Congratulations to Sunny Hundal who seems to have got his paws on a copy of the agreement before anyone else. Here it is in full. What do y'all think of it?
Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations
Agreements reached
11 May 2010
This document sets out agreements reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on a range of issues. These are the issues that needed to be resolved between us in order for us to work together as a strong and stable government. It will be followed in due course by a final Coalition Agreement, covering
the full range of policy and including foreign, defence and domestic policy issues not covered in this document.
1. Deficit Reduction
The parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain. We have therefore agreed that there will need to be:
The parties agree that a plan for deficit reduction should be set out in an emergency budget within 50 days of the signing of any agreement; the parties note that the credibility of a plan on deficit reduction depends on its long-term deliverability, not just the depth of immediate cuts. New forecasts of growth and borrowing should be made by an independent Office for Budget Responsibility for this emergency budget.
The parties agree that modest cuts of £6 billion to non-front line services can be made within the financial year 2010-11, subject to advice from the Treasury and the
Bank of England on their feasibility and advisability. Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates. Other policies upon which we are agreed will further support job creation and green investment, such as work programmes for the unemployed and a green deal for energy efficiency investment.
The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners.
2. Spending Review – NHS, Schools and a Fairer Society
The parties agree that a full Spending Review should be held, reporting this Autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.
The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments.
The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place.
We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.
The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury.
The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.
We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.
The parties commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.
We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.
3. Tax Measures
The parties agree that the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners. We agree to announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes. This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in Employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below. The increase in Employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop Labour’s jobs tax. We also agree to a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective.
We agree that this should take priority over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax. We also agree that provision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement.
The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.
We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.
The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.
4. Banking Reform
The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.
We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.
We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.
We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.
We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.
The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and
investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.
The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.
The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.
5. Immigration
We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit. We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.
6. Political Reform
The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.
The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive
result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.
The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.
We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.
The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.
The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.
We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.
The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman Commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.
The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.
The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance.
7. Pensions and Welfare
The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not
be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.
We agree to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.
The parties agree to end all existing welfare to work programmes and to create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.
We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work should be referred to the aforementioned newly created welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 should be referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.
The parties agree to realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.
We agree that the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes should be reformed to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings in lower benefit expenditure.
We agree that receipt of benefits for those able to work should be conditional on the willingness to work.
8. Education
Schools
We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:
Higher education
We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:
If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain
in any vote.
9. Relations with the EU
We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.
We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.
We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would
be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.
We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.
We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.
We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.
We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.
We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.
10. Civil liberties
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:
11. Environment
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy, including:
Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they
receive no public subsidy.
We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national
planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.
This process will involve:
Filed under: Britain (737 more articles) , ConLib (132 more articles)
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (13)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
1 The unions versus the Department for Education — continued - Peter Hoskin
2 Cameron can no longer laugh off Ed - James Forsyth
3 Why reason doesn’t apply to the Eurozone - Fraser Nelson
4 The unions' lazy opposition to schools reform - Peter Hoskin
1 Cameron can no longer laugh off Ed - James Forsyth (65)
2 Let's get real about the fiscal situation - John Platts-Mills (51)
3 Gatwick competes in the disgrace Olympics - Fraser Nelson (42)
4 The need for a coalition attitude to growth - James Forsyth (42)
5 The 301 Group purge the 1922 committee - James Forsyth (41)
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
Left Back in the Changing Room
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Ben G
May 12th, 2010 3:13pm Report this commentGovernment made easy. Why can't everything be organised so quickly and efficiently?
DavidDP
May 12th, 2010 3:21pm Report this commentThe only thing the Tories have dropped is IHT? Wow.
fingal
May 12th, 2010 3:45pm Report this commentThe provision re fixed term parliaments is astonishing:
"The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour."
There are two major problems with this proposal. One, Cameron is renouncing his right as PM to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. Politically this seems unwise but legally it is unproblematic. The second, and much more fundamental, problem is the raising of the bar of a no confidence vote to 55% rather than simple majority. This is a major alteration in our constitution. The British constitution is very simple: he who commands the confidence of the House is PM, he who loses that confidence must resign. I simply do not see how such a rule is politically credible or can be legally enforced: a majority is a majority ie it is 51%, not 55% or 60% or 80%. Moreover once one concedes the concept on anything other than a simple majority the way is open to Governments to protect their position by passing legislation demanding ever higher majorities before they are forced to resign: 60%, 70%, indeed why not go the whole hog and demand that anything less than 100% will not trigger the fall of the government! How can this possibly be justified? If the 55% it had been in place in 1979 when a no confidence motion in the Labour Government tabled by the SNP, and backed by the Tories was carried by one vote then Callaghan could have stayed in power! As well as being politically unjustifiable the 55% rules raises the question of whether the House’s inherent ability to bring down government’s can be limited by legislation which itself can be passed by a simply majority of 1!
Paul
May 12th, 2010 3:48pm Report this commentAs a Lib Dem supporter it all seems very sensible to me. Both parties have taken the chance to dump some manifesto commitments which haven't been popular. Where we haven't been able to agree we have a grown up and civilised "agree to disagree" approach.
Really, really enouraging. Can you imagine Labour agreeing to all that? The section on civil liberties alone would have caused them to choke. No wonder the Lib-Lab talks went nowhere.
