Below are some amendments to Conference motions (and one emergency motion) that SLF members may wish to support. Please fill in the relevant form if you wish to support them. Please note: the Social Liberal Forum is not responsible for the content of the amendments and motions here; the views represented are those of the authors alone and hosting them does not necessarily imply endorsement.
Jump to:
- Amendment to F35: Tackling Inequality at its Roots (Inequality Policy Paper) – mansion tax
- Amendment to F23: Generating Growth and Jobs in a Time of Austerity - stimulus before further cuts
- Amendment to F35: Tackling Inequality at its Roots (Inequality Policy Paper) – wealth taxes not welfare cuts
- Amendment to F44: Decent Homes for All (Housing Policy Paper) – site-valued Vacant Land Tax
- Amendment to F23: Generating Growth and Jobs in a Time of Prosperity – green investment now
- Emergency Motion: Making Welfare to Work Fair and Effective
Amendment to F35: Tackling Inequality at its Roots (Inequality Policy Paper) – mansion tax
The following amendment has been drafted by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay and is designed to reaffirm the Party’s commitment to taxing high-value property as a form of wealth tax. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
After “wealth” in section 5 on line 52, change the full stop to a comma and add:
“starting with an annual Mansion Tax on the excess value of residential properties over £2million as a first step towards wealth taxation designed to reduce inequality.
Amendment to F23: Generating Growth and Jobs in a Time of Austerity - stimulus before further cuts
The following amendment has been drafted by Prateek Buch of the SLF and is designed to commit the Lib Dems to prioritising measures that promote growth and jobs over further spending cuts, which would damage the economy. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
”at line 19, add new A and re-order:
Amendment to F35: Tackling Inequality at its Roots (Inequality Policy Paper) – wealth taxes not welfare cuts
This amendment, drafted by SLF Council member Gareth Epps, is designed to emphasise the value of wealth taxes in their own right, and not as a trade-off with unneccesary and unfair further cuts to welfare spending. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
Amendment to F44: Decent Homes for All (Housing Policy Paper) – site-valued Vacant Land Tax
The following amendment has been drafted by Gareth Epps and Tony Vickers, and has the support of Newbury Local Party and ALTER – it is designed to bolster the call to build more homes. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
‘e) giving local authorities the power to incentivise the development of under-used and vacant developable land, particularly in urban areas, through a Vacant Land Tax on a site-value basis, levied no sooner than twelve months after planning consent has been granted.’
Amendment to F23: Generating Growth and Jobs in a Time of Prosperity – green investment now
The following amendment, drafted by FPC member and former special adviser Duncan Brack, criticises the inhibition of green investment by some Conservatives and seeks to make this motion consistent with the Sustainable Prosperity motion (F25) in removing the restrictions on borrowing by the Green Investment Bank. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
Add at end of line 21:
; in particular, conference condemns the repeated attempts by the Chancellor
to inhibit growth in renewable energy, currently one of the UK’s most successful
industries.
In lines 31–32, delete (a) and replace with:
(a) Expanding the Green Investment Bank’s scale and remit as fast as possible,
including relaxing the restriction on its ability to borrow before total public sector debt begins to fall.
Add after line 34:
(c) Scrapping the review in 2014 of the fourth carbon budget target imposed by
the Chancellor, thereby establishing long-term certainty for investors in low-carbon technology and infrastructure.
Emergency Motion: Making Welfare to Work Fair and Effective
This emergency motion, drafted by SLF member Daniel Henry, is to establish the Liberal Democrat response to the High Court judgment on Reilly & Wilson V DWP (PDF), where Public Interest lawyers challenged the welfare to work schemes. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
Conference:
1) Notes the judgement that Miss Reilly was incorrectly informed that her voluntary placement was mandatory. Conference also notes that she’d been led to believe that her placement would lead to an interview for paid work that didn’t materialise.
2) Accepts the judgment that it is not illegal for the government to leave DWP internal policy inaccessible to the public.
3) Agrees with the judgment that mandatory work schemes are not slavery or a breach of human rights, but notes that they involve jobseekers being made to work for less than minimum wage.
Conference believes:
1) It is important that jobseekers are able to make an informed choice before participating on a voluntary work scheme to enable them to ensure the scheme is suitable for their needs.
