which preserve our resources ancl not allow them to be filtered away by private enterprise greed. Where the GLC has licensed private waste disposa| sites, Lábour will insist on strict observance of the conditions; offending firms will

be prosecuted. In appropriate
\lineral extraction

imposed on licensed sited will be raised, to achieve good standarcls.

circumstances the ionditions


In London most planning applications for minerar extraction rerate to gravel, to meet the demand from the construction industrv for building aggregates- Although it is important that buiíding materials are in good supply, the Labour clc wltt protect areas of open space which provide local amenities, especialfu in those parts of London where open Space is scarce. Wheré planning permission is granted it will only be with the impoSition of détailed Jondition, to reduce disturbance to a minimum. permission will be given only in the context of an agreed after-use plan for the site", with clear evidence of the availability of finBnce, and with agreed dates for



implementation of that plan. The GLC will ensure close'monitor:mfr. of the subsequent development. Throughout, there will be níll

liaison and co-operation with the relevant borough counciis. development soon become

Short term use of sites

4.9 Vacant sites awaiting

nuisance to nearby residents. They attract fly-tipping, dumpirs vermin, and are a source of constant complaint. Labour rejects i5e concept that these sites should be fenced-off. In all cases tempor&-ril uses should be sought. Under Labour, GLC owned sites awaimng development will be brought into beneficial use. This will obviou-w' depend on the suitability of the site, the length of time that it will m available, and the wishes of the local people, but these uses woull include at least allotments, urban farms, play areas, and landscapir,-rg for open space. Local voluntary groups will be encouraged to bring schemes 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.

a VeÍ\ Íi.üt

4.10 Labour is appalled by the idea that any land is "waste" it can all be put to a good use by the sort of service that a Labour GLC u'flL provide to Borough Councils.

5 5.1

London is in the fortunate position of having some of the finest arts and cultural facilities in the world, major sporting venues anc pleasant central parks. However it is quite clear that large areas oi London suffer from a deficiency of sports facilities, open spacecommunity centres and entertainment and cultural facilities thal
can be used by the local population. These smaller scale centres ani open spaces are often those that Londoners value the most. Labour

believes that, in addition to maintaining facilities of metropolitan significance, a Labour GLC has an equally important role to play in promoting a proper distribution of recreation and leisure opportunities throughout London.

5.2 A Labour GLC

will institute a rapid review and redirect resources towards the provision of local facilities in the areas of greatest needA programme of this type will vary from area to area, depending on the needs and wishes of the community concerned. There will be full co-operation and consultation with the Boroughs; indeed, if there are Borough schemes held in abeyance because of Government cuts, the Labour GLC will offer to carry out those schemes to the


Borough's specification and transfer it to Borough ownership on


Labour will see as important the role of the GLC in carrying out research and distributing information throughout London about
recreation and entertainment.

Open Space: The Green Belt
-<.'1 The Green Belt, as a means of preventing the physical expansion of the urban area, has been more strictly maintained in London than in any other part of the country. The Green Belt has failed however, to deliver the intended benefits. Agriculture has declined because of the difficulty of assembling viable farms, partly due to the price of land. The major recreational role is not that which was originally

anticipated. Most of the facilities have a local rather than a metropolitan significance because of the difficulties of access, particularly from inner London.


Labour intends to support a vigorous Green Belt policy, especially to prevent the development that would otherwise follow the completion of the M25. London cannot afford to lose the jobs that would go íf firms are relocated in the Green Belt. Under Labour the schemes with a particular view to sustaining agriculture and improving the environment. Major recreational schemes will be continued, but with a switch in emphasis to concentrate on areas
that are readily accessible from the most heavily built up areas and subject to the overall recreational principles already outlined.

GLC will continue

to expand and develop countryside management

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 people whilst Richmond has 30 acres per 1,000. The GLC under Labour will continue to seek opportunities such as Burgess Park in Southwark, and Mile End Park in Tower Hamlets. This policy will
oust housing or industrial uses. Therefore the Labour
be modified to recognise the fact that it is not feasible or desirable to

co-operation with the boroughs and local people, will develop small sites for parks and play space, looking to provide as wide a range of facilities as possible on these sites.



The GLC is the major contributor to the funds of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. A Labour GLC would encourage the


recreational interests and the involvement of the relevant Boroughs

of the Park to cater for the whole range of

and the local public in any discussions about the existing future use

of the area. Labour will not continue to support the Lee Valley
Regional Park unless their programmes are responsive to local need and in line with Labour's priorities for London.

Canals and Rivers


London has within its area 300 miles of river, and 160 miles of canals. They represent a potential as yet unrealised for recreation and leisure. ljnder the terms of the 1973 Water Act the GLC will become responsible for water recreation and amenity when the Secretary of State so decides. Labour will request a speedy decision on this, and on the question of the financial arrangements to be made. Once the powers have been obtained Labour will rapidly expand the facilities available. The canals are the general reiponsibiiity of the British Waterways Board. As they pass through -u.ty u..ut of London suffering from decline, Labour will expand the programme of environmental works to make London's canal-sides attractive again. Particular attention will be paid to wharf and warehouse aieas, to open them up and get them back into use.
full cultural life for Londoners depends both on the opportunity of visiting entertainments in Central London and the ability to participate in local cultural organisations. The GLC has long sustained the major arts centres in central London and Labour will
ensure that high standards of theatre and concerts are maintained. But by itself this is not an adequate policy, and Labour will ensure

Cultural Facilities

5.9 A

that the GLC widens its policy of supporting cultural activities to give community based projects and centres a more equal share of resources. A major priority for this latter category will be those

which are a medium for the cultures of the ethnic minorities of London. 5.10 Labour would expect the Arts Councils throughout London to be representative of the range of cultural activities in their areas and the interests of all groups of the local population. A Labour GLC will therefore only support Arts Councils that reject elitism and generally seek to involve all sections of the local community.
Museums and Historic Houses

5.11 The

museums and will ensure that the preservation of historic houses is 118

GLC already supports a number of schemes, and a Labour GLC will give strong support to the Museum of London and other

given a high priority. It is also important that full publicity is given to these, 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 without

local sports centres. Given current and future restrictions on

Borough 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 offer provide facilities, by itself or in a consortium with one or to help _Bó.oughs, the Sports Council and other relevant bodies. the *o." objective will be to provide important and useful community seivices, as Labour is not concerned with propping up professional sport. However, Labour will take any opportunity, such as that proposed at the Oval Cricket Ground and rejected by the Tories, to the development of sports facilities for the general public within the major sporting arenas.

6. TOURISM !.1 London is well

expansion of tourism during the 1970s has meant that each year some 9m overseas visitors and 3m British visitors spend some time in London. In addition central London is an attraction for day visitors from the rest of Lonclon and thc South East. The tourist

established as a tourist centre and the international

industry can be expected to remain a significant part of .London's economy for the forseeable future. There are, however, important drawbaóks resu1ting from this increase in tourism, some of which would become moie serious if a rapid expansion of the tourist industry continues. Labour recognizes that the majority of jobs in the hotel and catering industry are poorly paid and involve poor working conditions and, in addition, may be insecure because of seasonal and other short term fluctuations in the tourist trade. A Labour GLC will not consider 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


promotion of tourism at the expense of other areas of expenditure.