I hope the sceptics will see that the Lib Dems weren't just obsessed with electoral reform.
Beefeater
May 12th, 2010 4:37pm Report this comment"A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences"/ "Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence".
This might give a clue to the way ahead. The Green agenda - dear to both parties - will compromise everything else: deficit reduction, public spending, business and job creation, the market, enterprise, liberty. Green binds the coalition. Every difference will be reconciled by Green. The Climate Change Committee will be the ultimate power.
And we shall build Jerusalem on England's Green, unpleasant land.
fifer
May 12th, 2010 4:48pm Report this commentHave to agree with Paul - sounds like the list of sensible Tory proposals allied to the grown-up Liberal ones.
The 55% thing is worrying though - surely the one deafening alarm bell that American politics has been ringing is that the filibuster rule there has been hugely problematic and that picking a random number which is bigger than a simple majority is fraught with danger.
ndm
May 12th, 2010 5:45pm Report this comment-- The second, and much more fundamental, problem is the raising of the bar of a no confidence vote to 55% rather than simple majority.
This is appalling. Super-majority systems are inherently anti-Democratic since they empower a minority to avoid compromise. Super-majority voting systems in the US have been utterly disastrous whether in Congress or the States.
Mike
May 12th, 2010 5:51pm Report this commentOverall if they deliver these promises it will be a very good start. I especially like the rolling back of Browns Stalinist legislation, social crimes to control us and vindictive state measures to 'educate' us into Labours way of thinking.
My only additions would be as follows.
On deficit reductions raise the public sector pensionable age to the state pension age to remove Browns pension apartheid as well as saving many tens billions.
On the spending review I would have two cost of living indexes, one for those below pensionable age and one for above pensionable age. The basket of goods/costs for those in work is completely different compared to those retired. The low cost of hi-tech goods that younger people purchase distorts the real inflationary rises that pensioners have. Home fuel costs are higher for pensioners as they don't go to work whilst transport costs are higher for those in work. The spend mix is completely different for the two groups and the COL index should reflect this.
On tax, banking reform, immigration & political reform I'm in general agreement.
Pensions & Welfare has been a sore point under Labour in their attempts to drive everyone onto some sort of benefit to give the impression of the governments generosity. All so called credits and benefits like winter fuel allowance, TV licence or passport payment should be scrapped as for every pound paid out it costs two pounds to administer. The money saved should then be redistributed via direct taxation and for items like winter fuel allowance, they should be absorbed into the state pension by raising it. Those earning more than adequate pensions in their own right will pay back 20%, 40% or 50% in direct taxation. Direct taxation is the fairest, simplest and most cost effective way of means testing and it doesn't require 100 page application forms to administer.
On security issues, follow Belgium's ban and France's proposal by banning any form of clothing that hides or obscures the identity of the wearer in public places.
As to the rest, rolling back the Stalinist legislation enacted by Labour is a must and I hope they implement this one immediately.
A good start.
Beefeater
May 12th, 2010 6:48pm Report this comment"This is appalling. Super-majority systems are inherently anti-Democratic since they empower a minority to avoid compromise."
Or are super-majority requirements a check and balance on a (bare) majority charging recklessly ahead with legislation when the electorate is evenly divided and no party has a clear mandate?
Your condemnation of super-majorities as "anti-Democratic" is the squawk of a current Democrat. The democratic (small d) principle of minority protection from majority or plurality tyranny is conveniently forgotten by the governing party.
"Avoidance of compromise" is also "principled objection". But, in any case, American constitutional checks may not be applicable to the British system, sorely as they will be needed to protect democracy given the potential 3-way split of the demos.
A thought: In a hung parliament lead by the plurality party, it may be argued that 51% is already a super-majority requirement.
Charlie
May 12th, 2010 10:04pm Report this commentAll rather common sense, imbued with the pragmatism of Disraeli. This sort of legislation could be supported by a very wide range of the British electorate; from traditional socially conservative patriotic hard working labour voter employed in the private sector and/or provide much of the technial skills of the state sector, to most of the Tory Party. Labour ought to be very worried.
ndm
May 12th, 2010 10:12pm Report this comment-- Or are super-majority requirements a check and balance on a (bare) majority charging recklessly ahead with legislation when the electorate is evenly divided and no party has a clear mandate?
No.
The problem with supermajority requirments is that they empower the minority party sufficiantly that it does not have to make the political compromises necessary to become the majority party. This is patenly clear in California, for example, where the Republican Party has made no effort to broaden its appeal to the majority of the electorate that does not vote for it. And it doesn't need to because it is happy with the budgetary veto provided by supermajority voting requirements. Both Californians and the Republican Party would be far better off were the Republican Party to put forward ideas that could win an election rather than remain a cossetted minority with budgetary veto.
ndm
May 12th, 2010 10:17pm Report this comment-- On security issues, follow Belgium's ban and France's proposal by banning any form of clothing that hides or obscures the identity of the wearer in public places.
This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with bigotry. For religious and cultural reasons my grandmother would never have dreamt of leaving the house without her headscarf. I can't remember hearing too many complaints about that. But her skin was lily white - and that is the real issue.
Guy
May 12th, 2010 10:25pm Report this commentAre they serious about reducing the deficit?????????????? You cannot increase spending on pensions significantly, increase NHS funding in real terms, spend more on education, reduce taxes, etc. AND reduce the deficit.
Back to top