2) It is essential in an open and accountable society that citizens have access to policy that affects them, both for personal reference and for scrutiny.
3) For the schemes to provide a positive experience, they must be perceived as fair, and reminds the coalition of the commitment to the minimum wage in the coalition agreement.
Conference calls on the Coalition to:
1. Make all DWP policy available to the public for both reference and scrutiny.
2. Ensure jobseekers are properly informed before taking up a voluntary placement. Job Centre Plus must ensure the jobseeker has read and signed a form that informs them of the following:
a) An accurate idea of what to expect from the placement.
b) Their right to refuse and/or withdraw from the placement.
c) How many jobs the company will be offering at the end of the placement and how many other jobseekers will be competing for these jobs.
3. Ensure that any jobseekers given a mandatory work placement are remunerated at the least as if they had worked those hours at a minimum wage. This can be done by:
a) Limiting their hours to match the sum of their unemployment benefits
b) Having their unemployment benefits topped up, either by the company benefiting from their work or by the state, to at least match the minimum wage rate for their hours worked.
c) Ensuring that any benefits that would still be claimable in employment (e.g. Child Benefit) are given in addition, in the same way they would if the jobseeker was working in an actual job.
4. Ensure that the protections above apply to all jobseekers in all programmes, including those under the care of a subcontracted private company (such as those participating in the Work Programme)
Amendment to F19: Equal Citizenship – Supporting Independence: for Sick and Disabled People: resist welfare cuts
Amendment to F35: Tackling Inequality at its Roots (Inequality Policy Paper) – implementing equality duties
This amendment is drafted by James Sandbach and relates to the implementation of the public sector equality duties under the Equality Act. If you are a voting Conference representative and wish to support this motion, please fill out the form below.
At line 42, insert:
“(d) Robustly implementing the public sector equality duties under the Equality Act 2010 through processes and mechanisms to drive continuous improvements in public bodies’ responsiveness to the needs of disadvantaged groups and individuals, to cover each equality strand including the duty to address socio-economic disadvantage, and ensure that the public have the tools to hold public authorities to account“
Amendment to F21 Developing a Future – Policies for Science and Research
This amendment is drafted by Prateek Buch and seeks to commit Lib Dems in government to conducting randomised controlled trials of public policy according to the framework set out in a recent Cabinet Office paper.
At line 43, insert:
I specially favor the amendment to Making Welfare to Work Fair and Effective.
Whilst I agree that we need a form of wealth tax, I do not think that a “mansion tax” is the best approach because it increases the complexity of the taxation system. I would rather see the same result achieved by reforming Council Tax so that it is progressive not regressive (i.e. you should pay a higher proportion of your house’s value for higher valued houses).
So, I would add a series of new bands to the higher end (beyond H). Because in England the Council Tax bands have never been revalued since it was brought in in 1991, the following figures may appear low.
At present Band H applies to all houses over £320,000 (1991 prices). I would recommend:
Band H £320,000 – £500,000
Band I £500,000 – £1 million
Band J £1 million – £2 million
Band K £2 million – £5 million
Band L £5 million – £10 million
Band M £10 million – £20 million
Band N £20 million upwards
Bearing in mind that these are 1991 prices, I think that they should cover everything apart from the Chatsworths of this country. The advantages of this aproach are that the collection mechanism is already working and that the only houses that need to be revalued are the ones already in Band H. Because the bands are fairly broad an approximate valuation will be good enough for all properties except those right on the edge of a band, so valuation can be done quickly and easily using the same method as in 1991.
Whilst I agree with the sentiments of this emergency motion, I am unhappy about 2 aspects and wonder if it could be reworded.
first of all it says ” 2) Accepts the judgment that it is not illegal for the government to leave DWP internal policy inaccessible to the public.”
and I think that would be much better if it were “confernece notes”. whilst it may technically correct it sends out the wrong message to anyone reading it, and could be misquoted.
Secondly it talks in 3. c. about Child benefit still being able to be claimed whether in employment of not. CB is not affected at all by whether the claimant is in or out of work. Child Tax Credit is claimable depending on income. so if not more or less actual income it would be the same. Same goes for other benefits such as housing beneift, council tax benefit. DLA is payable on same criteria whether in a job or not. Trying to think of a benefit this sentence could refer to.