á.3 A

Labour GLC would lay emphasis on providing information for Londoners 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'




Hotels and accommodation

6.4 Although

there are still grandiose proposals from developers for luxury hotels, none has been completed since I974 and a major hotel on the South Bank has remained unfinished. Labour will reject these proposals because they provide little or no benefit for the local communities. Smaller hotels are controlled by the Boroughs who will continue to take local effects, such as that of traffic, into account. A Labour GLC will increase the amount of cheaper accommodation, especially as half of the overseas visitors are between the ages of 16 and 24. It will review the existing provision 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

of London, understandably dominate tourism in London and

locations, such as Westminster Abbey and the Tower

Major decentralization of tourism from Central London cannot be expected. However Labour believes that more information about sites of interest throughout London should be available to tourists and Londoners. A Labour GLC will provide facilities at which Londoners, especially young Londoners, can find out more about

GLC contributes about one quarter of the cost of the London Tourist Board. Although the Board has provided an
their city. The

important service in locating accommodation for visitors and in its

information centres, too much emphasis is still put on the commercial promotion of tourism. A Labour GLC would expect the London Tourist Board to concentrate on the improvements of information and facilities.

procedures to the London Boroughs;

day to day planning

Labour will not commence the preparation of large scale plan-making exercises. Where the GLDPrequires further scrutiny it will be in the form of short, specific research into particular problems, aimed at the preparation of realistic
proposals for action;


London, and will oppose any action proposed by the
Docklands Development Corporation which acts against the interests and wishes of the people of Docklands.

Labour rejects the concept of a development 'free for all' in



The strategic role will concern itself with executive action.



Where no other agency is appropriate, capable or willing the Labour 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 powers where necessary. The Labour GLC will co-operate to the fullest extent with London Boroughs, while reserving its right to maintain the London-wide perspective. The Labour GLC will be an open authority, paying full heed to the public and will give support to the appropriate neighbourhood, community and other interest groups, ensuring thay they have the capacity to respond effectively.

This support may take the form of grants, provision of premises, typing and other office services, and access to information. Regardless of the support given, Labour will fully respect the independence of all these groups.

{3) PROMOTING AND CONTROLLING URBAN DEVBLOPMENT (i) Labour will halt the disposal of publicly owned land in the


South Bank/Coin Street area, and return to the previous intentions for this area. In Covent Garden, development responsibility will' where

possible and by agreement, be devolved to Westminster and

(iii) (iu)

Camden. Housing and small industrial units should be provided. Co-operative enterprises will be encouraged. Recreational opportunities in this area will be reviewed and traffic management schemes introduced. Employment and housing are Labour's top priorities. Excessive office and hotel development will be resisted. GLC research facilities will be promoted and used to assist other public bodies. GLDP guidelines will be retained to safeguard the GLC strategic role and resist Government pressures on higher Proposals, particularly road schemes, which have no prospect of being financed from the limited resources will be scrapped, to remove planning blight. Labour will revitalise the Historic Buildings section and use its preservation and conservation powers to the full'

(ui) (vii)

housing densities.

(viii) Labour will acquire land where

necessary to achieve plannning objectives. At the request of Boroughs a Labour

(i") (")


development of sites when the Borough lacks resources. Labour will not allow the development of hypermarkets, and will support existing shopping centres, especially those most accessible by public transport. Where the GLC owns development land commitments will be sought from developers to provide community benefits from the developments. Labour will seek to take equity shares of revenue generated by new development. Grandiose designs for the Olympics and airport terminals, and urban motorways will be scrapped.

GLC will be

prepared to assist

in the acquisition


(4) PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (i) A Labour GLC will establish a wide range (ii) (iii) (iu) (u) A

of environmental standards for London, covering ground, atmosphere, noise and water.

(ui) GLC

established to provide a full service to the boroughs on a no-cost to user basis. Conditions on the licences for waste disposal sites will be tightened, and rigorouslay enforced. Opportunities for recycling of waste will be sought, plans prepared, and appropriate financial and staff resources made available to expand from the current low level of waste recycling in London. Mineral extraction planning permissions will only be given with the imposition of detailed conditions to minimise nuisance, and with fully agreed plans for after-use. There will be full co-operation with the relevant.boroughs. Permission will not be given for extraction that destroys local amenities in areas where open space is scarce.
short-term use. Local groups will be assisted to facilitate this; and Labour will otTer this service to London boroughs which

comprehensive pollution monitoring team



owned vacant sites will be brought into beneficial

wish to adopt the policy, but lack the financial or staff resources. When leasing sites an exact period should be will both be adhered to.
stated, with a precise definition of the permitted usage; these




A Labour GLC will review the provision of sports - open spaces, arts and recreation facilities in the various parts of London and in co-operation with the Boroughs, will draw up
proposals which can help meet local deficiencies. significance will be maintained. metropolitan

(iD Existing support to major facilities of (iii) (iu) (u) (ui)

Labour will support a Green Belt policy which prevents development from occuring beyond the main built up area of London, especially around the M25, which might otherwise have taken place within London. Greater participation by local people and organisations in the work of bodies such as the Lee Valley Regional Park and the Arts Associations will be requested. The rapid transfer of powers to the GLC over recreation and amenity on London's rivers will be requested and the use of the rivers for these purposes will be increased. Greater priority will be given to the improvement of open space and the provision of recreation in areas accessible to the most densely built up parts of London. Countryside management schemes will be supported.



(D (ii)

(iiD A (iu) A

A Labour GLC will oppose the replacement of exisiting employment with low paid jobs dependent on the expansion of tourism. It would maintain strict control over major new hotel development. A Labour GLC will use its influence, for example through its suppliers, to improve conditions in the hotel and catering industry.
instituted and potential buildings and sites identified for this purpose.

review of cheaper accommodation for visitors will be

programme of providing information about London and improvements in information at sites of interest through London will aim to help visitors and Londoners understand more about the city. A Labour GLC will expect the London Tourist Board to play a major role in this programme.




\Íembership \{r. J. Chamberlain \{r. J. Daly \{r. P. Driscoll

\'ír. P. Fordham \'Ír' J. Hoepelman Mr. R.S. Kilbey \Ír. K. Livingstone \.ír. A. Mclntosh


MÍ. C. Miller \{r. B. G. Nicholson \{r. P. Robinson \'tu. G. Saville \{s. Y. Sieve \{r. G. Torr \Ír. A.D. Tuffin Mr. R.G. West \{r. D. White \{s. D. Wood Mr. C. Young



TRANSPORT - LONDON'S LAST CHANCE of chaos and public Transport in London has reached a level 1.1 of direction if the change dissatisfaction that t"q;;;;t-; ;mplete we have movec long too For ;;;i;*t;. now face lre to be solved'
back and [orrh betwee"


while give priority to.the then when the public qrowth of private .u., u'ná road building and impact o{ 1|":" por1'^'-'.' "nui'on'"ítal ""á of resources back to public transport a switch iltiáJ u[- tn"r" is'""l"r the time to produce the reliable had ilf"* ,"il;;_pori"ie, t'áue needs they ar'e invariably reverseo public transport servlce London and we #;;l;;i ti"un"iuí 'ít' uf ""nt'ut or lócal government continue in a downward sPiral'

p.iilLr *nich




beforethel.g'T3oif" provided is rryholh before. The level ";J q;;liiy of s'"ervice is not unusual to see it and áemand inadequate to cope *iirl piuri' figr"ing to s'et on an alreadi over a hundred p.öi;'li;;;;tty j u t ió n ca u se d b y t r a f f c
ov e rc row de d u

than the previous peak Congestion on our roads is now worse


ií.'u n .i * 3'p t'?, c p"o t and *rr*'rt levels -"t" parts oi our city intolerable have reached dangerous to live tn' indecision and constant 'U' turns It is our view that we must end the of affairs by committing the in policy which have led to this state of capita1
ur. N
i t i

and revenue

an expanding public llansp:rl-:Istem It is the great niaiority of Londoners' of geared to serve ttie needs the_p_rivate over priority take our view ,t'u, puüii"'i'-u^p'it -'"'t is not by compulsion achieveihis u"ri*"yt" trrli'in" u.,o cars use of that is reliable' svstem i1u1s9o't but by providinj a public artain this objective that we comfortable una'!n*p to use' lt is to pie."nt the following analysis and programme'




tÁ a con'tinuing_programme


the 1977 GLC election 2.1. The Tories made their priorites clear after London Transport anc to subsidies f";;; They decidea ," p'i"* ;;t

giving unqualified support tc reversed tr," I'uűoui clC policy by Róad' They even failed to road widening J;;";;";t u' Á'"t'iuy Labour


that the then rake,up the futi";;;"ni-ot iut", subsidv to the GLC whils; Government ;';;'J;;'"J1' '"t".avaiíable roads' switching more and more Íesources into with the problems Four Tory Transport Chairmen have tinkered to Londor cutting'resource's and simply *"i;"'l;gt;-"tt" whilst photographec had-herself Roberts Transport. Fi.';úi;;Thetaglt the buses run on time" and then se: under the ,togu';st'" *irr




TRANSPORT - LONDON'S LAST CHANCE 1.I Transport in London has reached a level of chaos and pu:.: dissatisfaction that requires a complete change of direction if r,-:

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:

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-;,,

before. The level and quality

over a hundred people literally fighting to get on an

inadequate to cope with public demand and it is not unusual to

of service provided is whoili


alread-, overcrowded bus. Noise and atmospheric pollution caused by tratfic


have reached levels which make parts of our city intolerable an: dangerous to live in.

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 the financial resources of London to a continuing programme of capita, and revenue support for an expanding public transport systen geared to serve the needs of the great majority of Londoners. It ii our view that public transport must take priority over the private

but by providing a public transport system that is reliable. comfortable and cheap to use. It is to attain this objective that we present the following analysis and programme.

use of cars and that the best way to achieve this is not by compulsion



take,up the full amount of fares subsidy that the then Labour Government was prepared to make available to the GLC whilst switching more and more resources into roads. Four Tory Transport Chairmen have tinkered with the problems and simply made things worse whilst cutting resources to London Trarsport. First Miss Shelagh Roberts had herself photographed under the slogan'She will make the buses run on time', and then set

The Tories made their priorites clear after the I97'7 GLC election. They decided to phase out fares subsidies to London Transport and reversed the Labour GLC policy by giving unqualified support ro road widening schemes such as Archway Road. They even failed to


out to increase fares and cut the number ofbuses before she went off io 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 was reduced 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 London

\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 been abandoned 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 down through mechanical failure and the shortage of spare parts.


lfhe Tories have declared their intention to massively switch erpenditure to road building, flying in the face of world energy
crisis. Whilst even the United States is engaged in a massive revival :f all kinds of public transport, the Tory GLC is presiding over the

in service.

There has been a continued reduction in the number of buses

;ollapse of London Transport.

But it is not simply incompetence on the part of the Tories which has to this dismal state of affairs. The Tory Party's whole philosophy 'ed rs one which favours the privileged minority at the expense of the nass of the population. In addition the Tory Party receives millions


:o surprise that the Tories' policies are orientated towards
:.r-ivate car and the run-down of public transport.

pounds each year in donations from big companies, road ;onstruction companies and road haulage concerns. It is therefore





AND POWERS OF TTM GLC 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 traffic rnanagement was the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.


London Government Act, 1963. Under this Act the GLC became responsible for 560 miles of Metropolitan road, the Department of Transport retained responsibility for trunk roads and the London
Boroughs 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 Labour administration took the opportunity to scrap hundreds of out-of-date or environmentally damaging road schemes inherited from the Boroughs with these roads. Responsibility for traffic management remained clouded. The GLC was the traffic authority for London, but had to seek ministerial consent for all traffic orders affecting trunk roads and consult with the Boroughs and the Police before making a traffic order. Parking was a concurrent responsibility between the GLC and the
Boroughs. The overlap and duplication arising from this have given rise to continuing difficulties.


Transport (London) Act, 1969. This Act made the GLC the transport planning authority for London responsible for preparing comprehensive transport plans to develop an integrated and economic transportation system in London, including the appointment of the London Transport Executive and control of its
general policies, budgets and fares. The GLC became the highway authority for all principal roads with stronger traffic management powers, e.g. for parking and setting speed limits. A Joint Traffic Executive was set up between the GLC and the Metropolitan Police. The Act requires British Rail to consult annually about fares and proposals for significant changes. comprehensive statement of its Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) for the next five years. Coinciding with these arrangements the GLC formally took control of all Borough principal roads as had been provided for in the Í969 AcÍ'




3.8 From 1974 the GLC was required to submit each year



We firmly believe that those who are closest to local people and the problems they face are best placed to decide how to resolve those problems. Thus we wish to devolve some of our powers to the Borough Councils and take over from Central Government their remaining role in road planning in London. We completely reject

the view that what is needed in London is some new body to

coordinate transport policy.

Any non-elected body will



undemocratic and the additional tier of Government in London would merely duplicate the work of the GLC and lead to further

The existing split of responsibilities has failed to reconcile London's

orbital and through traffic needs with environmental

considerations. The separate arrangements for trunk road provision by the Department of Transport makes highway planning more difficult. Within London there is little to distinguish a trunk from a major Metropolitan road and the GLC should have responsibility for all trunk roads within London. This should lead to greater administrative efficiency and allow Government to carry out its appellate planning role from a clearly independent stance.



equivalent to that which would have been included in the Department of Environment Trunk Road Programme. As far as investment in trunk roads is concerned, it should be noted that the Programme is at present restricted to the Docklands area. We recommend that the GLC should press the Government to transfer responsibility for trunk roads to the GLC. However, we would not support such a transfer without adequate financial support from Government. Road Building. We remain opposed to the idea that London's

London this must be accompanied by an increase in the Transport Supplementary Grant by a mutually agreed amount at least

If the

GLC were

to take responsibility for the trunk road network in

transport problems can be solved by major road building. When last in control of the GLC we scrapped the motorway box and ended years of blight on vast areas of London. Unfortunately, the Tory GLC has been quietly shifting resources back in favour of road building in response to pressure from the powerful roads lobby.

We welcome the stand of the Labour group at County Hall which has opposed this policy shift and in particular the opposition to the

proposals to circumvent normal planning procedures in the case of the Docklands Southern Relief Road. To proceed with schemes of this nature in a time of financial restraint and increasing oil costs is beyond understanding.


We recommend that immediately upon taking office the Labour group should critically review the Tory 15 year road programme to ensure that London's financial resources for transport cease to be directed to roads instead of public transport.


TrafÍic Management. Traffic management, unlike highway construction with its long time scales, can have an impact in the short term. Both the 1963 and 1969 Acts tried to give the GLC the

A number of possible proposals for improving public transport will in fact depend on the use of traffic management powers for their implementation. One criticism of the present system which has been made is that the GLC has responsibility for making all traffic orders. This appears at times to cut across the legitimate concern of the London Boroughs for the local environment. 4.10 There has been frequent criticism of the fact that control of what should be local environmental decisions such as the positioning and provision of pedestrian crossings is determined at County Hall.
powers necessary to regulate London Traffic.

4.11 We recommend that the GLC should devolve traffic management powers to the boroughs wherever possible and consistent with our plans to shift the balance of discrimination in favour of the

PEDESTRIANS With the upsurge ín car ownership the lot of 5.1

pedestrian and the cyclist in London has steadily deteriorated; all


over London we can see the conflict between the needs of
pedestrians and the needs of traffic. Most shopping centres straddle a major road and shoppers find it difficult to cross. As traffic increases, main roads become congested, traffic takes short cuts down quiet residential roads. Children, the old and infirm are at risk and families have to live with excessive noise.

5.2 A

Labour GLC would have the opportunity to work in conjunction with sympathetic borough councils to give a better deal to pedestrians. The aim should be to make walking safe and
convenient throughout Greater London, not in pedestrian precincts only. Pedestrian movement should normally be at ground level. Where necessary to achieve the desired standards, pedestrian


networks should be extended by pavement widening and the conversion of some streets to pedestrian use.
We recommend that there should be more pedestrian crossings, and more generous provision for pedestrians in the phasing of lights at

crossings. Traffic management measures should be used to limit traffic speeds and flows. Vehicle access over pavements to garages should be discouraged, and laws against parking on pavements should be strictly enforced to give pedestrians the right of way. The present criteria for the siting of crossings should be more favourably interpreted.
to the bicycle, the needs of cyclists



Although people are again taking

6.2 6.3

are not well catered for. Main roads are neither pleasant nor safe for cyclists.

Para[el routes on side roads can provide quick and safe travel for cyclists. These are usually borough roads and we will urge the borough councils, and cycling organisations to propose routes so that the GLC can make the necessary traffic orders. The long term aim should be the provision of a comprehensive network safe for cyclists. A start should be made by designating linked cycle routes on inner and central area minor roads, and
approach the Tory Balham.
through parks and other suitable areas. In contrast to such a positive


has abolished the cycle route scheme at

6.4 We

enforcement of speed limits for motor traffic in residential and other selected streets; by traffic management measures, especially

Recommend that cycling should

be encouraged by


the control of parking; by the detailed design of streets and inter-sections; and the provision of cycle stands. CONGBSTION


London Transport Committee has said, "The effect of traffic congestion in London on public transport is becoming worse. From 1972 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 of course, also delays and irregular services caused by congestion which do not result in lost bus mileage but are a further cause of

jams, London Transport is a major victim of congestion as the Tories themselves now admit. Harold Mote, the Chairman of the

has there been any decline. Congestion is a continuing problem ancl rising fuel costs are unlikely to have a significant effect whilst public transport remains so unreliable. As well as the frustration of traffic

The GLC's own traffic statistics confirm the experience of every Londoner that the city's traffic is getting worse. Despite petrol prices the daily average of vehicles entering London during 1979 has remained at the record 1978 level of 400,000. Only at weekends


public anger.

Congestion feeds on itself by driving frustrated bus passengers to use their cars, a situation which is exacerbated by the appalling suburban rail service in parts of London. The economic effects of congestion are difficult to quantify but continuing difficulties with the movement of both staff and goods can have serious effects on businesses and services. Increased traffic also has environmental effects which lower the quality of life in London by increasing air pollution, in particular lead levels, greater noise and damaging the


built environment. The Tory GLC has tried to deal with congestion by building and widening roads. While no one would deny the need for certain limited local roads schemes these cannot be a solution to London's congestion problem. New roads attract more traffic, leading to greater congestion elsewhere, and tend to be destructive of the


.4 .5

If private commuter traffic is to be restrained it is essential that a good public transport service is provided. If congestion can be ieduced public transport will improve but before congestion can be effectively dealt with reliable public transport must be provided.


To break out of this vicious circle the GLC must act decisively to reduce the number of vehicles entering Inner London and other busy parts of Greater London' For many years councils have

exercised traffic restraint through the control of parking and where this has been done consistently some measure of improvement has been achieved. However it does not prevent vehicles driving across an area and one third of all parking spaces in London are outside the control of local authorities. Therefore, the control of private parking will require certain new powers as well as using existing powers under the 1,971 Town and Country Planning Act. A Labour GLC will press for the reintroduction of a permit system to license private car parks in the same way as public car parks. We also feei that different methods may need to be pursued to suit the needs of different parts of London.


We recommend that use should be made of planning powers to control the creation of new parking spaces, e'g., there should not necessarily be parking space with each new development. Also where reductions can be made in the number of existing spaces available this should be done. In Outer London park and ride



considérable speeding up of the station car parks programme. As enforcement is a major problem with any traffic scheme, and this, at least in part, arises from the approach of the police, we believe that the GLC must be given the control over the police enjoyed by other county authorities in the rest of England. In particular the GLC should have control of traffic wardens and move rapidly to reduce the present shortage which is crippling the effectiveness of parking controls. The idea of cordon restraint is to introduce a series of pinch points, thus reducing the amount of traffic allowed into a given area, and give priority to public transport via bus lanes. We feel that this system could be used in some areas based on the extensive

developments should

be encouraged. This would mean




introduction of bus lanes, together with more effective enforcement, and that this should be considered by the next administration as a matter of urgency.
requires a vehicle to have a special licence to permit its use in particular areas at specific times. After a period of public consultation the Labour GLC decide d in 1.97 5 not to proceed with supplementary licensing because of its inequitability. Low income car owners would be hit, whereas the wealthy and those driving company cars would not be deterred from bringing their cars into central London. We emphasise most strongly that our preference is to reduce congestion by attracting private car users back on to an efficient, reliable and cheap public transport service. This is clearly preferable to any alternative system based on using pricing as a mechanism for keeping cars out of Central London or a large bureaucratic system based on assessing need for the use of private

We have rejected supplementary licensing which is a system which




difficulties involved in separating out London-only services from the national network. It is also claimed that to create one Executive for all public transport services in London would result in an enormous and inefficient organisation. British Rail until recently seemed content with the present arrangements and took the view that the difficulties facing public transport in London could be comprised the Department of Transport, GLC, British Rail and London Transport. However, there are now indications that British Rail is prepared to consider handing over financial responsibility for commuter services. The issue is whether the cost of taking over the financial burden of replacing obsolete rolling stock is outweighed by the advantages of a common operating policy. We consider it essential that there must be the maximum of co-operation and co-ordination between British Rail and London Transport so that the two services supplement each other. We urge that a major effort be made to develop existing but under-used tracks. There is an urgent need to integrate rail and bus services. The GLC must be prepared to subsidise British Rail to enable
essential station amenities and improvements to be put in hand as

GLC has stems from its lack of control of British Rail's commuter services; this is justified by reference to the
One difficulty the

solved within the London Rail Advisory Committee, which



well as to stabilise or reduce fares and improve the quality of the
service. 8.4

There must be greater co-ordination with British Rail to regulate

timetables and interchange policy and the GLC must be prepared to subsidise the fares of British Rail commuter services within the GLC area in the same way it subsidises London Transport.
We recommend that the


Rail and the Government to integrate British Rail commuter services within the GLC area with the LT services. Whilst the GLC
financial support to the

GLC should begin negotiations with British

should extend its subsidies to British Rail, the history of neglect in replacing outdated rolling stock will require Central Government

GLC if we are to

assume financial


Ringrail. The Ringrail concept of an orbital rail service was considered by the London Rail Study, who felt that demands for

such a service would not justify the costs involved. This finding is challenged by the Ringrail Group who believe that the Rail Study considered a costly option and that other low cost options would

have shown up more favourably in cost/benefit analysis. We support the Ringrail idea because we believe (u) it could provide a high quality orbital inter-suburban public


transport service;

(.) private and public
interchange sites.

it could increase accessibility of many Inner London suburbs by providing interchange facilities with radial routes;

investment would

be attracted



9.1. No-one in London

9.2 9.3

beginning the responsibility that the Tories must bear for the present problems. London Transport receives a lower level of subsidy than any other capital city transport system and we deal with the question of revenue support in section 10 of this report. Whilst the level of fares is a key issue in determining the success or failure of public transport, capital expenditure and reliability are
equally important. It is no good having free public transport if there is a shortage of buses on the road. To lay the basis of an expanding public transport system in London requires a major investment iri new buses and tubes to increase the capacity of the system as well as investment in new bus and tube

needs us to tell them just how poor the level of service on London Transport has become and we explained at the

routes to extend the service into those areas which are at present



One of the main causes of frustration to passengers is the wholly

unacceptable level of lost mileage on the buses. We have explained in section 7 how we intend to tackle the problems caused by

congestion but the other key areas are staff shortage and bus


9.5 Working for London


Transport is not an attractive proposition. Staff are in the front line and subject to abuse and criticism for the failures of a policy for which they are not responsible. Labour faced a similar crisis in 1913 and negotiated the 'Nine point plan'which drew staff back to London Transport and dramatically cut the level of lost milage due to staff shortage. Clearly the importance of public transport requires that pay and conditions should be attractive enough to retain staff. Also they will require confidence that they are part of an expanding service which offers good career prospects for the future. The decision to move towards one man operated buses has in many areas caused delays and dissatisfaction to the public and we believe that conductors should be reintroduced where appropriate in order to cut both waiting time and congestion.
Many buses are out of service requiring maintenance work and here short-sighted cuts in maintenance staff and reductions in the stock of spare parts have made the system worse. We believe that the maintenance capacity of London Transport must be expanded to the level required to prevent a backlog of out of commission rolling stock disrupting bus schedules.




We Recommend

(1) that a new deal be negotiated with staff and we emphasize the importance of London Transport wages and conditions being the leader in the field if staff shortages are to be avoided in

(2) there be an immediate review of the maintenance policies of London Transport and the provision for training be increased
and improved.

Capital Investment




Our plans to expand public transport will require the maximum

level of expenditure on capital investment. Unwise investment and underinvestment in the past are a contributory factor in many of

today's problems. We must expand the bus fleet as rapidly as possible and we note with enthusiasm that London Transport is

designing a new version of the Routemaster bus which has been so successful in coping with London's traffic conditions in the past. In view of British Leyland's decision to close their Park Royal works it must be a priority to advance the design work on the new Routemaster (XRM) as quickly as possible if London is to have an adequate bus fleet during the 1980's.

9.10 We Recommend that in order to overcome the immediate problems we should purchase the maximum number of Leyland Titans and MCW Metrobuses but should press ahead as rapidly as possible with the plans for the XRM and the development of a London bus production capacity funded by the GLC. Capital Investment

- Rail

9.11 We Recommend that the present tube network must be used to its full capacity and the rolling stock increased and modernised to fulfill this objective. The conditions that passengers travel under are often appalling and it must be a priority to ensure that maintenance and staffing shortages are eliminated in order to maximise
underground usage.

9.I2 We Recommend that the frequency of service on the North London line (which is subsidised by the GLC) be increased and the rolling
stock improved.

9.13 We remain committed to the extension of the Jubilee Line into docklands and the GLC must continue to urge Government to
make adequate finance available for this purpose. The Jubilee Line extension 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, central London and the rest of the underground network. (c) relieve overcrowding on some sections of the Central Line and

(d) (") (f) (g)

District Line.

connect the main line terminal at Fenchurch Street into the underground system. increase interchange facilities in central London. help relieve road congestion along the corridor served. help relieve overcrowding on the inner sections of the North

Kent Line.

(h) (i)

provide a spinal public transport facility for the Docklands
development. help stimulate the redevelopment of Docklands.

9.14. Government's objection to the Jubilee Line extension appears to be

conventional cost/benefit analysis. We have argued that it will be a generator of development and this is an aspect that cannot be taken into account in cost/benefit analysis.

that the Jubilee Line extension cannot be justified in terms of

9.15 However, even if government changes its view the extension could

we believe that the GLC should investigate the possibility of adapting existing British Rail track which is at present abandoned
Street 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 th
or underused and runs (with only one short break) from Fenchurch

not be completed before 1988 and therefore as an interim measure

(b) (c) (d)

underground. the extension of the Jubilee Line to Docklands improved connections between British Rail Southern Region and the underground network. other local extensions to the underground network where possible and appropriate.

10.1 A key

element in the fight to reverse the decline in London Transport must be fares policy. The 1973 Labour manifesto
committed the

GLC to a low flat fare leading eventually to a fare free system but the GLC, under pressure from central
government, abandoned this policy and increased fares by over 100% in 2 years.
Such changes in policy are damaging to a service which needs firm


and consistent plans if it is to attract increased passenger usage. Therefore we are publishing as an appendix to this discussion paper the financial projections on which the main options we considered were based. In the period between the publication of this paper and the final decision of the October Policy Conference we must have a full debate within the movement and in particular within the trades unions concerned so that the decision arrived at is accepted as our policy for the full term of the GLC.


The chart below shows the effect of fare increases on passenger miles in the last decade and the experience of the last Labour GLC
is vital in considering our future policy.

L0.4 Bus

passenger mileage declined steadily up to 1973 and the Labour GLC felt that the level of fares was a significant and under-estimated factor in this decline and thereforefroze London Transport fares. Between 1965 and 1972 an average of 69 million passenger journeys were lost per year from the buses, (total passenger loss of 25o/o). In 1973 bus passenger journeys went up 26 million and in l974by a further 34 million, the two years when fares were held steady. The 1,975 35% increase in fares led to a 6.60/o drop in demand and further decline in the service. 10.5 However, LT's deficit can only be financed from fares, rates subsidy or government grant. We will fight for improved government grant but we must consider the relative merits of raising revenue from increased fares or rates. Rates are a regressive form of taxation and high rates have an undesirable income distribution effect. On the other hand it is clear that low income groups in particular rely heavily on public transport and
fares form a greater proportion of their expenditure and therefore

high fares are also socially undesirable.


The effect of a high fares policy has been underestimated, and loss of passengers to private cars seriously undermines traffic restraint. Losses are hard to counterbalance by improved service, particularly if the level of traffic congestion increases. attractive. It defines once and for all the need to establish public transport as a basic social service. (a) It is easily understood and could capture the imagination of the electorate.

1,0.7 Faced with these problems the idea of a fare free system is

(b) It could encourage a shift away from private to public transport reducing traffic congestion and raising the quality of
the environment.

(c) The removal of high fares which restrict the mobility of workers, prevent families from going on outings, visiting hospitals, the shops or friends could do much to enrich the
quality of life of many Londoners. (d) Such a scheme would change and raise the status of public transport and establish it as the primary transport service for Londoners. It could help fix public transport as an essential
social service.


If fares were abolished and the cost met from the rates this would increase the typical ratepayer's weekly bill by approximately t1..25 per week. In return all members of the family would have access for free travel on the buses and tubes. Given the present level of fares this clearly represents a.bargain for the great


majority of families.6Zo/oof lhe cost of the scheme would be met by commercial ratepayers. However, before a fare free system could be 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. Passengers would wish to transfer from fare paying BR services to free complication of those BR services not wholly contained_within the GLC area, carrying commuters who do not pay GLC rates" (c) The rates system, even with rebates, bears unfairly on the old'

London Transport services. There is the additional

(d) There must be a guarantee of no redundancies and the position of the transport workers who would face retraining to. ne* jobs will need sympathetic and realistic negotiation with their unions. Any expanded or changed transport system to 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 with
greatly increased expenditure transport workers, bus lanes parking and improved traffic Londoners should not pay for

objection 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 of which ii a proposal to immediately cut fares by 25% and then freeze them foi the life of GLC. This scheme allows time to build up the rolling stock whilst attracting back passengers,,means less upheaval for LT staff and initially only increases.the^average dömestic rate bill by 25p per week. However the savings from the fares free system do not of course occur.


managment schemes' free transport for tourists. This

and streets, tighter control of

on new buses and tubes, more


in fares followed by regular increases in line with inflation. Rates would initially rise by 25p per week. In the light of the effect of this policy on London Transport as spelt out above we could not recommend it to the movement. 10.12 In our discussions we have noted the success of South Yorkshire in expanding public transport following their policy of freezing fares an_d the recént Success in Sweden.fuhere rail fares were reduced by 30% causing an initial increase in passengers of 14%'

1 The third option is a return to the subsidy levels of the last 2 yeats of the Labour GLC (19'.15-1.977). This would involve an initial cut

10.13 We have spelt out throughout this paper the reasons why we believe that an expanding public transport system is essential to London and its people. We believe that such a system should be fare free as soon as possible and continuing increases in oil prices
reinforce our view that this is essential given the energy crises and the environmental impact of the motorway alternative.

10.14 We recommend that immediately upon taking office the Labour

Group should (a) Cut fares by

25o/o in order to regain lost passengers and structure the fare reduction so as to attract car commuters thus

reducing road congestion.

(b) Negotiate a new 'deal for staff' geared to attracting adequate numbers of staff to maintain and operate the existing rolling stock to full capacity. (c) Buy in as many buses as possible until LT can develop its own bus production capacity. (d) Push forward with a programme of bus lanes and other bus priority measures. (e) Ensure that the tube network is used to full capacity to meet
passenger demand.

10.15 These measures are essential to reverse the downward spiral of public transport, restore staff confidence and thus reduce staff vacancies. They must be the immediate priority of the Labour GLC. As these measures start to make an impact the GLC should prepare to introduce a fare free system no later than June 1982 and begin negotiations with British Rail to include their stations within the GLC area in the fare free system.

11.1 There are particular problems in the relationship between the GLC and London Transport Executive which have been illustrated in recent years by the constant bickering between the London Transport Executive and the County Hall administration. There are very few parallels in local government to this relationship, and perhaps the nearest one we can find is that between the Secretary of State for Health and the Area Health Authorities. The Council and the Secretary of State make overall policy and lay down financial


guidelines; the day-to-day running of the service lies with the board or Authorities. Most interestingly, both the Secretary of State and the Council retain only one real sanction if their directions are not followed: that is to dismiss the Board or Authority. .2 In January 197 5 the Labour administration issued two directives to


of service was unlikely to be achieved the Executive

should immediately inform the Council. This directive implied that within the GLC set of financial constraints and target service, London Transport was expected to run things as economically as possible.

passenger miles within the level of financial resources decided by the Council, secondly that the Executive was expected to achievé the average levels of service forecast in its revenue budget, and if at any time during the year it became apparent that the average level

the Executive. Firstly, that the Executive should maximise

11.3 By contrast, the incoming Tory administration ot Í977 Set out to make London Transport virtually self-financing in revenue terms. Their directive was that fare increases should be kept to the rate of inflation. At the same time the fare subsidy was cut back in real terms year-by-year. This policy was maintained until July 1979
when the decision was taken to increase fares considerably in excess

of inflation, at the same time to reverse the policy of reducing
revenue support.

11.4 Since 1977 it is clear that London Transport has not provided the service which the GLC has asked it to, as a result London Transport has been the subject of a great deal of adverse comment, not only from the public but also from members of the Council. However, the present GLC has refused to accept that among the causes of disruption to the bus service are traffic congestion, with which it recruiting difficult, and also the level of cuts in GLC financial support to London Transport. This issue and the tendency of the Tory party to blame London Transport for the effects of Tory relationship between the London Transport Executive and the Council.
refuses to deal, and which results in vehicle breakdowns and makes

policy, e.g. fare increases, seem to have undermined


administration to prevent members of the Council investigating London Transport's operations. If London Transport is to

The distinction between policy direction and day-to-day management has been used consistently by the present

succeed in giving London the public transport service it needs, it will be necessary for the Executive and the Council to work much more closely together and to reach genuine agreements on the course of

action to be followed.

11.6 At the same time the Executive must be made more accountable to the Council and its decisions and activities must be the subject of closer scrutiny by members of the Council. Failing this, it may be necessary to consider ways in which the Council can take much more detailed control of London Transport.

11.7 We recommend that



there should be places on the London Transport Executive to

(b) there (c)

be filled by representatives of the trades unions.

Executive to review all aspects of the service and discuss ways of resolving problems as they arise; there should be regular meetings on a district basis between borough councillors, GLC Members, local LT management, local Transport Union representatives and representatives of commuters to discuss the day-to-day problems of London Transport and make recommendations for improvements to the London Transport Executive and the GLC.

should be regular monthly meetings between the Council's Transport Committee and the London Transport

12.I The movement of heavy goods vehicles into, out of, and within Greater London causes acute difficulty. Many lorries are too big and too noisy, causing congestion, pollution and environmental


damage. They are often in the wrong place at the wrong time and


a major safety

hazard, especially when loading and

12.2 725 million tons of goods move into and out of London each year but only 25m tons is moved more than 100 miles. A further 125m tons is moved within London. 807o of the tonnage moved to and from London and nearly all that within London goes by road. 12.3 Existing Labour Party policy is for the use of limited lorry bans and the building of more lorry parks (these may have to be less grandiose than previously envisaged). Lorries must be encouraged to use the M25 and strong representations made to the Government with a view to introducing legislation to limit the size of vehicles entering London. 12.4 The possibility of providing new rail connections for wholesale markets will be looked at, particularly the resited Covent Garden and Billingsgate markets and we will support the pedestrianisation of shopping areas and encourage lorries to deliver away from the main frontages of shops where possible. 12.5 We will actively oppose any increases in either gross or axle weights will campaign against increases in size as well as weight.
of juggernauts, as well as any increases in height of vehicles - i.e. we

13.1 The last Labour GLC commissioned studies
the feasibilitv of


increasing river-borne freight, including the opportunities^afforded Úy 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 Government deríand that Canal improvements and provision of new berth

facilities should yield an economic return on investment:

that tÍrey do not applyto their own road schemes' The '"qui."-""t continué to pressüre the Government to take a more shouto GiC


parts of the 14.1 The taxi and private hire car businesses are significant Committee Stamp Ivlaxwell The. system' public transport

iecommendeá that the hire trade should come under should be Same Sort of licensing cóntrol as taxis and that both trades agencv through.the acting GLC, the of aűthority Ú'""gnt within the of the re'presentatives comprising boárd, control statutory of a the GLC' union, propri-etors, owner drivers and hire Í4.2 Theacceptance of responsibility by the GLC for both taxis and the and suggestd árrangement financiál thó on árs depends from establishment of an acceptable means of control' However' as the ihe t.unsport policy viewpoint, the GLC is the logical choice businesses' controlling authority for both


l4.3Thenewcontrolboardwouldberesponsibleforrecruitmentand - t.ui"l"g of drivers, preserving the. standard of vehicle used'

has been establiJhing an appeal proceduré for drivers whose licence ancient the in changes recommending and suspended"o. parallel '"uöt"o unlicensed any to opposed We are laws. Huitn"y Carriage car services. the 14.4 We would support the establishment of co-operatives and also conditions and te-l*.t by-garages right of driveis to be employed 9l n;gotiated by their unión. All cabs should be linked into a radio




the While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of


figures used in this paper they should be treated as no more than comparing different policies. The projections are based on figures

informed guesses which are provided for the purpose of
given in London Transport's Annual Reports and monitoring reports to the London Transport Committee.

As far as possible the figures have been adjusted for inflation on the basis indicated - however a number of factors are not taken into account, in particular the effect of London's declining
population. Each increase of 1p in the rate costs the typical domestic ratepayer approx. f2.50 per annum.

Inflation Traffic Receipts

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 160Á 1'60/0 8Vo 17V, 20Vo t
f249m f292m f334m f370m f433m I


Grant - Actual

Fares Relief

f87m Í63m f50m f54m f.64m t
f87m f101m f].L7m t"l26m f148m Í

Fares Relief Needed To Maintain 1976 Level

Depreciation and Renewal Grant - Actual
Subsidy as Expenses

f27m f34m f44m Í58m Í68m t



24%o 2'!.o/o 2I%o 21.Vo f

Average Fare Per

Passenger Journey



Working Expenses

8.9p l0.7p 12.0p 13.2p 16.5p Í 22.3p 26.6p 31.2p 34.5p 41.6p t 3ó9m 398m 440m 520m 610m t




GLC contribution for OAP travel (Í24m in 1979)

15.3 As

the preceding table shows since L976 the level of fares relief has been cut in real terms.At the same time fare increases have been higher than inflation.


Fare Free Public Transport
Taking the most radical option first it is difficult to assess the exact cost of providing fare-free public transport in Greater London because it is not clear how much would be saved by the elimination

collecting and inspecting fares in 1969 was f 10-15 million and this wouldnowbef30-40million. There would also be savings from the capital budget of up to f 100 miltion which the Tories plan to spend on automatic fare collection equipment during th-e next

of the ticketing process, however one estimate of the cost of


Assuming 20o/o inflation in 1980 and


1981 1982 1983 1984
Expenses (Based on 1978) Fares relief grant assuming 78 level maintained & adjusted for inflation


730m 803m 883m 971m 1069m

77m 83m 91m 101m

111m 85m 119m

Estimated savings from fares collection & inspection Depreciation grant adjusted for inflation based on 58m in 1979 Savings on capital by not

58m 64m 79m 77m

99m 108m


9m 22m 2Im

Extra amount to be funded from rates Extra precept over and above inflation (see note)

504m 544m 602m 665m 753m

26.5 28.6 31.7 35.0


Note _ the Council already makes a contribution of aboÍrt f24 million at 1979 prices for OAP's free travel - in 1981, this would reduce the extra precept by 1.7p.


Some reference must be made at this stage to effects of Transport Supplementary grant. At present the fares relief grant is included in the expenditure allowed when the grant is calculated. In fact the Labour Government was pressing the GLC to increase its fares relief grant. It would be virtually certain that any large increases now would be excluded from the TSG and would thus have to be funded completely from the rate precept. It is also possible that a


Tory Government would decrease the TSG by what it considered
another 6-8p on the precept.

to be the amount 'overspent'. As the TSG amounted to just over 120m for 1980 and may rise to f140m in 1981 this could mean cat oÍ 25o/o in fares - then hold fares in money terms


I5.'7 Initial

A relatively modest cut in fares can be made initially thus avoiding

the need to make a major increase in the precept by not increasing fares in following years the actual subsidy is increased and fares become relatively insignificant in real terms.

15.8 PROJECTION - Assuming



in 1980 and


1982 1983 1984

Traffic receípts needed

it 1979 subsidy maintained 520m 571.m 629m 692m 761,m Amount to be collected after 25o/o reduction in fares 390m 390m 390m 390m 390m GLCpaymentforOAPfreetravel 34m 37m 40m 44m 49m Deficit to be made good 96m 744m 199m 258m 322m by real increase 7.5p 10.5p 13.5p 17.0p Extra precept 5.op Total subsidies (excluding OAPfares grant) as o/o of expenses 39o/o 44o/o 48o/o 52o/o 35Vo


Restore and maintain the 1976 level of subsidy in real terms Of the alternatives discussed this is the most modest, it would nevertheless have someimpacton both rates and fares and means maintaining a subsidy of around 31.% and increasing fares annually

in line with inflation.

Fares relief based on


assuming 10olo inflation

1981 1982 1983 1984
level Fares relief need to maintain Í97 6 Ievel Extra subsidy needed Extra subsidy as precept


77m 85m 93m

702rn I12m

178m 195m 215m 236m 260m 101m L10m l22m 134nr 1,47m

5.3p 5.8p 6.4p 7.0p







15.11 Flat Fares
fgurth option is the introduction of a flat fare system. This courd be based on a single flat fare for every journey which woulá need to be about 15p or 1óp on the buses topioduce ttre same income as

be 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 fare would be 40p.

at present. However, this would tend to encourage longer journeys and discourage shorter ones. This difficurty"couia u. oyercome by devising a zoned fare system. The actual fares charged would need to be carefully worted out but overall could



\Íembers of the Education Working Party

Sir Ashley Bramall

Mr. C. Cherrill Mr. R. Evans Mr. J. Holbrook Mrs. E. Kerr-Waller Mr. D. Miles Mrs. J. Mostyn Mrs. S. Peacock Mrs. P. Rowan Mr. N. Start Mr. R. Twining Papers were received from


organisations: they were all considered at meetings. Speakers on specific subjects attended a number of meetings and answered questions.

a number of individuals and


Tbe working party report was amended by the executÍve committee, and those amendments are included in this report.

The Tory Attack on


The Labour ILEA is under heavy attack by the Tories, who are pressing the Government to break it up and hand education to the boroughs. They say that ILEA is 'not elected', that it is financially irresponsible, that ii spends too much money.

What is the truth? Every member of ILEA is elected. Thirty-five members are directly elected as members of the GLC and ILEA for the thirty-five constituencies of Inner London. The other thirteen are eiected members of the Borough and City Councils in Inner London,
elected by those Councils to represent them on


running education.

In'most education authorities only a minority of members serve on the Education Committee. Every member of the ILEA is on the Education Committee and one of its sub-Committees, and thus plays a direct part in

the Boroughs when deciding its finances.

lI EA raises its money in exactly the same way as every County Council that runs education - through the Borough councils which raise the rates. The difference is that ILEA alone has representatives on it from the Borough Councils themselves, to remind them of the financial needs of

IT.EA .does spend more on each pupil in its schools than any other education authority: it has smaller classes and fewer pupils for each
te^acher, and it spends more on books and materials. The ILEA is proud of this record under Labour. I-ondon has great educational deprivation

qualify for free dinners, against a national average of 1.4o/o. A Labour controlled ILEA will guarantee the continuation of the school meals service in its present form and existing prices in real terms; 27o/o of rnner I-ondon children come from one-parént families; 10% do not speak English as their first language. The break-up of ILEA would place most London boroughs under an impossible financial burden, without the rich resources -of London's
them to cut down on education spending. It would break up a service which provides facilities and support foi pupils, students and teachers which can only be provided in a large aréa ánd by a rich authority. It wcruld increase enormously the cost of education. Néw offices would have to be set up all over London and thousands of children and studerts who go to school and college in other boroughs would have to be paid for by
150 business centre at the disposal of the education service, or would compel

and disadvantage among its people, which can only be helped by using the rich resources of London to the full. In Inner Lon áon24% of oúr chiláren

their home boroughs.


this upheaval is proposed so that the Tories can wrest control of education from Labour in the few boroughs which they can dominate. After years of teacher shortage in the schools, staff stability and smaller classes are showing their results in higher standards. What is needed now is stability and progress in education, not upheaval designed to cut expenditure. We now recognise that the 4.2o/o cuÍ in service for 1980 was wrong. We realise that the London situation demands an expansion of provision not regression and that the policy proposals contained within this document will require a growing rate of expenditure.

Partnership with Parents

ILEA will continue

every school. Parents' Consultative Committees have been set up in each of the ten Divisions, with a central Parents' Committee which all parent Governors are entitled to attend, at which local ILEA members and sub-Committee Chairmen are present.

to seek ways of involving parents in the life of the ILEA, parent Governors have been elected to by schools. Pioneered

The school records of all children in primary schools are already open to parents, and it is ILEA policy that parents should have access to their óhildren's records. It is also ILEA policy that parents are welcome in the schools at any time, and teachers are encouraged to consult with parents about their children.

Parents, members of the public or individuals concerned with the education service have ready access to information and advice, either through one of the Divisional offices or from County Hall;, both have instruótions to give information about the service throughout Inner London. 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

preferred school.


of children transferring were placed in their first or


Progress towards Nursery Centres childcare facilities to meet the needs of the under fives and their parents.


committed to the radical improvement of the provision of

There are more children in nursery schools and nursery classes within ILEA than in all the Outer London boroughs put together. 46 nursery schools and 399 nursery classes are providing full-time or part-time education for 35olo of three and four year olds.

More full-time classes must be provided, but even 'full-time' nursery schools and nursery classes do not in themselves solve the problems of working parents or the needs of their children. It is ILEA's policy to work towards the integration of full day care with nursery education. ILEA is ready to provide the educational facilities wherever local authorities are prepared to co-operate with social service support and training.

ILEA has successfully pressed the Department of Education to allow education authorities to provide teachers in day nurseries, where too many children have been deprived of pre-school education. We are committed to providing teachers for this purpose.
Full-time nursery centres, attached to primary or nursery schools and open during the holidays, are the way forward. Declining rolls in the primary schools will offer opportunities to extend pre-school provision. We are protecting this spare capacity, and continuing to press local authorities to provide non-teaching staff in order that the increasing
needs 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 by educational support being made available to day nurseries. Another field of co-operation between ILEA and the London Boroughs is in the training of childminders and home helps.
Spending on our Children


we defend the high level of spending on our children because the special circumstances of London demand it.
It is ILEA's practice to provide schools with the most modern and up to date equipment. Substantial investment has been made in the proviiion

of computing facilities

- all secondary schools are being equipped to meet the needs of the 1980s. The education television service is providing a video cassette library service and a wide range of programmes specially designed for schools. 75o/o of ILEA primary schools already have video cassette recorders, compared with 10olo nationally.

ILEA's level of spending compared with every other education authority
is best shown by the table below


Cost per pupil (excl. admin.)

Outer London Borough


Metropolitan District





L625 L834

t544 f722




Expenditure on books per

child Primary


Í'25 f"48






There has been a steady improvement in pupil-teacher ratios in Inner

London. In 7972 the ratios were 1 to 23 in primary schools and 1 to 15+ in secondary schools. In 1980 the ratios were 1 to 17 in primary schools and 7 to 14 in secondary schools.

In 1979, when the numbers of children in ILEA schools fell by almost 36,000 the numbers of teachers increased by I42.It is ILEA's policy to continue 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 was worse 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 in all ILEA schools by 1981. Strong support for this decision came from teachers' representatives on the Education Committee. ILEA was the

first education authority in the country to decide to ban the cane in all its schools. 153

Organisation of School Students We would seek to pursue the enlightened view of a mature relationship between staff and school students by recognising the National Union of School Students or similar organisations in all schools where branches exist or are formed. If we are able to create a healthy democratic society the seeds of this must begin in our schools with a structured dialogue between teachers and their students and so we would consider providing funding and facilities. Comprehensive Education

opportunities for every child, whichever school they attend and whatever their aptitudes and abilities, to develop their full potential.

Since September 1977 ILEA has had a completely comprehensive system of secondary education, the aim of which is to provide

ILEA and Employment It is ILEA's policy that every school shall provide extensive careers advice as part of the curriculum in all secondary schools. Every

encouragement is given to schools to develop links with employers, and we would wish all children to have the opportunity of work experience to help them develop their choice of career. Closer links are being formed between schools and colleges of further education, with many colleges now running bridging courses designed to help young people in the transition from school to work, and in particular during the time they may be unable to find work. An expanded careers service is needed to help young people in the difficult task of finding suitable jobs.

on housing estates, organised in co-operation with Social
a need.

In adult education it is planned to extend the mother and toddler schemes

Services Departments. Work with unemployed groups will continue where there is

More links need to be developed between industry, trade unions and schools. Educational training must be made an integral part of the

Manpower Services Commission scheme, and close liaison must be developed between colleges and the MSC. ILEA has an important role in providing opportunities for the young unemployed people at colleges of further education.
Special Education


plans to improve provision for the handicapped, with special stress

on the needs of those over 16, and to make nurserv provision for
handicapped children from the age of 2. We are endeavouring to ensure that all teachers are qualified to deal with chilclren with special educational needs.

trLEA's Teachers
Greater stability in staffing during the last three years has made it possible to develop in-service training, for which there is a need inside the schools. The induction scheme for new teachers will continue to tre given high

priority, as will opportunities for teachers to acquire the basic skills of

Falling Rolls
The decline in the number of schoolchildren in Inner London is certain to continue over the next five years. It is our policy to turn this decline to the advantage of both children and parents. We plan to achieve more space for each child, a better pupil/teacher ratio, and the retention of the wide range of curriculum choice in secondary schools - every one of which must 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 of the school or its catchment area. We make this policy on the basis that we are in favour of smaller schools if necessary and that it is our aim to link secondary schools to provide a viable range of sixth-form courses. Fundamentally we are concerned to protect the teaching and non-teaching employment position in our schools, particularly at a time of deliberate creation of unemployment by the Tory Government.

A survey of science provision in ILEA secondary schools has shown that girls are not getting proper opportunities to pursue this subject. Everr possible step will be taken to increase laboratory facilities and to improve the amount of science on the timetable, particularly for girls.
Sports FacilitÍes

London schools inherited from the past a dire shortage of plaving fields

and sports provision, which makes it necessary for children to travel long distances for their games. ILEA is spending f 1m a year on providing new local facilities which will benefit both children and the local community.

EnglÍsh as a Second Language


Research and Statistics Group in 1979 ILEA pupils English is not a first language, and that more than 120 languageÁ aie spokén in their homes.

indicated that for about one in ten Increasing provision

survey conducted by the


determined to help them to fulfil their potential in both languages. ILEA will produce information on education and schools in the main minority

is being made for these children, and we


London's Special Problems
The particular difficulties and stress which affect children growing up in London, and other inner cities, cause some children to behave in ways which are unacceptable and disruptive.
accepts two special responsibilities - to help the disturbed children and to ensure that the majority of children are able to concentrate on learning.


A special fund has been established, running at f2|m a year and employing 400 teachers, to help the schools fulfil their obligations to

problems and truancy. In addition, a large number of schools have

children in trouble. Support units have been set up to enable children to be withdrawn from the classroom for a limited time and, with the help of specialist staff, returned to their schools better able to take advantagé of the opportunities offered. The Education Welfare Service, intermediate centres and home tuition are contributing to help children with individual

ILEA's programme

is proving successful. Funds will continue to be made avai'able to ameliorate the stresses of London and to help children with special problems.

The fact that the suspension rate is beginning to decline indicates that


The Needs of the Whole CommunÍty

achieve greater co-ordination between the different services providing for the 16 to 19 age group within ILEA,local academic boards

will be set up involving representatives of schools, colleges,

education institutes and the youth service. These boards will monitor continuously the provision within each area to ensure that the needs of
the whole community are being met. Further education colleges must be enabled to make more provision for the 1 6 to 19 year olds who have failed


to 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 London

Councillors are represented on the Education Committee, as opposed to other authorities where membership of the Education Committee is a matter of selection. However, the Greater London Regional Council of the Labour Party has agreed that they wish to see a closer relationship between the local CLPs and the ILEA Labour Group in the development and the

implementation of educational policy, and will be making
recommendations to achieve this.






Published by GLRC Labour Party, 195 Walworth Road, London SE17 and printed by Victoria House Printing Co.,25 Cowcross St., London